Garshelis,+Brian

__**Affiliation/Experience:**__ I started my debate career at Grand Rapids High School (1999-2004, thats right, we had 8th grade debate) and transitioned to coaching at Bloomington Jefferson where I am now the head coach.

__**Philosophy:**__ I consider myself as approaching the round as a policy maker. This does not mean that you cannot run the K, but rather that the K needs to be explained in 1 of 2 ways...either: a) there are real policy impacts/we present a real policy option, or b) that the K somehow is a prerequisite to evaluating case, i.e. that the AFFs philosophy is so bad, that we have to evaluate it before we look to case.

This also means that I will generally put myself in the position as being a lawmaker-if you want to change my interpretation of fiat you can, but I enter the round believing that fiat means the AFF is presenting a real policy before me (the USFG) and that the NEG is arguing against that policy.

__**Micro/Macro Argumentation:**__ Beyond my paradigm, I am also a big believer that the debate is about who does the better debating-meaning that 2AR and 2NR are incredibly important. Being persuasive and giving overviews is a huge plus. This does not mean that you should ignore the flow, though, because the overview should tell me the importance of certain arguments, or your "story," but the line-by-line is where you need to actually make the arguments.

__**T:**__ I like it. Here are some suggestions on T: 1) I generally believe that T is a voting issue, and is Prima Facia, but I can be persuaded that other issues come first...that is unless the Neg puts the correct standards on T. My suggestion: argue Jursidiction. 2) As with any theory, I hate when teams just read their blocks and dont answer the other teams args. I am not referenceing the 2ac here, but rather arguments like limits are good, or breath/depth. 3) I generally hate RVIs, but if its dropped I will vote on it.

__**Other Theory**__: Same as T, but I am less inclined to vote for it unless it is dropped. Again, dont just read reasons why Conditionallity is good unless you are going to answer their reasons why it is bad also.

__**Case debate/DAs:**__ I generally really like these debates. Remember, the DA will be stronger if you also at least mitigate case. I love specific turns, specific links, multiple link scenarios, and generally well thought out DAs. Works well with a CP, but if the Neg can show that the DA outweighs case I will happily vote on it.

__**CP:**__ I like them if they are competitive. I have a real problem with CPs that dont solve the AFF, or are clearly not competitive. I listen to arguments about mutual exclusivity, theory on why topical/untopical CP are good or bad, and Perms especially. I think that dropping a perm is generally a bad idea if you are aff in front of me.

__**K**__: Generally explained above, but if you are going to run an alternative, you better explain it to me really well. I am generally a fan of running the alt in the following ways: 1) reject the Affs philosophy, the K is a gateway 2) no alt, its a case turn 3) the alt is reject-if I am a policy maker, and I imagine Congress really taking a philisophical stand against something, I think that could be a real start to change. 4) run a CP that is a policy option to the K

For the Aff, I definately listen to args about performative contradiction...dont read a Cap K and Mead in the same round...I think that can be grounds to reject the Neg.

__**Speed and Other:**__ I am totally fine with speed and with tag team cross-x, etc. My only suggestion is that you ask yourself if it is strategic (I dont think it is very strategic for the 1ar to ask questions to the 2nc unless they are absolutely urgent-the 1ar should be prepping).