Hall,+Nate

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY 2014!!! Do whatever, it's cool. I'll listen/judge. Except theory, I don't want to listen to a much theory. **Truth can defeat tech**.

<> Nate Hall Westminster 2012 Berkeley 2016 So this philosophy has been parred down quite a bit. It used to be super ranty and just list things I like and things I don't like in order to get debates I wanted to watch/judge. Then I realized that might take a team out of their element, resulting in the debate being shittier than if they were going for their thang.

So, go for what is your best option based on skill/knowledge, but do acknowledge I have biases that influence how well I'm able to understand and evaluate a debate. I can be persuaded of anything in a debate. And yes, if you win on a bad t arg I will vote for you, but don't think that means I will enjoy voting for you.

Debates I enjoy judging K's Case/DA Politics Advantage counterplans impact turns Topical K affs specific pics

Debates I am less partial towards arbitrary T violations (emphasis on arbitrary - think t human) really really untopical aff's counterplans that do the entire affirmative Theory word pics

Alright - below are the explanations for why I do or don't like said things above. They are ranty, but might give you insight into my favorite parts of a debate.

** Things I do like **

**1. Impact defense.** I intentionally put this at the top of my list. I have gone for the same econ defense card 10+ times this year and I think people blow over the impact debate too often (considering it is the most ridiculous part of an argument). A couple of questions I’d like to pose: Does Nuclear war automatically escalate? Does escalation automatically lead to extinction? Does economic decline actually lead to war? Can the aff solve all the alt causes to warming? Which terrorists? Do relations actually get anything done?

**2. I do like disad/case debates.** I don't know how this is going to play out for transportation. Seems like topic specific disads would be rare but we'll see. Turns case args are a must for disad debates. Framing is important, explain what part of the debate you think you're going to win and why that impacts the rest of the debate. Often times in high school the 2ac will blow off some case args - capitalize on this and punish them. My dream 2nc is all case tearing each internal link and impact apart with specific analysis.


 * 3. I do like kritiks.** To put it bluntly - I am not a k hack. I’m not going to act as though I’ve read a whole lot of K lit: I haven’t. But I have been a part of many K debates (both as a 2n going for the K and a 2a defending against it) meaning that I do like how the debates themselves play out. I'm not going to immediately vote neg because "ontology comes first" Impact calc, link analysis and all that good stuff is important. My main irritant in k debates is when application is missing. Apply your K to the affirmative and the 1ac please.


 * 4. I do like topical K affs** - I think these are some of the most interesting debates because they provide a new way to evaluate the round. Also please note that just because you are reading a critical affirmative does not mean that you are forbidden from all policy arguments. Why not read uniqueness or internal link take outs to a neg argument? Don't do it if it contradicts some fundamental thesis to your affirmative, but if you are meeting the threshold for TOPICAL k aff, you should be able to do this.

**5. I do like advantage counterplans:** not utilized enough. Throw on the planks, make it solve the aff and give it a topic specific net benefit.

**6. I do like pics with literature:** If you’re aff be prepared to defend every part of your specified aff solvency mechanism. I will vote on a perm in an instant if the aff wins it's not competitive. But if the neg has ev specifying what concrete the aff solvency mechanism uses and why that's bad, aff you better have ev defending your concrete.

**7. I do like impact turns.** These debates have a tendency to get messy - avoid that tendency. Prolif, global warming and economic collapse COULD be good, whereas hegemony could be bad. There is NO LIMIT on how far this goes (I have read spark once before).

** Things I don’t like **

**1. I don’t like arbitrary T violations**: Unless you have nothing to say against an aff, I think the amount of time it takes to read one of these t violations in the 1nc could be better spent on case or highlighting more of other ev. This does NOT mean I won’t vote on T. I think that truly untopical aff's that depend on strange definitions should lose to T. Also, i f you have clearly won on a bad T interpretation I will vote for you, but carefully gauge what you think a “clear” victory is before the 2nr, because I may disagree.

**2. I don’t like counterplans that do all of the aff**. Consult, conditions, recommend, etc. cp’s are very susceptible to perms because they are probably true. If the negative goes for one of these counterplans do not be afraid to make a large part of the 2ar “Consult/Conditions/Recommend counterplans bad” theory. Often times 2n’s will be going off their blocks and not wholy engaging the theory debate. Look for the holes, penetrate and kill.

**3. I don’t like aff’s that are tangential to the resolution.** Again, do your thing - if you don't have a topical aff you are ready to defend in front of me don't freak out, I'll still vote for the side that persuades me. But I will vote on framework as a voting issue and I am strongly persuaded by neg args like stasis, limits and ground.

**4. I don’t like theory debates** - These too often come down to two categories, cheap shots and throwing blocks at each other. A claim without a warrant isn't an argument just because it's theory. Also, I will reject the argument and not the team for theory cheap shots. Also - I generally like conditionality, 1 or 2 options are fine, 3 is pushing it, However, will vote aff for a good 2ar on why condo is bad.


 * 5. cheating** - etiquette for team who is not cheating - do not point and scream "CHEATERS" mid-speech, FINISH THE DEBATE. If it's clipping, ask in cross-x where they marked the cards. I will be pretty alert at that point and may start recording the round (to be deleted immediately afterwards) in order to determine if cheating has occurred. If I deem it has, I will dish out 25's to the cheaters. Cheating includes card clipping, cross reading, falsifying evidence or any of that. If you think it's morally bankrupt, don't take a chance.

** Things I’m not sure how I feel towards **

1. Are agent counterplans justified? International counterplans?

2. Is the politics disad actually intrinsic to the plan?

3. Does uniqueness determine the direction of the link or vice versa?

4. What does reasonability mean?

**Side notes**

1. Be clear

2. Tech does not always precede truth, if you can convince me why dropping a few subpoints is not as important as your warrants I will vote for you. Pathos is underutilized in debate, convince me, wax poetically, emotionally engage me in your arguments

3. I will not kick the counterplan and weigh the net benefit and status quo against the aff unless I've been told to do so.

4.Don't be an asshole, unless you can back it up.

5. If you can make me laugh by a witty joke, expect higher speaker points. If you make me laugh because you are being dumb, expect lower speaker points.

6. It always annoyed me when judges gave lower speaker points to teams who crushed the other team, just because the other team wasn’t so great. I will give speaker points based on YOUR performance in the round, not the other teams.

Super side notes I like sports - go Falcons Kurt Vonnegut books Russian domestic politics US domestic politics

Dillon Jokes are my favorite