Giusti,+Nathan

Nathan Giusti Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Years Debating: 1.5 college Rounds on topic: 0

History: I did not debate in high school nor did any of the schools in my district meaning that I have no idea how good you are, how good your school is, or why you deserve to win a debate because of who you are or your school. I debated for the first time last year as a college policy debater and I was pretty successful including winning the first novice breakout at CEDA as well as Western Junior Varsity National Championships. I am debating this year in open. I run kritiks, disads, counterplans, and my affirmative even has identity politics to an extent so I am open to just about any argument.

Background: I am a computer science major meaning any K reading I do is in my spare time which I don't have a lot of. I read a lot of news meaning I am pretty up to date policy wise.

Short Judging Philosophy:

Thinks I like to vote on:

Articulated theory Disad/CP Kritiks with AWESOME links that make sense Utilitarian impact calculus

Things I don't like to vote on:

Identity politics "Potential" abuse Non-normative FW

Long Judging Philosophy:

Overview: I will vote for just about anything, politics DA's, K's, FW. Just tell me why I should vote for you. I think debate is an educational game and everything you do is an attempt to win it. But even if you win fairness/education bad, I'll vote for you, because you are still playing the game and probably learning something.

You/Me interaction: I am still newish. I am not magic. I type fast, but not faster than you talk. When transitioning argument slow down/sign post/change your inflection for each new card/argument/etc. If you are unclear I will yell clear as many times as is necessary to understand you. Politeness is good. When your parents fight do you say "Yipee, I am going to take notes!" Probably not. But, I prefer funny people over nice, though your best bet is to be both. You really can't offend me. I don't believe strongly enough in anything for anything you say to offend me, so if you make an off color joke and I laugh, it's a good thing. If I don't, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It also means your arguments are not going to offend me. I am human, if you look at me during the debate you might see subtle clues based on my facial expression or whether or not I am typing. If I am typing/smiling that's good, if I am not typing/frowning, that's probably bad. If I look at you confused, explain your argument. If I look at you bored, move on.

Cards: I don't like calling for cards. If you think the other team is misrepresenting a card, point to the card, read the part that contradicts them slowly to me, explain why and move on. It makes you look more credible, your opponents less credible, and saves me from having to insert my opinion on the card. Otherwise I am probably just going to accept that the card says whatever the other team says it says.

Theory: I love (clean) theory debates. On dirty theory debates I'll try as hard as I can to evaluate them, but if I can't make up my mind, I'll call it a wash which means if you went for it, you probably lost. Be sure to impact out to education and fairness and tell me why it is important that debate is fair or unfair or education or uneducational etc. You also need to make concrete abuse claims about the round. You can win my vote on any theory interpretation but this is what I am inclined towards: Condo: Okay, but keep it to one K and one CP. Perms: Make as many as you want, severance and intrinsicness are reasons to reject the perm, not necessarily the team Dispo: Meaningless, it's condo dressed up and taken to the ball. CP's: Consult good, PICS good, Topical good, etc. Fiat: You might have to justify weird stuff (object, foreign, multiple actors, etc)

Topicality: I'll evaluate this like a theory debate or a da debate. I will by default make T the a priori issue, but you can win otherwise. Make concrete abuse claims (what ground/education/etc are you losing).

Counterplans: Counterplans should be competitive some how. If it becomes and issue, you should justify the form of fiat you use. There should be a reason I vote for the CP over the permutation. If the CP solves case, tell me how/why.

DA's: I write a lot of politics scenarios which means I read a lot of politics literature meaning the odds are I know your politics scenario better than you do. If you come up with a crazy but evidenced politics scenario, I'll be impressed and happy to evaluate it. If someone runs a politics scenario and you make analytics against it that are probably true, I'll evaluate them. If your analytic is read to refute a card, I'll lean towards the card. The best way to "beat" a card with an analytic is to frame your analytic as an interpretation or analysis of the card.

K's: I think K's are really interesting but I am probably way behind you on the literature which means if you are going for the K you need to tell me in terms your non-debating friends would understand, what this K means, what the link is, what the impacts are and why those should be the impacts I vote for. This means that I am not going to do any of this work for you so be sure to clearly articulate it throughout the debate.

Performance: I will listen to and evaluate performance debate, but if you don't mention the resolution and instead get up in your first constructive and tell me your life story, I'll probably tell you I'm sorry for your hardships, vote against you, and sleep sound. The key word is "probably" you can win this debate, but it is an up hill battle.

FW: I'll buy any FW you justify though again I like debates about the resolution. SURPRISE, I know me signing the ballot doesn't mean legislation gets enacted, I still think it is okay to debate about it. I like to vote on utilitarian calculus. I like debate. I don't think you are being discriminated against. I don't think debate is exclusionary. I don't think framework is genocide. Winning these arguments is an uphill battle. My assumptions on FW: You should defend the implications of a policy action.

Other questions: If you made it this far and still have a question ask me. I'll probably be in the back just messing around on the internet anyway.