Ganas,+James

Experience-

I debated at Central Valley High School for four years. I was the 2010 4A Washington State LD champion and 2009 Extemporaneous Speaking champion. I have judged intermittently in the Seattle area for the past year and a half. I currently study Political Science, English, and Art History at the University of Washington. Please trust that I know something about debate despite being from Spokane.

General Notes about Speaker Points-

I feel compelled to let you know that speaker points, to me, act as a check on your behavior in round and in the immediate setting surrounding the round. That is to say that while it will not affect your speaker points if I hear you saying offensive things in the cafeteria, it most definitely will affect your speaker points if you say offensive things just outside of the round or, God forbid, in round. I view speaker points, in addition to being a subjective metric of how well I feel you spoke, are a way for judges to impose their views about etiquette. As such, I value respect in round. Humor is welcomed, but not at the expense of undercutting your opponent. I don't like dismissive or condescending CX. Please do not bicker about the round with me or your opponent once I give my decision. Questions are welcomed, however. In the absence of anything extraordinary happening in round, I tend to grant speaker points as a comparative metric between you and other debaters I have seen. I tend not to disclose speaker points.

Overview-

I default to filtering your arguments through the standards debate. This means that a linkage from the contention level to the standards level is vital. To me it seems that much of the shift away from the V/VC debate has resulted in a (very general) lack of linkage to or emphasis of the standards debate. If your standard is essentially the same as the tagline of a contention or something, then the lack of linkage is fine because there is a very obvious link to the standards level. If you do not do that, please make explicit links to the standard level and provide explicit comparison between the competing standards. I evaluate pre-framework, theoretical arguments a priori. Please be explicit with the impacts in round. Occasionally I have trouble flowing authors' names, so please extend the tag of the card if possible in addition to the name. I understand if this is not a possibility in the 1AR. I am all for the use of speed in round (don't interpret this as me saying that you have to utilize speed if you are uncomfortable with it). That said, I do not feel comfortable handling the highest speeds. This is not due to any theoretical qualm I have, I just find it physically/mentally hard to keep up. I will say "loud" "clear" or "slow" if I need to. Loud and clear will affect speaker points. Slow will not. Slow down for tags and author names. I will only call "loud" "clear" or "slow" two times total, between the three. Communication is a form of strategy. You may need to re-strategize in round based on my ability or inability to discern what you are saying. Outside of that, I consider myself to be a fairly open judge. Do what you want.

Theory-

I feel receptive to theory. I understand the necessity of it. However, I will cite Ashley Skinner's view (in part) on theory as I believe that it is fairly representative of my approach to theory as well: " Running theory as a strategy to outsmart or screw over a less technically proficient debater (or a debater who does not understand theory) is never a good strategy in front of me. I will be very frustrated and you will likely receive incredibly low speaker points. That being said, when there is in-round abuse or high levels of potential abuse, run theory. Chances are your opponent knows it’s coming. Run theory correctly: interp, violation, standards and voting issues." Reasonability and competing interpretations are both fine by me, but tell me which frame to use. I don't feel very comfortable inserting a preexisting notion about the validity of reasonability/competing interps as a basis for decision in round so it is key that you tell me which to default to and, crucially, why. I evaluate theory a priori. I default to fairness over education, but go ahead and run education if you want. It's fine by me. I think RVI's are completely fine if you spend a significant amount of time there. I don't want to hear that the opponent's abuse of theory makes it impossible for you to win followed by a four minute case-level debate. Seems insane to me to do this.

Kritik-

I am fine with kritiks. If you want to run a kritik, though, make sure that you provide clear linkage. Explain to me in detail how your opponent bites into the K. Also, for me it is necessary that you spend a good deal of time on the cards that establish the validity of your position before you transition to linking your opponent's case. Do not assume how much I know about Foucault, Derrida, etc. because you do not know how much I know and my knowledge necessarily varies from topic to topic. As such, do not assume that I am in a camp of people who on face recognizes the weight/impact of your K. This is up to you to tell me. Also, the K needs solvency. It just does. It does not have to be traditional, stock solvency though. I am open to alternative models as long as you provide a justification for it. Due to the additional hoops that a K has to jump through, in my mind, to be successful, I encourage you to truly evaluate your ability to effectively run one. This is not to say you can't- I just want you to meditate on it for a second. Can you do this? Trust yourself.

More General Notes-

Clothing: I don't care what you wear. I find the traditional emphasis on "nice clothes"/"formal wear"/"business attire" to be misguided and potentially classist. As long as I can hear you, I don't care what you wear.

Flex Prep: Flex prep is fine but you must still use your three allocated minutes of CX.

If you have any additional questions about me, my judging style, or anything else, contact me via email (jaganas@hotmail.com) or reach out to me on Facebook ( http://www.facebook.com/james.ganas). You can also ask me a few questions before the round as long as they do not occupy too much time.

For the love of God, please have fun.