Schools/Affiliations: Program Manager - Tulsa Debate League, Coach - Charles Page HS - Coach Webster HS

I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years, advancing to late rounds at nationals

I’ve coached, in one role or another, for 22 years

General Paradigm
Left to my own devices, I’d approach the round from a policymaking point of view, but I know that few rounds boil down to such a paradigm. In light of that, debate is a game of sorts and I’m willing to let the debaters decide how it should be played. I can’t see myself voting against an affirmative on a stock issue like inherency.

Speed
Clarity, of course, is key. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

I will vote on topicality. I think the negative has to construct a fully formed argument to convince me I should do so, complete with a reason that the violation committed by the affirmative is worthy of giving them the loss. I’m not as inclined to be convinced by a reverse voter argument in t, but affirmatives can defend themselves by attacking one or all of the components of a typical T argument and win the issue. Other procedurals tend to get decided based on actual, rather than, potential abuse.

Kritiks

I debated before kritiks were a thing, so that’s fair warning. Having said that, I’ve voted on them many times, but profess a lack of deep knowledge on some of the more theoretical positions. Deep theory, you’ll have to tell me what to do. Despite my knowledge about some of the authors and their positions, I’m usually able to discern when the student speaking knows as little or less than I do. I prefer that if you’re going to make the k an issue, that you know it inside and out, and be aware of the inherent dangers in speaking quickly to a judge who may know less than you do, and who you are trying to convince. Real world alts are pretty much a requirement.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

Hi everyone! My name is Emma Gavriliuc and I'm a junior at the University of Michigan (Go Blue!)

Yes, put me on the email chain: eagavriliuc@gmail.com

Experience:

I did PF for one year and am now an assistant coach for our middle school pf and policy teams. I've done policy for four years so I'm fine with speed and just about any argument, but if you're unclear I will not try to decipher your arguments for you. Clarity over speed always.

For Policy Debate:

Top-Level:

• I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates.
• Again, send me the docs. You have my email.
• Card quality and recency is huge - evidence quality in general is an important and valuable component
• Share docs with all parties, if it's a new aff I will still chalk non-shared docs up to the aff simply being bad.
• Generally against war-good arguments, I see very little persuasion and relevance. They're just not convincing
• Use Cross-X effectively and bring any arguments through to your speeches, I will not flow cross-x but its valid if it comes up in your speech later

How to sway me:

• Give me a clear picture and clear understanding of the world you are presenting
• Evidence quality is important - so is recency
• I enjoy and will be more persuaded by a slower debate with strong arguments and evidence. If you're faster, I can and will follow - but please
• The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction.
• If you laid a trap, tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.
• Have, utilize, and explain internal links!

What I don't like

• Word PICs - unless you genuinely think you can make me care and that it will change the course of the debate, I think these are just silly
• Negs that start with 9 + offcase positions, I prefer quality to quantity. It's, of course, fine to start with more than what you end with - but please don't just throw things out there for the sake of wasting time
• Offensive language - don't do it. Don't be rude to your partners, your opponents, or me. If you're rude or offensive, it will drastically impact your points and my perception as well. Just be nice
• No old camp blocks - I've seen them. Try not to use them. It won't lose you a round, but you can do better and the round will be better as a whole with your own blocks as well

Topicality:

• Be intentional with topicality. Make sure you have all components of topicality included in your shell. Make it relevant to the round and topic and please do flesh out any impacts associated
• That said, I like debates that have stories. I like debates about real topics with real clashing of arguments. Use topicality if you want, but not to the extent that the debate loses the essence of the topic at hand.

Critical affs:

• Is there a role of the ballot? Make that clear
• Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…
• A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments

Kritiks:

• Not a fan of high theory, but I'll listen to them
• Framework is huge - what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?
• Please please please be clear and consistent with what your alt is
• Perms are really persuasive to me - if you want to win against a perm be really careful with the arguments you're presenting and how you go about it on the neg. I tend to vote aff on perms but I do get excited by negs that respond well and can convince me otherwise

Disads

• Overviews on disads are good - please do include
• Focus on internal links here please

Counterplans

• Please have a specific and clearly described solvency advocate and solvency mechanism
• Consult and conditions counterplans are probably illegitimate - if you think you can convince me otherwise, please do give it a try

Theory/Rules:

• I guess they're fine but flesh the impact and value of these arguments

*

For Public Forum:

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. What you give me is what I will weigh.

I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that build a persuasive argument.

I can tell if you haven't listened to your opponents arguments so please do yourself a favor and actually flow.

I will be updating my paradigm frequently based on things that I do and do not want to see.

When Speaking:

- Be confident but don't be cocky

- Be clear

- Remember that you're trying to persuade ME not your opponents.

Do:

- Clash with each others arguments rather than simply reiterating your own points

- Extend the arguments that you are winning on

- Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments (evidence comparison makes me happy)

- Clearly explain to me how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument

- Defense is good, but don't overlook offense

- Organize your speech strategically please

- Tell me what your winning on and what your opponents have dropped as well - leverage these things

Don't:

- Say anything rude, offensive, insensitive, or derogatory - none of it will fly with me and it shouldn't fly with anyone else either

- Speak over opponents or your partner in round

- Just say that you won without proving to me why I should actually vote for you and why your arguments have won you the round

I look forward to watching you debate!