Gilbert,+Colton


 * Background **

I competed in policy for three years in high school at Little Rock Parkview. I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. Two years ago I assisted in coaching Rogers Heritage High School and now I am the debate coach at Little Rock Hall High School. Any questions can be emailed to me at cgilbert1906@gmail.com


 * Randoms **

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole. Too often debaters focus on ethos and logos while forgetting that pathos plays a large part in judging our speech activity. While being rude in round will not make you drop my ballot it will cause me to punish you with a poor speaker point rating.

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game that challenges the mind like nothing else. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just to be run them, do not run your arguments if you don’t think they can win you the round!

I don’t mind speed but please do not go fast in front of me just for the sake of it. My ears are not as sharp as they used to be so when you read in front of me please be extra clear on your tags, authors, and dates. I would prefer that you slow down significantly on tags, authors, and dates that way you can blow through the card as fast as you would like. I also feel that slowing down on plan texts, CP texts, and K alternatives would be beneficial to making sure that I catch everything.

When debating in front of me do not call me judge, sir, or anything like that. I prefer that those who debate in front of me call me Colton. Mr. Gilbert is my dad and I don’t want to be called that because it reminds me of how old I am getting.


 * Theory **

I have a high threshold for theory. It will take a lot of legwork by the 2NR/2AR to convince me that my ballot should solely be based on a theory objection. That doesn’t mean that I am not willing to make a decision based on it depending on the round I am hearing. I find it very hard to vote a team up on potential abuse arguments. Instead show some in round abuse and actual ground loss and you will have an easy time winning my ballot.


 * Topicality **

I view Topicality as a game of competing interpretations. When affirmative’s fail to give me a counter interp, it is near to impossible for them to win my ballot. Arguments that topicality shouldn’t be a voting issue are hard to win in front of me but can be done. If you go for this make some comparative analysis that explains why being non-topical is outweighed by some intrinsic benefit your affirmative provides. Don’t waste your time arguing that Topicality is a reverse voting issue because it just isn’t.

In my opinion, the standards debate is not expounded upon enough in debate. Comparative arguments about why fairness or education outweighs ground are extremely important to me. I am also willing to listen to affirmative’s that articulate reasonability as a counter standard. If affirmative’s do this they must be ready to explain and defend why reasonability in this case isn’t uniquely abusive to the negative.


 * Disadvantages **

This is a tool that every negative team should be familiar with. My beliefs here are pretty standard and don’t involve anything quirky. I will evaluate any DA as long as the correct pieces are present (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impacts). Some may disagree with but intrinsic arguments on DA links are totally legitimate to me. This doesn’t mean that affirmatives can abuse this right but I do think they are legitimate tools that strategic affirmatives employ from time to time. I enjoy a good impact turn debate. Link turn debates are fun too but the affirmative MUST win that there is no uniqueness in order for me to evaluate the link turn.

I absolutely love a good Politics debate. While some people think that Politics DAs are not legitimate, I feel that they are very important tool that every negative team should employ. I love all flavors of the Politics DA; Elections, Political Capital, Process, etc. Just because I have a predisposition to them does not mean that I will vote neg just because they read them in front of me.

Impacts are very important to me. I love a good impact turn debate and I feel that this strategy of 2AC answers is under utilized. It is the 2NR/2AR's job to provide with a legitimate impact calculus that is round specific and not a pre-written block. The problem with debates on this issue that I see is that teams don’t do good enough jobs on the impact level of the DA. Good negatives need to articulate to me timeframe, probability, magnitude, and if the DA turns the case.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Counterplans **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I prefer to hear these in debate rounds. I tend to err negative on most theory objections on the CP debate. That being said I have no problem dropping a team based on a conditionality flow; I will default to rejecting the argument and not the team but a compelling 1AR/2AR combination can make me change my stance on this issue.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">I believe that CPs have to be competitive (functional or textual, as long as it fits under one of these); CPs also have to be net beneficial. Going for a CP with only a net benefit of “better solvency” is pretty much suicide in front of. Instead explain how the CP avoids the case turns or one the DAs that the negative team has in the round. I don’t abide by the school of thought that believes the CP has to solve for 100% of case. Instead if the negative can win that the risk of avoiding the net benefits outweighs the potential solvency deficit to the CP then that makes my job a lot easier.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Kritiks **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">These were never my preference when I debated, but that doesn’t mean that I will not listen/evaluate them. The K team MUST win their framework in order for the to take the Kritik serious. I find it infuriating as a judge when the negative team does not do an effective job at engaging the 1AC in their kritik. Winning a link to the K tends to be the easiest job of the negative. Generic links like “you used the state” will do nothing but irritate me and make it an uphill battle when attempting to win the K.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">The alternative debate is where most negative teams lose my ballot. Good negatives have the ability to explain what the alternative is, how it solves the problem outlined in the Kritik shell, and what the world looks like post the alternative. Too often negatives give me a vague alternative or a simple “reject” and expect that to be compelling enough for me to vote on. Instead the 2NR needs to do a good job framing the round around the alternative and explaining how it corrects the problems isolated in the 1AC.


 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Performance in Debate **

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">When it comes to performance in debate I do not have a strong preconceived opinion about them. If you chose to debate like this then you need to establish a framework and articulate why this framework is critical in solving whatever impact you may claim.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">When it comes to narratives I think that it is more legitimate to read your own narrative, or one similar to your experiences, than to read a narrative that you cannot identify with. Poetry, rapping, or anything remotely close to that needs to have a portion built in the argument about how I should evaluate the argument. Too often I have seen teams who do performative debate that do not take the argument seriously; if this is you then do yourself a favor and do not go for these arguments in front of me. If performative debate is something that you hold dear to your heart then by all means read these arguments in front of me.