Nguyen,+Huu

Hi. I debated for four years at James Logan High School and am currently coaching there. I am studying physics and math at Berkeley.

I should be able to flow anything that's traditional/debate procedural. If your arguments are taken from continental philosophies, there's a chance I'll miss some of it cause I'm not well versed, nor will ever be, on that stuff. If you do plan on running something weird, slow down for my and your opponent's sake.
 * Speed**

I will default to a truth-testing paradigm, mostly because that's the framework I grew up in when I was debating. But, I understand the circuit has changed and am willing to vote for most anything as long as it's clearly explained as the better evaluative mechanism in the round. In particular, I am very ready to drop the clunky v/vc structure and endorse a novel framework that hopefully, lucidly clarifies the main issues in the resolution, and I will reward well-written and developed frameworks with good speaks.
 * Paradigm**

As for truth-testing, I have one gripe. Affirmatives stacked with a priori's will be met with low speaks. I find that the affirmative debater usually never thinks about how these interact with each other in the round, and as they are all meant to prove the resolution true a priori one way or another, there is no possible way they won't interact. That said, my issue with it is not theoretical on principle, but that it is usually not consistent under a truth-testing framework to begin with.

I have a high threshold on theory. By high I mean this: if I do not believe that it was necessary to run theory in the first place, you probably won't win on theory. If you run theory and win elsewhere, you'll probably get low speaks because you definitely didn't need to win on theory.
 * Theory**

I take issue with the fact that an argument whose truth-value depends on the unfairness of certain strategies is becoming just another strategy to win. To me that means that the argument just isn't true. The only remedy for this is if theory was reasonably necessary in order to win, then there is no avoiding using this argument for strategic purposes. Hence why I will vote on theory depending on how necessary I thought it was for you to win. As a result, while I will listen and evaluate arguments as to whether theory was necessary in the round, most likely my decision will come from what I perceived in the round to be legitimate or not. In most cases, I see theory as unnecessary. That might change depending on your round, but keep in mind that I won't be swayed easily.

If someone runs three generic disads, for instance, I'd much rather hear substantive case turns as opposed to conditionality theory. If you're not prepared to make case turns against generic positions, then you're just not prepared. If they run unique positions, then they deserve to have their arguments evaluated even if you can't respond to them substantively.

I don't judge many circuit tournaments, but I'll try to give speaks that reflect what the rest of the judging pool is giving. Expect 27's for average debaters (breaking even), 28's for good debates (winning record debaters) and 29's for people who I feel have a good chance at breaking. 30's for people who I feel should win the tournament.
 * Speaks**