Hartman,+Luke

**Background**
I debated for four years at ONW, debated for one year at K-State (where I'm currently a fifth-year senior), and am in my fourth year as an assistant coach at BVN. I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them. I don't pretend to be truly //tabula rasa//, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate.

Rounds judged (education topic): 41 Rounds judged (career): 185

**General Comments**

 * I'm **far** more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments -- not the other way around.
 * The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, //but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s)//.
 * My least favorite type of debate is the "card war". Don't just read cards -- make arguments. argumentative clash = best debates
 * I love cross-x. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your cross-x well (i.e., if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase. [Credit to Nick Miller for most of that sentence.]
 * Author quality is important. I am willing to assign near-zero risk to a card about Arctic war causing extinction if it comes from a dude with an associate's degree in underwater basket weaving.
 * I enjoy a good joke (and occasionally a bad one).
 * Overviews in the 2NR and 2AR are strongly encouraged, and so is impact calculus. Those things can easily be tiebreakers in close debates.

**Topicality/Theory**
The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not a response that generally makes much sense unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is //not// reasonably topical. //Remember, I have to be able to write down the things you're saying to ensure that I make the correct decision, so please please please do not blow through your T/theory blocks at full speed.// I'm slightly aff-leaning on questions of the legitimacy of "fringe" CPs such as Word PICs, Conditions CPs, and Consult CPs. On conditionality: it's generally fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; if your a-strat is to read 10 conditional advocacies, you should probably go home and [|rethink your life].

**DAs/CPs**
Yes

**Kritiks**
I am not especially well versed in high-theory critical literature, so do what you can to avoid burying me in incomprehensible jargon (especially if you're reading something like DnG...or, preferably, just don't read DnG). There __must__ be a coherent link story in order for me to be willing to vote for a K. I am probably persuaded by permutations more often than the average judge, and I tend to be skeptical of alts that seem utopian and/or impossible. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate; K debates should center on the question of whether or not the alt is a comparatively better option than the plan. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. Please avoid reading from dead French philosophers if at all possible.

**Evidence**
For the most part, I only call for evidence when (a) there is an in-round disagreement about what a card actually says, or (b) a debate is intensely close. I will not waste my time (or yours) by poring over unchallenged evidence and examining its quality. Likewise, if a tag/argument unclear to the point where I can't understand it, I won't go back to the speech doc to rectify the problem. Debate is a communication activity, and recreating the debate after it's over abandons this principle.

Last updated 1/14/18