Granville,+Ned

Debate Coach at Roswell High School for 23 years Rounds Judged on the topic- ~8 Ideal affirmative- 2 well developed advantages + a plan defending a topical action as prescribed by the resolution Ideal 1NC- 5 off and case

Short version: Overview: Debate is a __communication activity__ - it is your job to persuade me to vote for your specific argument. This means debaters should have a thorough understanding of their arguments, and be able to effectively communicate it to me. I will not vote on anything that is not thoroughly explained/that I do not understand. I view debate as a game with educational value - I think this forum is important to foster valuable discussion on the opportunity costs of policy actions. Flow please - if you are not flowing the rounds/you are flowing only the speech docs then your speaks will suffer.

Argument Preferences: I default to a policy-maker. I refuse to vote on any argument that does not defend the implementation of a topical plan by the United States federal government. Topicality - I have a high threshold for T. I feel that most T violations, especially on this topic, are incredibly arbitrary and artificially constructed to exclude affs with valuable information on the topic. This means I am incredibly persuaded by/default to reasonability, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Give me a strong, coherent story as to why including the aff within the topic is actually unreasonable - weigh the impacts of your standards vs the aff (limits o/w education bc...) Performance - I am not the judge for these kinds of debates. The aff should defend the implementation of a topical governmental action - I will easily pull the trigger on framework. Disads - Love them! The more specific the better. That being said I do love a good politics debate even though I think the internal link chain of the da is absurd at best (most aff teams fail to capitalize on this) CPs- I love counterplans - especially ones that competitvely interact with the specific mechanism of the aff. Consult, condition, delay, etc. are all cheating CPs - the aff should go for the perm and I will be willing to reject these cps on theory. More specific solvency advocates take your cp a long way - especially when the cp is supported by 1ac evidence. Kritiks - Not my favorite argument by any means- anything beyond capitalism or security will be hard to persuade me to vote on. K tricks will be hard to win without thorough explanation even if they are dropped. The aff should leverage their case vs the K. I believe that most alternatives do nothing, but I feel that aff teams rarely explot this. The link is the most important part of the K - if you are neg and are going to have any chance of me voting on this arg you need a very thorough link debate that interacts with the aff. Case- Love a thorough case debate! Most affs are non sensical and can be beaten with only a few arguments. Impact turn debates are fun to evaluate.

Evaluation of debates - 1) Tech vs Truth - I tend to err on the idea that a conceded argument is true, but to make this impact my ballot you are responsible for a) pointing out an argument is dropped b) thoroughly explaining the dropped argument and c) telling me how it impacts the round. That being said, there are some arguments that either a) are objectively false (for example I will not vote on something that tells me the sun orbits the Earth) b) I have predispositons too that you should consider not reading in the round if you expect to pick up my ballot. 2) Death is bad. Other arguments like A-SPEC, Time Cube, Spark, or anything offensive to the other team (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc) will not be tolerated. 3) Meta framing is incredibly important - tell me essential questions in the round that I have to resolve. Framing issues help elucidate what you think is a critical part of the round, and I will respond accordingly. 4) Impact framing is a __must__ - I feel that often most debates are resolved over impact calc done in the final speaches. Tell me how to view your impact vs other impacts - does your impact access theirs? If so awesome! point it out. Tell me what criterion to view the debate through (TF, probability, magnitude). Turns case is devestating when it interacts well with case. 5) I rarely call for evidence unless it is essential to determining key questions in the debate - I prefer a strong warranted analytic over a poor quality card anyday. If something is important in the debate - flag it for me. 6) Author indicts go a long way 7) There can be 0 risk of an argument 8) Presumption flips neg unless the neg reads a CP 9) I will not kick the CP for you in the 2nr unless speifiically instructed to do so

Have fun and do your best!