Green,+Justin

Justin Green Head Coach - Wake Forest University Year 24 involved in debate – year 18 in collegiate CEDA/NDT debate Former H.S. Teacher/Coach

- I have coached teams running just about every genre of argument at many levels of ability. What genre of argument is not nearly as important as your execution of the strategy. - Debate is made up of wonderful people. Attack your opponents ideas with all of your vigor; treat their personhood with the utmost respect. I expect both.

QUIRKS YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF…. - Smart Analytics are given high priority. Frequently critical alternatives and any internal links to extinction (just to name a couple) can be called into question with logic and/or persuasion - evidence helps, but is not always necessary. - Interaction - I plan on it. My expressions will likely tell you how I feel. Please watch me....I will interrupt the C-X or your speech if I don't understand your arguments. This is not always bad for you. - Clearly read evidence. Can't understand it - then it doesn't count. - Evidence will be read after the debate when it is substantively debated. I am unlikely to ask for every card in the debate, I am likely to call for cards where each sides are discussing different interpretations. - Cross Ex Matters – I listen, flow, and those who extend arguments from the CX are likely to get higher points. - Judge intervention is inevitable - shape it. Smart last rebuttalists: 1) identify where they might be losing, but say why that does not matter 2) acknowledge interplay

PREFERRED TACTICS - Quality specific strategies will result in higher points regardless of your ability or argument choice. They are my favorite. - 2ars and 2nrs should give their partners credit - this will reinforced dropped arguments and prove the argument is not new. - I am not a great judge for "they dropped this terrible card or independent voting issue number 4 in the 2nc" they lose

T/FRAMEWORK - Default is the aff should defend an interpretation of the resolution. There are a wide variety of ways to do that. My voting record indicates affs that use the resolution as a starting point or criticize the resolution are likely to face a tough battle on T. However, one side being better debaters than others will trump any biases. - No spec arguments as theory winners....they can be great solvency take-outs if explained well and used in combination with a disad/criticism/CP, but more times than not - they completely fail. - T debates - when A) defended with quality evidence and B) examples of what they justify and what has been done in the debate - can result in a win with high points. If you just have generic evidence and a slightly better interp, you are better served going for something else.

CRITICAL ARGUMENTS Negs, make sure to discuss why your criticism undermines each part of the aff; affs, make sure to defend your 1ac as a specific instance of a theory being productive (i.e. utilizing your aff as an answer). In 90% of K debates, this previous sentence emphasizing specific application sums up my decision. I assume the negative is defending the status quo, unless clearly articulated and defended otherwise – just a default, not a preference. I will listen arguments about what the negative/affirmative should/shouldn't have to defend - but likely to default to they both get to defend what they want to.

CP THEORY - Affs under-utilize neg theory arguments to justify their own theory tricks. - 2nc amendments and International Fiat face some uphill battles. - I appreciate smart advantage CPs and PICS out of an explicit plan action. - Conditionality when there are not contradictory args (Imperialism K and Heg Impact on DA) usually OK - there gets to be a point of rediculousness, but that is determined by the debaters. - Word Pics - usually viable against affs based around discourse, potentially not competitive against policy-oriented affs. - Consult, Condition, Process, Agent - without a specific piece of evidence linking the aff plan to the condition/consultation/agent at hand - certainly willing to A) vote on perm to the CP (in a world where they say yes) B) assign little weight C) reject the CP - Aff does not have to defend normal means if the CP changes what normal means is.  - Agent counterplans are not competitive if the aff is smart, remember SPEC arguments not liked.