Broberg,+Garrett

Garrett Broberg - Debate Coach at John F. Kennedy High School in Sacramento, California Former Congressional Debate Coach at Lincoln High school in Portland, Oregon Four-year competitor at El Dorado High School (Placerville California) competed primarily in Congress. 2016 California State Champion Presiding Officer, TOC semi-finalist, etc... I have however competed and judged all debate events (Nationals in PF) (Parli TOC Qualifier). .

LD–

Speed - I am the last judge that will tell you “no spreading” as long as your opponents are okay with speed, go for it

Topicality – As far as I am concerned, Topicality outweighs theory. T is needed in order to establish how we can create theoretical justification within the resolution.

Theory – It’s fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid-fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will, but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Ks - I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less persuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments.

Public Forum –

There are a few things that I look for and require in PF. First and foremost:

If it's in the final focus, it ought to be in the summary.

I reserve the right to look at evidence to see if it comes from a credible source, or to see if it's been distorted, or simply to see if it says what I think I heard it say. Debaters should call out sketchy evidence, but I may call it out myself even if your opponents don't.

I expect to hear some qualification for your author and the DATE (the year, at minimum) out loud. If you cite evidence simply as "according to Princeton," I will be very sad, and my sadness may affect your points.

When evidence is called, prep time starts when the full text evidence is pulled up.

Try to terminalize and specify impacts. "Helps the economy" (for instance) is not very impressive as an impact.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, DON’T HESITATE TO ASK!