Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

My email is aobrienslc@gmail.com

I am the PF coach at Park City High School and I am a first-year out from Park City. I competed in PF all four years of high school on the local and nat circuit. I went to the TOC my senior year. I am currently attending the University of Utah.

Tech > Truth

Please weigh and make sure your weighing is comparative.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

I can handle speed but I don't enjoy spreading. If you're going to spread, send a speech doc.

I determine speaker points by looking at your strategic decisions in the round and also how much I enjoy being in the round with you. Please do not be a bad person, I would not like that.

I won't call for cards unless you explicitly tell me to call for them and if that card would play a significant role in how I decide the round.

Unlike what some would have you believe (Cody Rutkowski), debate is a game, so have some fun with it.

I'm fine with and generally enjoy theory. Don't be abusive with it, make sure your opponent is familiar with theory or has extensive experience in debate before running theory. If you run theory in front of someone who doesn't know how to respond to it, I will evaluate it but I will give your opponents a lot of leeway in responding to it. Theory is the one argument where I believe in Truth > Tech

Truth > tech

I like stock cases argued and explained well. Cross ex totally matters, in fact I have voted on convincing, strategic CXs in many a bid round. Summaries should weigh. Call it "old tymey” PF.

Strike me if you have a super long link chain, do not address the topic, or talk super fast. Humor is great!

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City. I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I did PF when the summary was 2 minutes long and most people were liars.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

I occasionally judge policy and LD. Consider me a lay judge in these instances.

A sense of humor is greatly appreciated.

Err silly and down to earth over dominant and aggressive.

If you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears. Clarity, explanation, organization, and the use of full sentences dramatically increase my speed threshold.

Impact comparison is very important to me. The team that makes the most "even if" statements tends to win my ballot.

Resolving competing claims is important. The team that makes the most "prefer our evidence/empirics/warrant" statements also tends to win my ballot.

I am not impressed by teams which analytically claim to "pre-req," "link-in," or "short-circuit" their opponents' offense. These arguments are often strategic, but are strongest when predicated on warrants and data from quoted evidence.

The probability of an argument being true in my decision is derived from the happenings of the debate. I do not think it is a form of impact comparison, nor do I have some lower threshold for answers to arguments I personally disbelieve. If an argument is silly, it should be easy to answer.

Arguments you expect me to vote on have to be in summary and final focus.

Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

I will never vote on death good.

Disclosure and Email Chains:

All cards must include full citations and clearly indicate the cited text. These are the NSDA rules; anyone who does not meet them should strike me.

Please utilize an email chain to share speech docs for constructive and rebuttal. Title it something logical and add gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com. Please also add nuevadocs@gmail.com.

I won't read the email chain unless I am instructed to read a specific piece of contested evidence.

Prep ends when the email is sent.

You should be marking your doc during your speech. If you choose not to, then stop the round after each speech to do so, I expect you to take prep.

If you think you have done a particularly stellar job disclosing, say so. If I agree, I will boost your speaks by a few tenths.

The K:

I have coached K teams and tend to find critical arguments very interesting.

That said, it has not been my focus as a debater or as a coach. Consider me a lay judge in this realm..

Theory:

I tend to think that paraphrasing is probably bad and that disclosure is probably good.

I dislike how specific some of the interps I've seen recently have been. I don't have strong opinions about open-source, rebuttal disclosure, round reports, author quals, or the like. I want teams to disclose and quote evidence, but I'd strongly prefer not to evaluate theory arguments that demand more than that.

I find these debates painfully boring, as they are generally regressive regurgitations of arguments I've seen someone else articulate more persuasively. Speaker points will reflect my disdain for the strategic use of theory.

IVIs:

Nope.

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Collapse.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Because I coach, I am very familiar with the resolution you are debating.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously. Please do not be condescending to your opponent during cross.
• Weigh.
• I am an experienced coach and judge. I know the rules. Win the round fairly (because your arguments/analytics are better). It's that simple.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us