Garvey,Chris

This is my first year coaching debate.

I am fine with any level of speed or argumentation, and tend to favor critical arguments. As with anything, if you cannot clearly articulate your argument or position, I will not vote for it.

I do as little intervention for you as possible, and tend to favor the team that does more analysis and explanation of warrants. If you are extending your tag and cite but not explaining the warrants of your evidence your opponents will probably win.

I don't really give 30s and 29s and 29.5 is really for an amazing debater. 30 for me is perfect. That being said, I also don't really give 26 or 26.5 unless you are doing really poorly. If you got a 26 or lower you were probably very offensive towards me or your opponents.

In terms of theory I don't really like to pull the trigger on reject the team unless there is proof of in round abuse. I could vote on a reject the team argument but they would have to be setting a pretty uniquely bad standard for debate. I think T is a competing interpretations debate and there is pretty much no convincing me otherwise. If you cant explain what your version of debate looks like then why should you win? I love a good fiat debate and can vote either way on it.