Coyle,+Aidan

**Updated for GBX 2016**
 * Affiliation: The Barstow School**
 * First Tournament of the Season**

**General:** If you have any specific question about something that is or isn’t listed here then you should ask me before the round. Everything below is a preference of mine, but you should probably debate in the style that you are most comfortable in. I tend to give more weight to dropped arguments than other judges necessarily would, so don't drop important things. I prefer to decide debates by looking at my flow than at your speech docs, and I will reward good technical debating when it comes to speaker points. Specificity of evidence is a great way to win debates, but you need to explain your evidence in the round rather than relying on me interpreting it later. This is my first tournament on this topic so don't assume I know your acronyms.


 * Cliff Notes**
 * Debated for 4 years in High School and 1 Year in College. Standard CP/Case + DA is what I'm most familiar with
 * I'm particularly open to theory arguments, but only if teams are willing to do the work to engage their opponents.
 * I'm probably not the best judge for your Kritiks, but I'm certainly open to the voting for them. Topic specificity will make me your fan.
 * I'm partial to the argument that the affirmative must engage the resolution, but I'm open to alternative ways to engage it.
 * I haven't judged this topic before, so be clear and explain your arguments.

While I probably haven't read your authors, I'm definitely open to critical arguments as long as they are explained well. I think most teams let the K get away with murder when it comes to the link debate. On the flip side, having good specific links will make me far more likely to vote for you. If either team is going to propose a specific framework for the round, you should be clear about how I should evaluate impacts. Affs are going to be hard pressed to win an argument that I should functionally ban Kritiks from debate. If you're going to make an argument based on discourse or how the affirmative is presented, don't turn around and do the exact thing you're critiquing the aff for. I will happily vote on perf con if you do that.
 * Kritiks:**

To be honest, I don't really like these affirmatives. It's hard to convince me that my vote is particularly meaningful for a given movement, and I tend to be easily convinced by arguments that the affirmative needs to engage the resolution. That doesn't mean I won't vote for these affs, and if that's your thing then you should stick to it. If you want to win these debates in front of me you should be prepared to engage your opponents on the flow and in general explain your evidence because I probably don't know your literature very well. Critical affirmatives that are specific to the topic and frame themselves as an alternative means of affirming the resolution are particularly appealing to me, but seem quite uncommon.
 * Critical Affirmatives:**

I enjoy a good counterplan debate. That said I think negatives have traditionally gotten away with some shady practices as far as counterplans go. Word PICs, Consult/Conditions, and bad agent counterplans are all things I can be convinced are illegitimate if the aff is willing to invest the time. I'm more open to arguments against conditionality than most, so if your opponent reads 3 counterplans and a K, don't be afraid to go all in. Specific counterplans, particularly PICs are a good way to win debates in front of me. Outside of that, well thought out agent counterplans or advantage counterplans to mitigate the case are always a safe strategy.
 * Counterplans:**

I'm happy to vote on T if the neg is willing to invest some time and thought into how I should define the topic. I can be convinced that an affirmative that doesn't abuse the negative should be considered reasonably topical and that I shouldn't vote. For those trying to win reasonability, please explain what that means to me because a lot of people define it differently. I think the most important impacts to topicality are limits and ground. If you can prove that the other teams definition makes those things go away I will probably prefer yours. Specific definitions and violations are far more convincing to me than the standard "Substantial = 50%". I'm probably the only judge in the world that will actually vote on ASPEC.
 * Topicality:**

I love watching a good debate on a Disad and case, just make sure you have some sort of offense at the end of the debate. I consider myself relatively familiar with the politics disad so its definitely a good choice in front of me. If you go for a Disad make sure you mitigate the affirmatives case. I really like to watch in depth case debates. __Make sure you do Impact Calculus__, and tell me why your Disad outweighs the case or vice versa because otherwise I have to do that analysis myself and you probably won’t like the conclusion that I come to.
 * Disads/Case:**

I really like theory debate at heart. I think there are a lot of interesting ways to look at debate and that theory debates can be some of the most interesting to watch. They are also the most intricate so PLEASE DON’T just read your blocks back and forth at each other. If you do then I probably won’t look at theory as a reason for me to bar the other team from making a certain kind of argument. If you go for theory, explain what your interpretation means for debate and why what they do in the round is abusive.
 * Theory:**

This seems to have become the standard. You need to have some way for your opponents to view your evidence, but that can be their computer if they agree. I stop prep when your flash drive leaves your computer. If you want to delete all your analytics or w/e before you flash it over feel free to do so, but it counts toward your prep time.
 * Paperless Debate:**