Van+Nest,+Daniel

Hey Guys So, things you need to know about me are that First-Im not the biggest fan of high speed (relevant to LD, pfers 99.99% chance you're fine, unless you're an asshole), but I can keep up pretty well as long as you slow down for tags and key parts of your warrants. Second, Interesting debates are awesome. I love people who are clever, smart, and put thought into what they say instead of pulling out blocks. If you're cool and strategic, you'll probably get a win 30 Third, Even if you do pull out blocks, awesome arguments are awesome arguments. If you have a really cool/unique take on the resolution, read it, and you'll probably get high speaks if you dont win the round. Fourth, If you're a util debater, I appreciate people who stick to their guns and do what they're good at. If you run stock stuff well, you're chill in my book

Fifth, extensions are critical for me, just like they are for most of the judges you have a little high-five with your friends/partner when you get (sorry that was a really mangled sentence, i promise im not illiterate) If you dont extend it, you dropped it. Sorry, but you have to be consistent. The exception to this is responses made in rebuttal for PFers, i think that the onus is on the person trying to extend the argument in this context to respond to the responses before the next speaker speaks. Sixth, weighing happens through the framework REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF DEBATE YOU DO. So if you tell me it's really bad that tons of people die from cancer and you can cut cancer deaths by 50%, great, but unless that means something in terms of the framework, it doesnt really matter (i promise im not heartless, just trying to be objective) If you don't weigh, you're making me weigh for you, and who knows, i may not see the round the way you do. Just as a stylistic note, please spare me "The standard is utilitarianism/deontology" that just makes me cringe and i probably will enter a catatonic state for several seconds as i try to regain my bearing and it might limit my ability to flow your case (this is sarcasm, but seriously, dont do it)

If you're a lder scoffing saying "ha those things in pf aren't frameworks," well, framework is just a word that has come to describe the lens through which the judge evaluates the round, whether it's a plastic magnifying glass you'd find in a kindergarten room or an electron microscope, it's still serving an analogous purpose. If you're reading this and thinking "ha i know why he wrote that" //this comment was probably written because of you, except that you have a terrible memory, so you won't remember why// IF THERE IS NO FRAMEWORK IN THE ROUND (MEANING NOT EXTENDED/NEVER STATED) I WILL GO OFF OF WHAT I FIND MOST COMPELLING. YOU PROBABLY DONT WANT THAT. But if your opponent is running something that implicitly has a framewor, you don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card and automatically win the round, you have to prove your own framework still. "he didnt extend myeh myeh myeh" gets a little annoying (but it does have its place) Pfers, you have to give me SOME framework.


 * bottom line, make arguments- i dont really care about format as long as it's clear, you don't have to read theory as a shell, hell if you want to have a thesis and make a constructive like an english paper i'd be down.**

Lastly, if you're a pfer and check this page, points 1-4 don't apply to you as much. I think people in PF who take advantage of opponents that think you're mispronouncing "cant" if you say "Kant" are assholes, and if you try to be all snide about it i will not like you. That being said, if you're good about explaining your point, a good case is a good case. Just tone it down if you went to philosophy camp or something. Also if you're in pf chances are you wont go anywhere near to fast for me. Oh, addendum- In PF, i see the Case and the Rebuttal as 2 constructives, meaning you dont have to make extensions. Extensions come first in summary. Also, the LDers reading this may cringe (if they read this part) but i will accept arguments made in Crossfire as arguments. I think if you can make someone look dumb talking about their own arg, they really dont deserve to win off of it.

So, as for reasons for this stuff, I'll go into my background a bit- i did 3 years of LD, with pretty minimal effort and corresponding success. That being said, I love creative arguments, like to think im pretty reasonably intelligent, and am as near tabula rasa as i think one can get-the only things that ill look at with any bias are probably things that make light of murder/rape/genocide, but that just means that if you say in round "yeah i think the holocaust was great" you better have a pretty sound logic. Im not going to drop you for anything you say, but there are things you can do that make me WANT to drop you, which probably wont help your chances because i think humans are pretty much wired to confirmation bias (that's not meant to be a subtle ha-ill-drop you, fear my god-like judge power, it's just a genuine warning).

This might be a bit of a long read/might make me seem a bit schizo so ill just stop here. Ask me any questions you have before the round, id love to answer, dont worry i dont bite. Im coming back because i like the principle of debate, and i hope i can contribute to a good round. Thanks guys! Ill see you in round, unless you're just pleasure reading, in which case i hope you found this entertaining. (You should also probably get a hobby, but no judgment from me).