Garber,+Daniel

I debated for four years at Mountain View High School (CA), and I am now at Harvard, potentially concentrating in Economics. I reached octafinals and then quarterfinals of the TOC and have taught at the National Symposium for Debate twice.

Set up a framework and impact back to it. It does not need to be a value-criterion structure (critiques and theory are fine), but I need to be persuaded that it is a reason to vote for you in the round. This is easy to do with V/VC, so if you doubt your ability to set up a ballot story, default to V/VC. Likewise, you need to be showing that your arguments link back to that framework in order to win the round. I will vote on many things. The things I do not vote on are (a) one-sentence blips (b) arguments that I don't understand (c) arguments that I find highly morally reprehensible (it's pretty hard to piss me off, but don't push it by advocating genocide...) (d) incomplete arguments.

I enjoy a wide variety of philosophical positions, as long as they're well-warranted. Utilitarian arguments are still better framed in terms of truth-testing, though, since I think comparing worlds is an incoherent philosophy. You can argue for comparing worlds, but it will be an uphill battle.

Speed is fine. Slow down on tags and, most of all, card names. I am willing to call cards, but analytics only rarely.

Spikes are generally not complete arguments when read in the AC. The NC should try to catch them, but I allow the NR to contest the importance of the one-sentence spike relative to a well-warranted position.

Things that are probably illegitimate: multiple prestandards issues, multiple standards, multiple conditional counteradvocacies, topical counterplans.

Explain critiques. If they are not arguments, I will not vote for them. In general, complete arguments are good. T should have some semblance of an interp, link, standards, and voter; a disadvantage should have uniqueness, link, and impact, even if those parts aren't labeled explicitly in a shell structure.

I think RVI's are a critical check against theory-heavy NC's. That said, most debaters run RVI's terribly. You need a counter-interp and offense to that interpretation, as well as weighing analysis. “I beat his theory, so I win” alone is never an acceptable way to win the round.

Respect each other and the judge.

Fairness is always a voter.

Good fast debate is better than good slow debate.