Hello, I'm Jason Gajderowicz, or as students call me, Dr. G., and I teach Latin at Greenhill School. Please add me to the email chain: gajderowiczj@greenhill.org.

I used to coach PF as a middle school debate coach at St. John's School in Houston. Since then, I've been inactive in debate. I would encourage debaters to emphasize clarity over speed, and if you have to spread to get all of your evidence in, I tend to believe it's because you're letting your evidence speak for you. It can't. You need to speak for it!

--avoid unkind or hateful speech--I don't tolerate sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and will penalize you for anything of the sort.

--Ks and Theory are okay but have to be well formulated--they aren't an instant win. I don't consider language to be an imperialist construct, so start at a higher level than that, for instance. If you want to argue that capitalism is bad, tell me what it did and how and what would be better. Carry those Ks all the way to their logical conclusion if you want to win. You really need to deconstruct the status quo to use these well.

--Please weigh impact calculus as this will increase the likelihood that I'll vote for you.

--I generally start awarding speaker points at 28.5 and work up or down based on the quality of your delivery.

--I tend to evaluate debates through a more traditional lens.

--I tend to value truth over tech but you still need to work to convince me--I won't give you a W because I buy your argument a priori.

hemchandeisha@gmail.com

greenhill'21

rice'25

I am unfamiliar with the current years topic and am 3 years out of policy debate so make sure to explain terms/nuances

I was a 1a/2n for pretty much all of my debate career

you do you

tech>truth

pls flow

I prefer that you read a plan, but if you don't, it'll be an uphill battle for you to win if the neg makes any type of procedural fairness argument

Ks are fine as long as they are extensively explained and you're interacting with the aff arguments

long overviews make me sad and will result in low speaks

i appreciate line by line and heavy weighing of arguments

love DAs+CPs

I lean neg on most theory

for some reason, I really enjoy permutation debates against process cps

I love innovative case strategies; there's seriously nothing that impresses me more

impact turns are good except if they endorse racism, sexism, death, etc

above all, have fun!

Email: sethlee2024@gmail.com

Current Varsity LD Debater at Greenhill. Did policy for a few years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think in an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why there is some opportunity cost to that change.

1. Don't over-adapt to me. I'm fine for most of the strategies you will probably go for.

2. Speed is fine, just be clear. I'll tell you to be clearer if I can't understand you.

3. Tech > Truth unless the arguments are blatantly racist etc.

4. If online - make sure to be clear + a little slower.

5. Good for CPs, DAs, Ks, Case debating, Theory, Topicality, and maybe some Phil. Just no tricks.

6. Have fun!

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

toby.whiz@gmail.com

Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially trans-formative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.

1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.

2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.

3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.

4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.

Side notes:

Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.

Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.

Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.