Gorski,+Karlyn

2017-2018 season: I'm "old" now and more than a couple years out of the activity (graduated high school in 2010). Everything below is still true, with the caveat that I haven't really been around the circuit a ton since ~2013. I'm doing a study of policy debaters this year, so I'm not entirely out of practice, but please don't assume that I know a) anything about the topic, or b) new styles of argumentation.

I don't want to be on the email chain. I guess I'm old-fashoined because I think it's your job to make sure that your arguments end up on my flow. This means that you should slow down for important things. I also really want you to give me a ballot story at the end of the round. I'll call for specific cards if they're disputed, but I won't read your entire speech. I won't vote for something that's not on my flow.

I'm saying this again because so few people seem to listen to it: I really appreciate it when debaters slow down strategically to clearly explain the gist of a given argument. Please do this. I'm not impressed if you spread at 400wpm the entire round - show me that you know when to take a break for an impactful point and when to speed through technicalities. Whatever your arguments are, if you can explain them clearly, it'll go long way in my book.

The paradigm below was written in 2011, but is still largely true. A few updates:

- If you are one of the fastest debaters on the national circuit, you should slow down in front of me. Otherwise, speed is fine. - If something is not anywhere on my flow, I will not vote for it. Be clear about what matters. - Assume I know close to nothing about philosophy. It will make us both happier if you explain things fully in plain English. - I think that theory underviews to the AC are kind of dumb. I'll flow them, and I've voted on them, but I don't like them. - I also think the argument that schools only fund debate because it's educational is dumb. Again, I'll vote on it, but I don't like it.

I debated for five years at Perkiomen Valley High School. I qualified to the TOC three times, and was the 2009 Champion and 2010 Runner-Up at NCFL Nationals. I have taught at VBI and NSD.

__**Short version: Speed is fine if you're clear, well-developed theory is great, critical arguments must be explained very well. I really like debaters who use common sense. I am not well-read in most philosophy, including metaethical philosophy. DAs and CPs are fine, and are a great way to layer the round. I really like good, comparative weighing and explicit decision calculus.**__

Long version: Speed – I won't claim to be one of those people who says that they've never heard a debater speak faster than they can flow: I definitely have my limitations. In light of that, **__please__** slow down for important things (standards/burdens, author names, tags, etc). I'm very expressive, so if I'm making a confused or frustrated face at you, you're doing something wrong. Feel free to go as fast as you want and I'll get what I can on my flow, but the cleaner my flow is the more likely I am to vote for you. 300wpm is pretty comfortable for me, but of course it depends a lot on clarity.

Theory – Please, please justify how theory should be evaluated in the round. I think that theory is great if it is run well, but bad theory debates are awful. If theory is run, please resolve the issue. It doesn't make sense to call theory a “wash”, because theory frames how the rest of the debate is evaluated. I can't make a decision if theoretical issues aren't resolved, so please don't just put defense against each other's arguments and then call theory a wash.

Kritiks and Non-Normative Philosophy – I am not well versed in critical literature or any non-normative philosophy. This means that if you are going to run these sorts of arguments in front of me, they must be well-explained. You should be able to explain them in normal English, and not be totally reliant on the rhetoric of your author(s). I don't want to vote on a position that I can't comfortably articulate in my own words at the end of the round.

Speaks – I will try to be consistent with tournament norms. I know that some tournaments tend to have higher or lower speaks than others, so I will take this into consideration. In general, though, debaters who should absolutely be in outrounds will get 29-30, debaters who should probably be in outrounds will get 28-29, debaters who should maybe be in rounds will get 27-28, and debaters who should probably not be in outrounds will get a 27 or below. If you are rude or offensive, I will not hesitate to give you 0.

General – I like debate, and I like strategies that make debate fun for everyone (not just yourself). This means that if you are hitting a novice, do not be mean. If you have some crazy, semi-topical position that you've been waiting to break, this is probably not the time to run it. If you are tempted to insult your opponent or his/her team or coach, don't. If your opponent does these things, call them out on it. Basically, be smart, be reasonable, and have fun.