Finch,+John

I am currently in my third year debating in college for Georgia State University. I am currently part of GSU FF, was previously FN and FS before that if you are interested in looking. I have been debating in varsity for a year and had some success in JV. I also debated in high school for Houston County for 2 years, mostly Varsity. I was FY in high school. I currently debate without using usfg action, meaning we have an advocacy statement and engage the harms we identify with narratives. I have debated this way at three tournaments now. Before that I was almost entirely policy, so I believe I have some familiarity with both ways of debating. K Affs I am largely alright with these. The less related to the topic you are, the more persuaded I will be by framework. I don’t believe that an aff has to defend usfg action, but should have a relationship to the resolution or perhaps some predictable ground for the neg. I am not going to vote down a K aff just for being a K aff though. Feel free to go for it. Framework I am largely not persuaded by this argument when it is used to tell me which arguments are allowed. A K against your policy aff is fine. If you want to run a K, DA or CP against a K aff, go for it. I won’t reject them on face. If you are running Framework as a way to tell me how to evaluate competing impacts though, then I am game. That’s important and needs to happen. Theory There is like a 99% chance that I am ignoring an arg that says one condo advocacy is bad. If It is flat out dropped, no answers, I’ll vote. If you say something like grow up or skew inevitable in that debate then I will probably allow the one condo advocacy. I also have no problem with one condo K and one condo CP, as that’s key to test different aspects of the aff. Two of the same argument may garner my attention in a condo debate and three or more of any will certainly. Any other theory I tend to fall towards reasonability on either side. Slow down here if you want me to flow all of your arguments Topicality There are two ways that I will vote on Topicality. If the aff entirely drops it, or if the neg has isolated some in round abuse or why this is just a horrible practice for debate in general. Otherwise I am not persuaded. This is near the end of the year, we have heard all of these affs. Reasonability is persuasive to me. If you put that in your aff answers, probably checks back that reasonability is arbitrary. If you had read about your judge, you’d know. Also slow down if you want me to flow all of these arguments. I am a human being. CPs Great. Be competitive. Re-explain your CP text in later speeches, especially if they are long, because like theory you tend to fly through these. Perms are cool. Ks Fine. I don’t know a lot of the lit, so explain it to me. And I don’t find reject alts very persuasive unless the argument is that we should reject in every instance. That means I hate: Vote neg, that way we can overcome cap. I Like: Reject all instances of cap because cap is evil. It’s a bad thing, don’t endorse it. Aff, tell me that I can vote neg in every other instance. Make a perm. No link. No alt solvency. And we will have a good debate where you have a good chance of winning. My speaking preferences There are very few debaters who are as fast as they think they are. If you slow down a bit and enunciate more, I will flow so many more of your arguments. And then you’ll probably win because I don’t know what the other team is saying. So do that. Also clearly differentiate between tags and warrants. I love flowing both, but the breakup makes it easier to know authors and dates are on the way, and thus makes all your recent evidence cutting worth. Differentiate. How I evaluate Rounds I try to only use what was said in the rounds and not call for evidence. That means whoever is doing the most warrant extension will probably win. I also think every team could stand to collapse more in the rebuttals and go in depth. Even if statements are great. Impact calc is great. I tend to use concessions to give a lot more weight to other parts of arguments on the same flow. Example: You concede the link debate, means I give a lot more weight to the impact debate you have some mitigation on.