Garvin,+Andrew

I debated for Mission San Jose from 2000-2003, winning the TOC my senior year. Subsequently, I coached the team with my friends Vikrum and Sanjeet. I taught at a few debate camps as well. I moved on in 2006, but I try to judge a couple times each year, and coach on the side on occasion.


 * Key Issues**


 * Speed:** Nearly any pace is fine. Emphasize with inflection the rhetoric you want me to record. I will say 'Clear' if I cannot understand you. If it is obvious that either your opponent or a spectator cannot follow your speed, I will reward you with higher speaker points for slowing down.


 * Theory:** Theory is a necessary evil to check abuse. As a no-risk issue itself - particularly in the context of a 5-speech activity - theory is often employed in an abusive manner. Consequently, I evaluate theory differently than I do the rest of the debate. Put simply, if a strategy/position/technique is objectively abusive, run theory. If the strategy is borderline abusive or not abusive at all, please do not run theory. On a related note, 'reject the argument' is of course more reasonable than 'reject the debater'. In practice, however, this distinction is moot since what is being questioned is usually fundamental to the person's strategy.

//To be explicit// - If your approach is to run theory for its strategic value, and not as a response to real abuse, you should give me a low preference. I will intervene against theory arguments where I believe the violation or interpretation is weak. If the violation is borderline, I will not dismiss theory, but I will discount it heavily in my decision-making. I recognize this is aggressive, but I expect you to adapt if I happen to judge you. Ask me questions to clarify beforehand if you are worried.


 * Abuse:** Of course, the difficulty with taking such a strict line on theory is that what counts as abuse is not 'objective'. As an attempt to define it broadly and succinctly, 'abuse' is the employ of a strategy that skews competitive balance. Here are examples of strategies I believe are abusive:

- multiple no-risk, asymmetric ways to win (e.g. multiple sufficient standards as the AFF, or multiple burdens as the NEG) - non-textual advocacies (i.e. a plan with no text to be bound to) - severance

If you are worried that I might consider your position abusive, please ask me before the round.


 * Non-Traditional Arguments:** I am open to any substantive argument regardless of how weird it is either in content or in form. This means that I am more amenable to critiques and narratives than the average judge (I am similarly amenable to plans/counterplans, but most judges are at this point). That being said, I try to think about things intuitively and simply, so give adequate translation of both your 'ballot story' as well as whatever complex rhetoric you use.


 * Speaker Points:** I give below average speaker points with high variance. The average score I give is between 26.5 and 27, though I will regularly give scores from 24 to 29. Higher scores are associated with politeness, responsiveness, weighing, clarity, substantive argumentation, and effective use of CX.


 * General Thoughts/Miscellaneous:**

1) Compare the arguments you are winning to the arguments your opponent is winning at the end of the round. A key phrase to use is, "Even if she's winning X, that doesn't matter because Y". Even an unsuccessful attempt to evaluate the big picture will net you higher speaker points.

2) I give a lot of weight to empirical arguments (in other words, if you have good analysis leading to an impact, but your opponent has empirics showing that impact, in actual fact, hasn't materialized, you'll have a tough time recovering).

3) I find extinction link-stories - as well as the conjoined 'infinite risk' weighing argument - to be extremely weak.

4) If there is a logical connection between arguments on different parts of the flow, I will consider their implicit interaction. Weighing/big picture analysis that crystallizes this interaction is welcome, but avoid the phrase 'cross apply' in the early speeches.

5) If you are debating paperless (and I hope you are), please flash/email/Dropbox what you intend to read before the round. If you decide what to run just before your speech, transfer the files quickly before your speech. If the transfer is taking too long I will let you know and deduct from your prep time. If you don't have a means to transfer your files, (a) why? you can buy flash drives at the dollar store, and (b) you must provide your computer to your opponent at their request.

6) I find it helps to list specific debaters in order to understand a judge's preferred archetype. To that end, my favorite debaters of all time include: Will Leiter, Catherine Tarsney, Tom Evnen, Nick Green, and Josh Anderson. In addition, I was coached by Anthony Berryhill - who influenced me greatly, and to whom I feel indebted.

Lastly, I tend to give long critiques, offering advice before my decision. Don't hesitate to ask if you would like help improving your arguments or strategy.