Gavin Gill Paradigm

Last changed 11/12 3:42P CDT

Recent Graduate and current Vanderbilt Coach; Debated for Vanderbilt 2014-16 (Novice, JV, and Open)

Email chain is usually easiest and most efficient, so use to add me to the chain.

As you can tell from the above description, It's been a few years since I've been in the policy world, so bear that in mind if you're planning on spreading up a storm. When I debated, I could flow with the fastest of them, but I wouldn't count on my ability to track your unwritten analytic arguments in your case at 400 words per minute. That being said, I will always do the utmost to follow everything, and I will shout "clear" if you exceed my rusted limits.

Another important caveat: I currently coach for Vandy with my main focus on developing its new parliamentary team. I've read up on the topic briefly, but don't expect me to be an expert on the acronyms that tend to emerge throughout the year. Expand them the first time you use them, and I am amenable to their use thereafter.

Onto the fun stuff:

I, in somewhat classic Vanderbilt style, mostly utilized policy arguments. While I enjoyed K's on the Neg, I only ran 1 K-Aff as a 2N during my time in college, so be aware of my potential limits in terms of familiarity with the literature. I prefer topical plans, but am adaptive depending on the round. Remember: it's your job to frame the round and explain how I should vote. Do your work to that end in defining and defending, and I'll vote accordingly. If you're running a nontraditional Aff, you'd better explain why I should believe you should win. Make arguments, not mere assertions, that effectively determine the role of the debaters, judge, and the space/round if you want your case to survive.

On Topicality: I love T debates. This is definitely a gatekeeping issue in terms of fairness and the purpose of the debate round, so it should be covered effectively if you're going to go for it. Again, don't waste anybody's time with assertions that lack impact or warrants, as shadow extending a T-Shell is likely not going to do you any favors. Develop and flesh out the debate, as I never have a de facto vote. That being said, I'm sympathetic to fairness arguments so long as they are well made, expanded, impacted, and interacted with the other team's defense. Do your work, or else it's a throwaway argument.

Case/DA's: Specificity is preferred to generality, the argument is only as strong as the link chain, I'm sympathetic to interpretations of probability when evidence supports it, and I need work done on how to weigh the arguments and why if you expect me to vote on them.

CP's: A great tool with a potential for abuse. Conditionality is cool, so long as you don't run too many. My sympathy to the aff's claims of abuse increase with the number of conditional counterplans, so you should have proportional defense if you're running multiple conditional CP's. I will always vote on a fair permutation if the neg can't prove unique net benefits.

Kritiks: I'll admit, I enjoy a really well done K. I like to think I'm decently well-versed in the literature, but I'm not an expert on every esoteric academic out there, and I require a fair degree of work on interpretations and framework if you're going this route. I will say that splitting a Neg in a way where the work on the K assumes a moral high ground that also attacks your other arguments leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it's not impossible for me to vote for it if the other team doesn't explain why this is bad/unfair/whatever. As noted in the rest of my paradigm, do your work whatever your side, and I'll vote according to what happens in the round.

Framework: The bedrock of the debate. Two teams with radically different frameworks need to clash to define the round with well impacted arguments. Don't just assert your framework is better, or you'll leave it up to my preferences which might not be in your favor (and certainly aren't great for me to impose as a judge, in my view).

So, I hope it's clear that I'm game for whatever you bring to the round, but you'd better bring it. You don't win without clear and effective clash and framing, and I'm happy to vote for whomever does what is necessary to clash well, fairly, and with proper work done in the round.

Good luck, have fun, and enjoy the sport.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
GSU Atlanta Season Opener 9/14/2019 JV R5 Wake Forest SD Liberty CI Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 VCX R6 Montgomery Bell FM Paideia HT Aff
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R4 Woodward LH USN CH Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R2 Henry W Grady RW USN CW Neg
Samford University Bishop Guild Debate Tournament 1/12/2019 NCX R1 Montgomery Bell GL Woodward SS Neg
ADA Fall Championship 11/17/2018 JV R8 George Mason BK Emory/Minnesota KG Neg Neg on a 2-1
ADA Fall Championship 11/17/2018 JV R7 Emory/Minnesota KG George Mason AS Aff Aff on a 2-1
ADA Fall Championship 11/17/2018 JV R6 Central Florida DJ Liberty CS Neg
ADA Fall Championship 11/17/2018 Nov R5 George Mason DS Indiana VL Aff
ADA Fall Championship 11/17/2018 JV R4 Central Florida SF George Mason AS Aff
ADA Fall Championship 11/17/2018 JV R3 Emory LL Indiana HO Neg
ADA Fall Championship 11/17/2018 JV R2 George Mason BK Indiana BB Aff
ADA Fall Championship 11/17/2018 Nov R1 Navy SW George Mason BM Neg