Garrett,+Stephen

**Experience:**
- Debated 3 years at Crosby High School (Houston) (Graduated 2005) - Debated 4 years at The University of Texas at Dallas (Graduated 2009) - Former Assistant Coach at Law Magnet High School (Dallas) (Fall 2008) - Former Assistant Coach at Crosby High School (Houston) (2009-2014) - Former Director of Debate at Crosby High School (Houston) (2014-2015) - Currently an Associate Attorney at Cotton Schmidt & Abbott, L.L.P. in Corpus Christi. - Years Judging: (Fall 2005-Present) - Adjudicated at the TOC (Octas panel, invited to judge quarters and semis) - Adjudicated TOC Bid rounds at: The Glenbrooks, Berkeley, Grapevine, Texas, Houston Memorial, Colleyville Heritage - Adjudicated TFA State Semifinals, UIL State Finals (1A, 2A, 3A, 6A(5A)-Twice)

**Short and Sweet**:
I am tabula rasa in the sense that I will judge the debate in the way the framework/role of the ballot debate dictates, but if no one debates framework or argues for another paradigm I'll default to policymaker.

**Affirmative Case:**
If you are not running a “traditional” case, i.e. no plan text/kritikal affirmative or using either a narrative or using music, please include in the IAC, a method for me to evaluate the debate. That said I am fine with all of the above. If you spread through a narrative it loses its value.

**Topicality:**
I will vote for any justification for T, even if it is controversial, if it is well warranted as to why I should do so. Likewise I won’t vote for any T voter, no matter how legitimate, if the affirmative can prove it is illegitimate or unwarranted. For the affirmative you must either win that you meet the Negative interpretation, have a superior interpretation to the Negative that you meet or that your interpretation is reasonable and that reasonability Is the preferrable method of evaluation for T. For the Negative you must prove the affirmative does not meet your interpretation and that it is superior, that their interpretation is inferior/they don’t meet it and/or that they are not reasonably topical. SLOW DOWN ON T DEBATES

**Kritiks:**
I like good kritik debates. That being said you must have clear articulation of your links and alt and good framing of how to weigh your impacts against the aff. If at the end of the round I cannot clearly articulate your link, impact and alt without reading the evidence I am very likely to give the aff a lot of leeway on their arguments.

**Counterplans and Disads:**
I like em'. I tend to view thing in terms of offense/defense, but I can be persuaded otherwise. It is possible to win on defense only against a disad, but I have a high threshold to assign absolutely 0 risk.

**Case:**
Case defense without a counter advocacy (CP or K) or disad is not a winning strategy with me. Case defense with a strong disad or case defense as part of a solvency net benefit to a CP are in my opinion solid 2NR options. If you run inherency it should be structured like a procedural based on the three forms of inherency with a voter.

**Theory:**
I tend to have a higher threshold for voting on theory, but if you go for it for a significant portion or all of your 2NR/2AR I will definitely vote on it if you win it. I will vote on any theoretical obligation that is well warranted for a vote. Theory can also target exclusion of advantages or other arguments. When reading theory, PLEASE SLOW DOWN, as it is significantly harder to flow. I will not feel sorry for you if you spread through a 20 point theory block and wonder why I haven't caught every sub-point. .

**Speaker Points:**
I am not a "speaker point nazi" nor am I a "speaker point fairy". I adjust speaks to account for size and level of the tournament. <27: You were rude/offensive (<1%) 27-27.3: You are far below average for the tournament/division (5%) 27.4-27.7: You are moderately below average for the tournament/division (15%) 27.8- 27.9: You are slightly below average (25%) 28-28.2: You are average (25%) 28.3-28.7: You are slightly above average (25%) 28.8-29.2: You are above average (5%) >29.2: You are far above average (<1%)

**Reading Evidence Post Round:**
I try not to do it unless it is absolutely necessary, I feel that reading evidence post rounds allow me to do warrant work that debaters themselves have failed to do in their speeches. The only real instance where I am likely to read evidence is if the warrants of the card are called into question or the explanations of two competing cards is so close that it warrants reading.

**Ethical Challenges/Cheating**:
If there is an accusation of cheating the round will stop and the burden of proof of the is is on the accuser to prove the accused cheated. If cheating is proven the round will be awarded to the accuser, if cheating is not proven the round will be awarded to the accused. The purpose of this is to discourage false accusations, but at the same time encourage teams to challenge if they have solid evidence that cheating has occurred.

**Emory Switch (All new case args in the 2NC)**:
I am fine with this in terms of theory as the 2NC is a constructive speech, but I am very likely to give the 1AR/2AR a lot of leeway in the way they answer. This is in my opinion a very poor strategy and will not result in favorable speaker points.