Greenan,+Trevor

 ** Background ** I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 3 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years, and now exclusively coach/run the program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash. ** General Issues ** > > > > > > > ** Framework ** > > > ** Theory/Procedurals ** > > > > ** Advantage/DA ** > > > > ** CP ** > > > > ** K ** > > > > > >
 *  I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the worse argument if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments, arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.
 *  In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.
 *  The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I prefer to not flow it on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer that format I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.
 *  I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.
 *  Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.
 *  I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.
 *  I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. That being said, absent substantial argumentation either way, I’ll usually defer to each side being able to leverage their advocacy/offence against the other.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I have a pretty high threshold for voting on presumption. I find it difficult to buy that either side has actually won terminal defense, absent a good amount of work in the round. That being said, I default to presumption flowing negative.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> Prior question arguments in framework are fine/good, just make sure that there’s sufficient explanation of these arguments and application to the rest of the round. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped prior question/independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation, although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I have a very high threshold on RVIs. If extremely well-developed and extremely mishandled by the other team I could imagine myself voting on one, but I would hope to never have to.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, the more you can contextualize your argument to the round the greater weight that I will give it. Specific and substantial case debates are great.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I default to fiat being durable.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> Please give me specific texts.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I generally won’t buy textual competition absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, and I have a decent understanding of postmodern theory (particularly Foucauldian/Deleuzian/Derridean). That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I will do my best to not just vote for an argument I understand absent explanation in-round, and there’s definitely a good amount of literature I won’t know of.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.
 * <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: inherit; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.88px; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle; vertical-align: middle;"> Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible.