Gugino,+Jack

Jack Gugino CK McClatchy High School Assistant Coach Previous TOC Competitor

I’ll just tell you what I would have wanted to know from a judge when I debated, any questions outside of my thoughts on debate, feel free to ask.

None of the things I say are entrenched views, good debating can change the way I evaluate the debate.

When it comes down to it, the winning team has chosen an argument at which both teams clash, and has explained to me why they both win the argument and why that means they win the debate. I default to the aff vs. the Status quo unless there is a reason to do otherwise (a CP or K with an alt). That being said, if you go for the CP or kritik I will not give you the status quo as an option for winning the debate unless you have debated and told me to do otherwise. I really like a good policy debate, in depth case debate, specific PICs w/ small net benefits, these are all things I really appreciate and would love to see from debaters.

Specific Arguments: Topicality – I default to competing interpretations. I think it’s pretty rare I’d say something is reasonably topical but its possible. I think that the main problem for negatives going for T is the impact debate. Explain some reason why the debate/debate community would be worse off if there aff is T. Don’t stop at, they explode limits, there’s so many affs if there’s that aff, impact the argument out fully. Counterplans – counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy are typically pretty bad. A team who goes for theory against these CPs is pretty likely to win. I would like to mention here that I believe in 100% defense for the purpose of going for a permutation. If you win that the net benefit has a zero percent impact and go for a permutation, I vote aff. Kritiks – Explain explain explain. Don’t assume I understand what you’re saying at all. I don’t really like reject alts all that much. They don’t make a lot of sense to me, explain why they resolve the link/impact portion of the debate and you’ll have a better chance at winning. Aff advice – attack the alt Neg advice – tailor your link arguments to make them more specific to the aff I think more debate should take place at the framework portion. Just like topicality, a lot of teams fail to explain how certain interpretations will effect debate as an activity or the debate community. I often see framework debates limited to, its not fair that they get an alt because there are infinite K alts! Do the next level of analysis and impact out the argument. I think the best teams will combine theoretical arguments on framework with substantive arguments about their philosophical approach or their alternative. The last thing I’ll say is that the impact debate is likely to be the most important come the rebuttals. I place a premium on the impact comparison of the 2nr and 2ar, so make sure it’s there. Please.