Gustafson,+Cody

Cody Gustafson gustafsoncodyh@gmail.com Lindale HS (TX) ’15 Texas Tech ’19 -rounds on surveillance topic: 75+ -rounds on China topic: 50ish General -Yes, I want to be on the email chain (email above). Also, it would be dope if you could send me a doc with all of the cards compiled from each side. -Do you, I have no argument preference. I would rather see good debate than bad debate any day, so don’t conform to me, do what you’re best at. -I stick to my flow to determine the round. I hate intervening it rounds just because it makes me do more work than I want to do. I flow taglines, authors, dates, and warrants as I hear them in the ev. I also try to mark every piece of ev that you mark, but obviously this isn’t always a guarantee so please do this for yourself and email a marked version after the speech. -Tech > truth (with the exception of rhetorically violent arguments) -If you wanted the alt/cp judge-kicked, tell me explicitly to do so in the 2nr otherwise I will not kick it and will evaluate the offense under the advocacy. -Offense > terminal defense > defense -I tend to find myself in the middle of the spectrum on speaker points. As of Winter, 2016 my average with speaker points is about 28.5. My highest given out was a 29.5 to Crayton Gerst (if that gives you any insight to my speaker point allocation). My lowest given was a 27.4. My speaker points are given almost entirely on strategy, clarity matters little to me so long as I can understand it. If I cannot, I will clear you.
 * Pre-nationals season update: **

Aff <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-I tend to believe that affs should either be in the direction of the topic or an indictment of debate <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Performance debates are fun. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Small, hyper-specific policy debates are fun. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Role of the ballot is less persuasive to me that just framing arguments for me. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-I think affs get away with too much on perms. If you read a general heg aff and read reformism good, you will need to tell me how your aff is a reform and not just an extension of the system to win access to that arg. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-I’ve voted aff for K affs against T/Framework about the same amount of times I have voted neg on T/Framework.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Topicality/Framework <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-competing interps frames my decision unless explicitly told why reasonability is preferable and why you win under reasonability. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-T version of the aff is **not** an aff argument <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Caselists are dope <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Arguments that boil down to “get out of debate” against identity affs are not persuasive for me. Arguments like predictable limits and dialogue are much more persuasive. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-I think T is under-utilized against policy affs and love T debates. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-I tend to think that an untopical aff doesn’t cause extinction, but that may just be me.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Disads <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Uniqueness determines the direction of the link unless told why it’s the otherway around. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-The more specific the link the more persuasive your 2nr will be. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-There’s such thing as zero percent risk of an impact if you concede impact defense, otherwise there is at least a risk of an impact.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">CPs <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-The more specific the cp strat the better <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Multiple plank CPs are great, kicking individual planks is okay with me unless there are any theoretical objections, then it’s up to that flow. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Uniqueness and internal-link CPs are super troll and I love them. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Solvency advocates make the world a better place <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Advantage CPs are my favorite counterplan debates to watch. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-No real preconceived notions about condo/CP theory, that’s a debate you should get to have.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ks <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-The more specific the link the less persuasive the perm is <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Role of the ballot is less persuasive to me that just framing arguments for me. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-K tricks make me happy <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-I am beginning to become more persuaded by the argument that there are no perms in a “method debate”. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">-Analysis is **preferable** to cards