Garvey,+Tom

Debated 4 Years in HS Currently in 3rd year debating in College

Big Picture: 1. I am kind of a sucker for technicalities - too often teams in high school go for a DA without extending an impact, and only focusing on trivial arguments made; or going for T without extending an interpretation. It's fairly easy for me to agree with a 2AR that says the words "there wasn't an impact extended." Likewise, if the 1AR concedes turns the case args, etc... 2.All arguments made need to have a claim, warrant, and impact. I won't tolerate tag-line extensions in the 2NR/2AR. a. it'll hurt your speaks b. it would very hard for me to vote for an argument when I have no idea how it came to be true. 3. Ethos is important - cross-x time is valuable and should be treated that way. There is also a clear line between strategic, smart, and offensive vs. being an ass-hat. Being the latter is distracting, might hurt your speaks. It will __**drastically**__ hurt your speaks if you are a jack-ass, and straight up wrong about the issue.

Counterplans: Should be conditional. I think the 2NR should always get the status quo as a logical option. The CP should have a solvency advocate, or at least something resembling one. This subjective standard is usually met for me if a CP contains some support for the agent, process and action of the CP. For this reason I'm sometimes supportive of questionable strategies (i.e. QPQ) that are grounded in a policy proposal from the literature v things like agent CPs that aren't.

Disads – There is not “always a risk” of a DA or advantage in the absence of offense. I think that offense/defense is a good paradigm up to a point. However, if I can’t imagine a plausible world in which a DA/advantage would happen, I’m comfortable saying that there’s no risk. Impact calc handles most of my thoughts above. I don't know why more high school teams don't just strap in for a DA, block out the 10 common responses and roll. I have a love/hate relationship with politics -- love the impacts and *evidence comparison* but often wince at the lack of internal links or *evidence quality.*

K’s – are sometimes my favorite arguments. However, when done poorly, I know few pains more agonizing. I think these debates are generally well-served by a clear advocacy, though that doesn't necessarily require a text. It is much easier for me to envision why a particular permutation is bad if it is weighed versus a well-defined advocacy. For example, it'll be hard for me to call the AFF's perm 'intrinsic' if I don't understand the alt. I think that a real solid K debate is one in which the negative draws some specific link warrants out of their evidence to the affirmative. I think that this is not only an effective strategy in burying the 1AR with a link wall, but I think it will also help me as judge. As far as framework issues go, my general feeling is that the affirmative should get to defend the plan and that negatives should get a test of thier framework. I can certainly be persuaded differently. I would have no problem voting for reps first, should the negative win that argument.

Theory – I love thinking and talking about theory but judging it usually sucks because of how it's debated (lightning speed, few comparisons, sloppy technique, etc.). I'll say that I've never heard a persuasive reason that theory is a reason to reject the team and not just the argument. I understand that sometimes the 2AR is in a tough spot and needs to go for theory, but I'd be wary.

CONDITIONALITY could be good or bad but most of these debates miss the mark by focusing on the *number* instead of *types* of advocacies. If the Neg reads 3 conditional advantage CPs that don't reduce military presence, the Aff gets tons of add-ons without any time or strategy issues. However, a States CP or Word PIC forces Affs to choose between well-underlined offense and well-developed theory. The desirability of an interpretation hinges more on the available number of good 2AC responses than the total number of negative advocacies.

PROJECTS can be good or bad. On the one hand, I think any activity that wants to survive should promote inclusivity and self-reflection. I think these ways of studying debate introduce something valuable to the community and can promote genuine reflection. On the other, I've watched some of these rounds develop into uncomfortable back and forth accusations. I appreciate resistance driven by passion and purpose and tempered by patience and personal willingness to engage others. Whatever you do or defend, whether its framework or critical pedagogy etc, always maintain your vision. I'm not sure I would be the best judge to adjudicate these kinds of debates, being as I am not in them or witness them very often. I will say it now, I do not think links of omission are strategic, competitive, or persuasive. Calling an individual racist or that their strategy is a product of "whiteness" without a real reason would probably be a non-starter with me.

CASE should matter so much more in most rounds I judge but rarely does. If you're going for a Disad (even with a CP) there should be case in the 2NR (unless there isn't really a solvency deficit).