Lewis,+Gabe

**Gabe Lewis** **Juan Diego Catholic High School 2011-2015 (1N/2A)** **University of Mary Washington 2015-Present (1A/2N)** **Rounds Judged on this Topic: 0**

Debate: I think that debate is an incredibly valuable activity and I hope everyone finds it to be enjoyable. In order for that to happen, debate needs to be an inclusive activity which means that I will not hesitate to give low speaker points and potentially drop a team for any offensive comments or arguments. This is my first year out of high school which means I don’t have the fastest flow. I think that debaters should be sure to slow down on tags and cites and ensure that there are pauses in between the end of cards and beginning of new cards. Also make sure you aren’t jumping from flow to flow because I flow on paper meaning it would help me tremendously if you pause for a couple seconds in between flows. I also think qualification debates can be incredibly interesting and think that debaters often get away with using underqualified evidence.

Paperless Debate & Prep Time: Prep time starts when the flash drive is out of the computer or the email is sent. I won’t be too strict on timing things like finding flows, setting up stands, etc. but it all needs to happen reasonably quickly. Stealing prep will result in a dock of .5 speaker points. When a timer isn’t running for prep, it is my expectation that debaters stop typing/writing/talking etc. Make sure that you are being efficient to ensure I have maximum time to evaluate the round and make a decision and you should be fine!

Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. I will evaluate it and vote based on the evidence and arguments presented however, with my limited understanding of this year’s HS topic, I’m going to need a lot more explanation than most other judges at this point in the year.

Disadvantages: I don’t care for lengthy overviews. Instead I think it is more effective to get right into the line by line unless you have a really long internal link chain. I like impact calculus and turns case analysis. For politics, the only way I am likely to vote on theory like intrinsicness or fiat solves the link is if they are conceded in the block.

Counterplans: I think that CP’s should have specific solvency advocates. Permutations need to have texts and also need to have an explanation. I feel that teams make permutation arguments with a variety of texts without explaining how the different permutations function. If you are going for a perm other than “perm do both”, explain what makes it insulated from the neg’s permutation offense.

Kritik: I’m not the best judge for these kind of debates. I am familiar with generic cap and security K’s but if its anything other than that, I’m going to need a lot more explanation. I’m unlikely to vote for any aff framework that excludes all K’s ever. Regardless of what K you choose to read you should assume I know nothing about the literature base.

Theory: I think that theory debates are usually very shallow and block dependent. CP theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. Performative contradictions are bad. Reading more than three conditional advocacies is pushing it. If you have any other questions about my preferences, feel free to ask me before the round!