Gocha,+Alan

High school- 2 years (Groves High School) College- 3 years (1 University of Michigan, 2 Wayne State) Coach- 3 years (Dexter High School) Camp Lab Leader- 2 Years (Dexter and Traverse City Central) Judging- 4 years
 * Experience-**


 * How I evaluate the round**- I don’t believe any judge can be perfectly objective. In fact, I think objectivity is a hoax. However, I believe it is my job as the judge to remove my personal biases from the round as best as possible. I will listen to any argument and evaluate it by how it was debated. However, I believe it must be an argument. A claim without a warrant, or lacking any form of logic, isn’t an argument. I believe a dropped argument is a true argument. A dropped claim doesn’t really mean anything if it isn’t a complete argument. I would prefer if the debaters would tell me how to evaluate the round. I will evaluate the round based on what I am told to do by the debaters in the round, if I am not told what my paradigm should be then I will default to my own. Don’t get mad at me if you don’t like it, it is your job to help me avoid that.


 * Evidence**- I try to avoid calling for evidence, but in terrible debates and in good debates it’s unavoidable. I will try not to allow evidence to take precedence over debating, but if an issue is not a clear win for a team I may use evidence as the tiebreaker.


 * Arguments I have run-** I try not to let my personal beliefs about debate get in the way of my decision-making abilities, but ill let you decide. Here are the arguments I have ran to give you an idea.

Disads:

Pltx Wage Inflation Wage Deflation Deterrence Spending and topic specific disads

Cps:

Condition Consult Word Pics Advantage Cps Agent Pics

Kritiques:

Heidegger Nietzsche Absurdity (Camus/Park) Absurd Death Drive (Zizek/Park) Capitalism (Zizek) Baudrillard Deleuze and Guattari Cohn (Nuclear Feminism)

Performance:

Absurdity Performative Heidegger

Crazy Impact Turns:

Schopenhauer Wipeout Spark


 * Presumption-** Presumption can be debated, but I default to the paradigm below. I believe that the team that introduces the argument into the debate generally has the burden of proof.

Aff v Status Quo- flows negative Aff v CP/K – flows affirmative Topicality- flows affirmative Aff Theory (Condo Bad ext.) –flows negative Neg Theory (Multiple Perms Bad ext.) – flows affirmative


 * Theory and Topicality-** I think people are generally bad at explaining the full story of theory and topicality. If at any point you do not have an interpretation, a violation, standards and voters, you will probably lose in front of me. I believe that theory and topicality consists of all those parts (topicality also has a definition). Lacking any of those parts means you haven’t made a complete argument, regardless of what the other team says. I believe that rejecting the team on most theory arguments is illogical, but if you can honestly win it, do it.

Theory arguments I find more persuasive. Consult Bad Conditioning Bad

Theory arguments I think are less persuasive to drop the team. Framework on the affirmative Any perm theory MIFA rules


 * Permutations-** my biggest problem with high school debates on permutations is the lack of explanation of how the perm interacts with the net benefit. If the team you are debating is not incompetent, then they will have a net benefit (or at least a potential one). Explain to me why the permutation is better than the cp or the alternative. How the perm interacts with the net benefit and how whatever offense you have garnered on the cp and alt flow.


 * Kritiques-** My largest kriticism of high school kritiques is usually impact calculus. I don’t always know what the impact to the k is at the end of the debate. Ethics is a claim. Explain to me what ethics is in the context of the K, what the world should look like post alt and why that impact outweighs the Aff.

I change my speaker points based on my perception of the difficulty of the tournament and division. I will not dock speaker points for being a little bit of a jerk. I think that only hurts your opponents who you hit later. It isn’t fair to them that they hit a harder team who has low speaks because of attitude. They didn’t do anything wrong. However, don’t push me. I reserve the right to tank your speaks.
 * Speaker Points-**

27- Average 27.5- Average but you did something particularly interesting or smart 28- Above Average, maybe deserving of a speaker award 28.5- should get a speaker award 29- I wouldn’t be surprised if you were top speaker 29.5- I want you to be first speaker 30- Best speech I have ever seen in that division, ever.