Garst,+Jeff

(Overall Debate comments are on top. Scroll down to see PFD, LD, and Policy specific comments.)

**Experience**

I debated 2 years of Public Forum in High School.

I’ve judged mostly high school Lincoln Douglas for the last 6 years.

I debated Policy for the University of Nebraska Lincoln for 3 years.

I'm currently the head coach of Ralston High School __**Trigger Warnings**__ (I will say this before each round) Students running arguments about rape/sexual assault or suicide need to provide a pre-round trigger warning before reading said arguments. The opponent of that team/person have the opportunity to ask people to not read those arguments. If you do not respect someone's request to do this, I will most likely award you a loss and low speaker points. If these arguments come up during the round because of a response or rebuttal, but weren't planned to be made before the round, I urge you to do a few things: 1. Consider whether the argument is the best way to handle the situation. 2. Handle the argument with care and realize that people might have a negative reaction to these arguments **__Speaker Points:__**

30: You're an amazing speaker. Can you bestow me with your gift? You had amazing organization, your application of arguments was on point, you were persuasive and clear, you made it easy to justify a vote for aff/neg. (I give 30's to about 5% of debaters, perhaps less) 29: You're an awesome speaker. You had quite good organization, your application of arguments was pretty spot on, you were mostly persuasive and clear, you made it overall pretty easy to justify a vote for aff/neg (I give 29's to about 10-15% of debaters.) 28: You're a really good speaker. Great job! Organization was overall not bad, and you applied your arguments across the flow well. Perhaps you had some issues with clear speaking, but they didn't distract from the goal of the round. I can justify a vote for you. (I give 28's to about 20-25% of debaters 27: You're a perfectly average speaker. You didn't do anything wrong, per se, but nothing you did was particularly spectacular. Your clarity and persuasiveness was good, but inconsistent. Organization was messy, but I was usually able to see where you were. Argument application was left up to me. (My most used score, I give 27's to about 40-45% of debaters) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">26: Your speaking left a bit to be desired this round. Organization was left up to me and I'm not sure where I was supposed to be at times. Argument application was left up to me. Your speaking wasn't particularly persuasive or clear. (I give 26's to about 10% of debaters.) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">25: Your speaking was not good this round. You weren't organized. You weren't clear. You left a lot up to me and I had to actively work in order to figure out what you were saying/where you were going. (I give 25s to about 5% of debaters) <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">24 or Below: You've done something inappropriate or unreasonable. Perhaps you used profanity, perhaps you were incredibly rude to your opponent, perhaps you used a slur or degraded a group of people. Either way... not good. This space is also reserved for people who don't provide trigger warnings for arguments about rape/sexual assault, or suicide. I will provide a verbal warning before the round about the need for said trigger warnings.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">__**PFD**__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I debated Public Forum Debate for my high school career. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Cases:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I believe that PFD is a great way to experience how to craft an argument. Because of this, I expect and want students to have fully developed cases that include all of the essential components of an argument. Over the past few years, I've found myself asking "so what?" to a lot of the circuit PF cases. Impacts seem to be lacking in constructives, which I see as a detriment to your ability to spin a story about your side of the resolution. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**CrossFire:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Don't be a jerk. Offense is preferable. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Rebuttals:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Rebuttals, for me, serve as a way to prove that you know what you're talking about and that your ideas have merit. The first rebuttal of the round should spend 4 minutes relentlessly attacking their opponent's case //on the line by line,// not as a major overview of each contention. Specific, carded evidence to each claim is preferable, but understandibly difficult to obtain. While I do love a good card, please don't underestimate the power of a well-warranted analytical argument. Note: A well-warranted analytical argument should NOT be a blip on my radar, but should take about as long as a short card. This means that if you think the argument has merit, you're willing to spend some time on the flow to flesh it out rather than just put something on the paper and hope I circle it at the end of the round. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">The second rebuttal should have about a 2:2 split (with a bit of preference paid towards attacking the opponent's case). Analytical arguments are still good here, but because of the time crunch, I expect you to rely a bit more heavily on carded responses. That's fine. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Both rebuttalers: Ask yourselves "so what?" on everything you say. If it doesn't help you win the round, it probably isn't worth saying. SIGNPOST A BUNCH. I'm a pretty unorganized person, so telling me when you're starting a new card, when you're ending a card, what argument you're responding to, etc. is almost necessary during rebuttals and when I'm your judge. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Summary and Final Focus:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">The goal of the Summary and Final Focus is to boil the round down to a few main points. Biggest tip I have: The points that you and your partner bring up should be identical. Perhaps each of you provides a different, interesting spin on these points, but they had better be the same points. Additionally, when you're making these points and pulling arguments from different points on the flow, tell me where you're pulling those arguments from. It makes it a lot easier for me to keep track and bumps your ethos up to 11. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Grand CrossFire:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I won't soapbox too much here, but I hate the Grand CrossFire. I think it's the worst thing ever, and I'm saying that as a person who watched Spy Kids 3. Don't fight with your partner, keep your cool. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Impact Calculus:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Do it. I prefer probability over magnitude. Increasing social equity is more persuasive to me than the economy, but that's not to say I've never voted for the economy.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I'm happy to entertain any questions before the round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">__**LD Debate**__ <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Speed:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’m fine with speed. I will give a verbal indication if you are losing me. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Value/Criterion:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Framework in LD debate is the crux of everything. If you're not doing enough work on the top of the flow, then the stuff you're arguing on the contention level is pretty unimportant. That being said, if you think you can win the debate under your opponent's standards PLEASE do so. I love to to vote for that. Creative and interesting standards are a plus for me, but I only like them if they're also creative and interesting in their application to the contention level arguments. Be explicit at the end of your contentions about how they tie back into your standards. I don't want to have to try to do the mental gymnastics of applying your contentions to your standards. That's your job. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Contention Level Argumentation:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Important only in how it relates to the standards. Weigh everything through that lens. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Philosophy:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I'm not an expert in philosophy. If your case is based around philosophy, that's fine and I'll probably love it, but you're going to have to do some legwork in making sure that I understand exactly what your philosophical approach to the question at hand is. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Critical Argumentation (Aff):** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">It happens. I don’t prefer it, but I’ll listen. Arguments that this debate round will stop some huge impact on a national scale are silly, but if the neg doesn’t answer it, I will be forced to vote for it, unfortunately. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Critical Argumentation (Neg):** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’m more than happy to listen to it. Make sure your FW arguments are good. I’m not as well-versed in the critical literature as you are, so underviews and overviews help me a lot. I can tackle most of the ideas presented, but just saying “everyone knows Judith Butler says x” probably won’t fly because I don’t know what Judith Butler says. I hate inspecific cap K's. If you tell me that "the judge telling us that capitalism is bad will solve for capitalism," I reserve the right to feel super important to the future of the world. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Performance Framework:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’ll listen to it. I don’t have much experience in performative affirmatives or other similar frameworks. Make your argument clear and understandable to those who don’t have experience with it, and I’ll be happy to vote on it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I'm happy to entertain any questions before the round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">__**Policy Debate**__

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Speed:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’m fine with speed. I will give a verbal indication if you are losing me.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Framework:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Obviously, framework is the main gateway issue of the debate. Without a framework debate, I will default to the stock issues. With a framework debate, the person who wants to change the framework obviously has the burden of proof. Winning the FW debate doesn’t necessarily win the round. I find it frustrating when a team wins the FW debate and then refuses to explain to me why that means they win the round. Please don’t do that. Given a framework debate, I will bend towards education and inclusiveness if those are the standards, but I’ll listen to whatever you have to say. I don’t have a large amount of experience in framework debate, so a fair amount of time should be spent here if you think it’s necessary to win the round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Topicality:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I love a good T debate. Absent arguments to contrary, I see topicality as a gateway issue. I don’t need proven abuse. However, if the affirmative makes the argument that proven abuse is necessary, and the negative does nothing to counter that, then I will live in that world. I firmly believe that the T debate is mostly won through the standards debate, assuming no dropped we meets. My threshold for T is probably lower than the community norm.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Inherency:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">This will make me unpopular, but inherency is one of my favorite debate topics. I often debate about inherency, and I find its relevance in policy debate to be dwindling, much to my chagrin. I am more than willing to vote on inherency, and my threshold is probably lower than most of the judges on the circuit. If you want to know my background on inherency, read Abrams and Novak in 1997 and Dave Trumble in 2010. Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with Trumble’s advocacy in the NFA journal, and the issue of ground is incredibly important when having an inherency debate. My personal bend on inherency is that gap/existential inherency is illegitimate. Obviously, I am willing to still accept it based on in-round argumentation.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Similar to my position on T, I love a good theory debate. On theory, there does need to be some substantial reason to vote for the neg. This can be an impact to a stock issue, education, fairness, or anything else. But you need to explain why that matters within the framework of the round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Impact Calculus:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">This is probably the most important thing. I prefer impact calc based on the “big 4” (probability, magnitude, time frame, reversibility). The best debaters, in my mind, give me reasons as to why their vision of impact calc is the most important to the debate. (“You should prefer probable impacts because…”). Absent that debate, I will be sad, but I will probably vote for whoever has the “biggest” impact. A debate without impact calc is a debate that REQUIRES judge intervention. Don’t let that happen. Please. I beg of you. I hate doing it.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Disads/Counterplains:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I feel like most disads can be beaten at the internal link level. It’s usually spurious to say that x leads to nuke war. However, my job is to judge the arguments made in the round, and not the truth. Perms are a test of competitiveness and not an advocacy unless otherwise argued in the round. Make multiple perms. That’s a good idea. When the negative presents a counterplan, they are giving up their right to defend the status quo.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Politics Disads:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Politics disads are always a lie. You know it to be true. But once again, I'm forced to defend my position of non-interventionist judging and say that I will vote on politics if it is won in the round. The most persuasive arguments on politics (for the affirmative) are on the brink. Because there is no brink. Except for one time, when we (UNL) had a scenario that literally said "Obama will need all of his political capital to pass x." That was amazing, but rarely happens. In most tix scenarios, unlike other disads, the link scenario is the most vulnerable to attack, unless a carded non-unique is presented in round. Carded non-uniques are going to be complete takeouts. Logical, analytical non-uniques are hard to evaluate, but I'll do it based on the arguments made in round. On the link level, plan popular usually takes out your inherency, assuming a lack of a structure. One of the most painful things to watch as a judge is when the aff bites the inherency press with a plan-popular no link. It just hurts.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Policy Argumentation (Aff):** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I prefer it. Plan texts are wonderful things. I don’t need a plan text to vote aff, however.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Critical Argumentation (Aff):** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">It happens. I don’t prefer it, but I’ll listen. Arguments that this debate round will stop some huge impact on a national scale are silly, but if the neg doesn’t answer it, I will be forced to vote for it, unfortunately.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Critical Argumentation (Neg):** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’m more than happy to listen to it. Make sure your FW arguments are good. I’m not as well-versed in the critical literature as you are, so underviews and overviews help me a lot. I can tackle most of the ideas presented, but just saying “everyone knows Judith Butler says x” probably won’t fly because I don’t know what Judith Butler says. I hate inspecific cap K's. If you tell me that "the judge telling us that capitalism is bad will solve for capitalism," I reserve the right to feel super important to the future of the world.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Stylistic issues:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Tag team Cx and talking to your partner during your speech are both fine. Obviously, it doesn’t show much depth of argumentation ability to not be able to get through a 3 minute cx or an 8 minute speech without your partner. I’ll allow it, but it may cost a speaker point for the speaker who needed their partner to help.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Performance Framework:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’ll listen to it. I don’t have much experience in performative affirmatives or other similar frameworks. Make your argument clear and understandable to those who don’t have experience with it, and I’ll be happy to vote on it.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Role of the Ballot:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you haven’t read Scott Harris’ NDT ballot from last year’s final round, I suggest you do it. I agree with most of what he says. The role of the ballot is to evaluate who won the debate round. That being said, whoever wins the role of the ballot argumentation in the round will determine how I use the ballot in the round.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Contradictory Negative Positions:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">This one is difficult to me. My stance on contradictory negative positions in terms of education and pedagogy are different than those I will use to judge with. First of all, I think that contradictory negative positions are bad for debate. The negative should have to present a clear, cohesive strategy that is consistent throughout. HOWEVER, if the affirmative doesn't catch the contradictions, the negative is free to cross apply and take home the debate when I am judging. If the affirmative notices that this is happening, the following conversation should take place in Cx:

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Aff: How does the judge evaluate contradictory positions?

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Neg: I have the right to hypothesis testing.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Aff: So won't my answer to (x position) be the violation on (y position)?

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Neg: I won't cross apply answers.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If this happens and the neg says anything other than "I won't cross apply answers," I will be very inclined to vote on an RVI based on fairness or education for the affirmative. Obviously, this argumentation would have to be more substantive than "RVI FAIRNESS" or "RVI: THIS ISN'T FAIR," but you catch my drift. That would be a very persuasive abuse story, especially if the Neg bites and cross applies.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I will always entertain questions before the round about my paradigm.