Gottbreht,+Scott

Scott Gottbreht Judging Philosophy

I was a 2A.

I debated for 3 years in high school and 5 years in college. I debated first for the University of North Texas, and then for Northwestern University.

I have coached college debate at Northwestern, Michigan, Georgetown, and presently I am the director of debate at Johns Hopkins.

I have coached high school at Colleyville, St Marks, Kelvin Park, and Maine East. I have taught at summer institutes for 8 years, including the UNT camp, the Coonhardy/Zarfsky labs at Northwestern, and the University of Michigan summer 7 week sessions.

Speed is fine, clarity is rewarded.

Topicality: I prefer these debates to have evidence, clash, examples of topical and non-topical affirmatives, and so on.

Framework: The team defending the policy side must have impacts beyond simply "education" and "fairness", because it is easy for the kritik team to simply say "genocide outweighs your fairness claims"

Disadvantages: Its all about the link. I'm not a huge advocate of the "any risk means vote neg", but neither will I look kindly on an aff that has no offense. Cards are good.

Counterplans: If you can defend it, it is okay with me. I'm no theory hack, but I will vote against an abusive counterplan if the aff wins that it is abusive. I'm not a huge fan of consult, but against a new aff, what else can you do really?

Kritiks: I am getting my PhD in critical theory, so I like kritiks. This is not to say that I am biased in favor of critical debates, this is JUST to say that I can follow you regardless of the critical perspective that you are advancing.

Line by line is clutch, yes I flow. Yes I vote on dropped arguments.

be nice to each other and have fun. Cursing is acceptable, calling the other team stupid is not.

Good luck!