2018 2nd Annual Gary Gillespie Invitational
Northwest University - Apr 7-8 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Abbie Kruse - NU
n/a
Aine Foran - Seattle Debate
n/a
Alissa Neuman - Seattle Debate
n/a
Andrew La Mont - DUC
n/a
Angie Tinker - PacificLutheran
n/a
Austin Brittenham - Puget Sound
<p><strong>Overview</strong> <br /> ~I am a first year out college debater~<br /> I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school and 4 years in college. I went to the NDT in '15 and '16 debating arguments about embodiment (parli seems to call this performance), transness, and queerness. That being said my high school debate experience was primarily flex debating. I have a strong respect for the cp/ptx da combo. I mean to say no argument is a non-starter in front of me (I have voted on T, FW, terminal case defense, cp's, da's, k's, and theory). Please read your best arguments and I will invest myself in adjudicating what you have presented. To win my ballot just frame your offense and compare it to the other teams, generally. I think that's the core of debate no matter how you think about debate ideologically.</p> <p>Really, debate however you want and be prepared to debate your opponents. If you have a speed k, read it. You want to read one hege advantage with a lot of ethos, go for it. If you have 5 off and case, do you. You want to play a guitar and talk about Deleuze--cool. </p> <p><strong>My impulses as an educator</strong><br /> ~Msc Theory~ **</p> <p>I think that critical affs should either normatively defend something that isn't the squo or have a reason why their speech act/performance generates offense that is unique to each round.</p> <p>I think try-or-die is really vote aff on presumption which seems silly. Either the aff wins their impacts or they don't, try-or-die seems like a concession that the aff has lost the impact defense but should be voter for anyway for some reason.</p> <p>I think (logically limitted) conditionality is fine and am not generally inclined to vote on conditionality unless there is an in round impact or a team is significantly out debating another team on condo. It might be harder to convince me that one conditional cp/alt (especially if it isn’t kicked) is abusive. However, you can certainly go for this argument using a “model of debate” interp (i.e. their model of debate—condo good—produces bad debates because…). <br /> I think that "methods" debates don't necessarily mean that the affirmative doesn't get a permutation. Methods seem permutable to me. I think there are other theoretical arguments which warrant the affirmative not getting a permutation in particular kinds of debates. </p> <p>**These are just how I enter into a debate. Please obviously debate and win the arg and I will vote against my feelings. If this isn't helpful please ask me questions before the round. </p>
Autumn Little - PacificLutheran
n/a
Caleb Brasher - NU
n/a
Derian Lopez - DUC
n/a
Donald Kimball - NU
n/a
Douglas Feltham - Seattle Debate
n/a
Elizabeth Romero - NU
n/a
Gary Gillespie - NU
n/a
Jacob Witt - NU
n/a
John Swayne - NU
n/a
Natalia Chamaki - DUC
n/a
Oliver Demmert-Shelfo - DUC
n/a
Steven Douglas - SFU
n/a
Summer Ash - PacificLutheran
n/a
Tiffany Wilk - PacificLutheran
n/a