Singer,+Gavin

gavin singer brophy ’14 northwestern ’18 conflicts: brophy and walter payton

if you don’t have much time to read this, here’s one thing to keep in mind: i read an aff without a plan text for my entire senior year, but the majority of my 2nr’s were politics… do whatever you want and i’m willing to listen and judge the round objectively.

when i did prefs in high school there was really only one thing i looked for: can i read my aff and not lose to framework? the answer is yes -- do what you want, and i’m willing to listen. having said that, i will also evaluate framework objectively. i really don’t have any biases one way or another.

there are few things i hate more than having a judge who looks completely uninterested / doesn't care about the round. i think it's important to give back, so for the 2 hours i'm in the back of the room you have my full attention and i will work my hardest to make the best decision i can.

topic knowledge: none

3 judges whose philosophies would probably help you more than mine include: --alex miles //specifically//, “I am/will be vigilant about rejecting new arguments, but ONLY IF you point out the link (X is new) and the impact (why new args are bad) - "block strategy is determined by the 2ac" may even be enough in the 2NR, depending on the justification for the new argument by the other team, but I need at least something. Frustrating scenario: team A drops an argument; team B extends the argument; team A answers it; then team B extends it again but without saying that team A's arg is new and why that's bad. The burden on proof is clearly on team A to originally answer the argument (I esp think the way 2a's handle the case is getting absurd), but the burden of proof is on team B to delegitimize newly developed responses; otherwise, I will not strike team A's new argument from the flow and I'll assume that both teams agree that the arg was never dropped.”

--sara sanchez --daryl burch

theory: --slow down on blocks --it's an impact debate

case: --willing to vote on presumption, i think you can reduce the risk of an aff to 0, but it takes thorough explanation

counterplans: --slow down on the CP text, seriously --don't just say necessary vs. sufficient, actually explain it --i won't kick a CP without the neg telling me to

disads: --if you're aff, i don't think enough teams go for no link against terrible disads

kritiks: --actually explain arguments, i won't do any work for you if it's just jargon

framework (against planless affs): --(see above) i have no biases, i think it's an impact debate and a question of the best interpretation of what debate is. --t version / do it on the neg are really important for both sides

some important things: --IMPACT everything -- new args, why probability/magnitude is most important, etc. --don’t cheat in any form (clipping, stealing prep (i'll dock half of remaining prep time because that's what michael koo has instructed me to do), etc.) --tech > truth --don’t sacrifice clarity for speed --i try not to call for ev unless instructed otherwise or i feel like i need to in order to resolve something --good evidence doesn’t replace explanation, good spin on a ‘b’ card will beat an ‘a’ card --i’ll pay attention to cross-ex / will reward speaker points for using args from cross-ex in your speech --i'll reject new 2ar args without justifications

if you have any questions, gavinmillersinger@gmail.com

just do what you do best, and have fun! debate should be fun, otherwise why are you doing it? i’ll reward speaks if you look like you’re enjoying the round.

enjoy “ethiopian drift”, by robel worku []