From JudgePhilosophies Wikispace:

Heidt, Garreth

I've been coaching LD for almost 20 years. I’ll accept just about anything, but the burden is on you to teach it to me. Thus my paradigm is one of education--being a teacher I have a good idea of what that’s about, and being a student, you should know what it’s about as well.

Your job is to teach me about why your position on the resolution is the one that should be the most valid in the round. As a teacher, you should strive for clarity and concision because education is a communicative act and a clear, concise message offers you the greatest chance to communicate successfully.

As far as adjudication, I need to know why something is important for me to learn in the round.  Whatever you chose to run in a round, then, should be explained so that I grasp the argument at hand, the support for that argument, and the reason why that argument is important in the round.A lot of that is self-evident, I know, but you should consider that I won't finish arguments for you.

Consider the round a type of test you're giving me. First, it should be clear to me what’s on the test and second why certain arguments are more important than others. If you write a test I understand and can learn from, you'll win the round. Thus, your victory is a type of merit pay.

Theory: I'd rather not vote on this. I think too many debaters use it as a way out of the more substantive ethical matters at hand. That said, I'll consider it if you run it well.

Critiques/DAs/ and other CX cross-overs: Sure, if you have the time to teach me, I have the time to learn. Just tell me how it's to function in the round.

Rebuttals: Crystallize and write the ballot for me.

Standards: They give me a clear manner by which to weigh the round. If you use a traditional value/criterion structure, then understand that links and impacts to standards are important to me, but they’re not the only way I’ll weigh the round. Given my paradigm, you could run anything else, so long as you are clear, weigh it, and tell me why it’s the best way to adjudicate the round.

I invite creative, innovative ways to frame the debate, but they require an extra burden on the debater’s part to make things clear and conscise.

put me on the email chain: tywang2020@gmail.com

previous experience: debated policy @ strath haven in 2016-2020 but haven’t really been active in the debate community since then

disclaimer: I have not listened to spreading in a hot second and I also have not heard any rounds on either LD or Policy topics this year so taking time to explain things is a good idea

general things: please disclose!! timing and such should be done by teams themselves! being extremely rude in cx or speeches will result in reduced points!!

==================================================================

Policy:

when I was in high school, I usually debated/went for more policy args, but K rounds were always interesting and nowadays I will vote for anything you can really convince me on

specifics args:

disads/counterplans -- very familiar with these as a whole and are good // don’t really know the ones for this year’s topic but as long as you frame and have nice overview/extensions you should be more than fine

impact turns -- love to see these pulled off well, but careful to take time with them and really explain all the components and how they interact with everything in the round

k's -- I am pretty familiar and open to the common Cap, Security, Bio, etc. args. personally I would stay away from high theory args with me unless you think you can explain them exceptionally well. I do believe that the k has to have specific args and links to the aff. I will weigh the aff against the K unless framed otherwise and so case turns against Ks are definitely something to consider.

k affs -- I never ran these in highschool and would often go T or Cap against them. i'm also open to these and will vote for them, and i also believe that the neg does have to interact with aff specific answers

t/fw -- fairness and education are both important impacts, but make sure to explain how the team has caused these abuses. make sure abuse story is clear. good interp/counter interp debates (and TVAs!) are convincing to me. I usually stand as a policymaker unless you frame otherwise and unless told otherwise the ballot is usually just a win/loss (but good argumentation can change this).

theory -- I would definitely prefer to vote on the substance, but if abuse is evident or theory is completely dropped (with good explanation on why I should reject the team), this is a viable option.

==================================================================

LD:

- I have essentially no experience with LD or this topic, so be careful to explain things thoroughly

- speed and most arguments (high theory is a little confusing but if you can explain it well go for it) are fine, but I do really value good extensions and warranted out args

==================================================================