Gannon,+Andres

andres.gannon [at] gmail.com - Updated 10/13/2013 Assistant Coach - Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart 2012-present Assistant Coach - University of Southern California 2012-present

**NDCA and TOC 2014: **
I will not render a decision until both teams have uploaded all arguments onto the wiki.

** Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (big picture): **
- It is productive and possible for all people to have an opinion about things the federal government is doing and should do - Warranted arguments made from personal experience are not inherently less persuasive than warranted arguments made from those who professionally study the issues we debate - Offense-defense obsession counterproductively incentives a race to hyperbole. I won't give you full weight of an impact just because its dropped, you have to persuade me. An argument must exceed the threshold of being a credible, coherent, warranted, and plausible warrant before being one that helps you win the debate - I've never been convinced any aff or DA actually accessed extinction of the human race. People are more concerned with the "terminal" part of their impact than they should be. - The most important skill we acquire from debate is learning how to make and evaluate decisions in a way that is applicable to life outside of debate. Teams that win debates oriented around this question are those that convince me their model of debate is the most productive means of doing this. ( [] ) - Debate needs to be more technical and specialized when it comes to discussing federal policies. The issues we discuss are incredibly complex. We should dive into that, not shy away from it ( [] ) - Try or die is a peculiar way of making decisions - Impact and impact defense evidence are one of the most useful things to debate when it comes to education about public policy

**Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (small picture):**
- Winning uniqueness does not mean the link turn isn't true/your link is true - Counterplans that fiat an actor other than that of the resolution are not productive for debate - Affs don't get to define the words in their plan in whatever manner is most convenient. Evidence gets to define words from the plan. - Many impact turns to advantages are not intrinsic - Arbitrary roles of the ballot are not persuasive. An issue being important doesn't mean it is a good role of the ballot - Feasibility is a factor in determining the desirability of K alternatives - Perms are a better way to eliminate unproductive counterplan discussions than theory

**Logistics:**
- Debate should be a safe space. Hostility, vulgar language, unnecessary antagonism, aggression, and patronization will not be tolerated - I want speech docs as the debate progresses - I don't want it to be your job to monitor for card clipping. You debate, I'll enforce the rules - Prep time stops when the jumpdrive is on your opponents hand - You are not helping your partner's cross-x when you get involved - I'd rather hear your cards than call for them after the debate