Gunn,+Ian

Ian Gunn debated LD for three years and is the head debate coach at Jesuit High School in New Orleans, where he coaches LD and PF debate. He previously served as an assistant LD coach at Jesuit for six years.

LD UPDATED (2/1/14) PF UPDATED (9/11/13)

__**PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE**__ No matter what your style of debate, I find that some form of framework to focus the debate is helpful. Additionally, I will look to vote for the debaters whose impacts weigh most heavily in the round. Weighing analysis on arguments is crucial.
 * DECISION-CALCULUS **

__**LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE**__ I will look for the easiest way to evaluate the round. In general, I will determine the round based upon the standard. You should link explicitly and clearly back to the standard for me to weigh your offense. I will typically vote on whatever argument is clearest and allows me to do the least amount of work. If you run a different type of framework, please make sure to explain the decision calculus you prefer me to use. Weighing analysis is crucial.
 * GENERALLY**

I am not a fan of Ks or similar alternative arguments, but I have and will vote for these arguments if you are winning them. However, I will not make any links for you - you must do the work. I've spent a significant amount of time away from elite-level LD debate recently and have found my capacity to handle speed is no longer what it was. It's probably in your best interest to not go at your top speed in front of me unless you are not already very fast. If I cannot understand you, I will say “slow,” “clear,” or “louder.”
 * SPECIFICALLY**

I will not vote on theory which alleges abuse that I do not consider unfair or uneducational. If you run theory in front of me you must run it to rectify real abuse in the round, not for strategic purposes. If you run theory for strategic purposes and ask me to drop an argument or a debater for practices which I do not consider unfair or uneducational, __ I will vote you down. __ Even if you are winning on the flow, I will vote against you for running theory needlessly.
 * THEORY**

What constitutes real abuse in a round is my decision as it concerns my ballot. Practices which constitute real abuse in my opinion include (but are not limited to): abusive remarks (racism, sexism, sexual harassment, etc.), positions which exclude the other side from accessing any ground under the resolution, positions which severely and unfairly limit ground, unethical practices (lying, purposely miscutting cards, other intentional misrepresentation, etc.), and other unfair or uneducational practices. Practices which do not constitute real abuse in my opinion include (but are not limited to): having to adapt to an unprepared strategy, having to kick one’s own arguments to win on your opponent’s side of the flow, arguments which appeal to structural issues in the activity (side skews, time skews, etc.), and any other practices which I consider to be consistent with the educational goals and fair parameters of debate.

Because I am limiting the use of theory to what I consider to be real abuse, if theory is run against you, it is most likely that a) you are actually being abusive or b) I will drop the person running theory against you. In either case a RVI is not necessary to check back the advantage of a theory voter. If the theory is not run to counteract real abuse, I will have already made the decision to drop the debater running theory. If the theory is run to counteract real abuse, then I will not evaluate the RVI anyway since I will likely be dropping you. I consider RVIs to be a part of the subset which is "theory arguments run for strategic or other purposes and not to counteract real in-round abuse, and which I will vote you down for running." This paradigm applies to AFC/parametricization, etc. I believe it is better to discourage these and similar arguments altogether.

It is still possible to win on theory in front of me. However, you must meet the above guidelines. Your theory must be in response to something that I believe is truly abusive in the round. If the issue is borderline and you think you can convince me that the practice is abusive, I will hear you out and will not vote you down for attempting to go for theory. In such a case I would evaluate the debate normally, determining who wins on theory and other arguments in the round. If an abusive practice does occur in round and you decide to run theory, please note that I default to drop the argument, not drop the debater, so you will need to clearly explain to me why theory is a voter if you want me to vote on it. You will need to explain thoroughly and clearly how the violation constitutes abuse in the round and I will not make inherent links for you.

__Please take this theory paradigm seriously. I will not tolerate the running of theory for strategic, trivial, or other reasons, except to combat what I consider to be real abuse. I will drop you and drop you immediately. You will receive the lowest speaker points I can convince myself to give you. This paradigm applies to both prelims and outrounds.__

If both debaters violate my preferences regarding theory, I will drop the debater who violates the paradigm more egregiously. I alone will make that determination and will not listen to arguments made by debaters in round that one has violated my paradigm worse than the other. Both debaters will receive low speaker points as well. If this situation occurs at a tournament which somehow allows double losses, both debaters will receive a loss.

If I drop you on theory for the above reasons, it is not because I dislike you or because you are a bad debater or any other reason except that you ran theory in a manner that I explicitly do not wish to see in rounds any more. I have changed my paradigm to respond to the prevalence of theory arguments of this type, which I consider to be bad for debate for a variety of reasons.

I enjoy cuts and fundamentals. If you do too, you may receive more speaker points.

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round.