Yu,+Victor

I did LD in HS and I am currently a NPDA Parliamentary debater for UC Berkeley.

Generally, you can consider me a fairly "tab" flow judge who is open to any type of argumentation with the following nuances.

1) Speed is fine as long as you are clear. Please slow down a bit when giving the author name and if you are giving multiple short one-liner analytics. 2) Theory- I am open to any theory arguments as long as they are warranted and you tell me how to evaluate them in round. All theory arguments must have warranted voters for me to vote on them (just like any other offensive arguments). Generally, I prefer to view theory as a matter of competing interpretations. I don't believe there has to be "actual abuse" in the round for me to vote on theory. 3) Critical Arguments- I am fine with any critical arguments as long as they are warranted. However, outside of the basic critical arguments (biopolitics, cap, etc.), I am not the most well versed in the crazier stuff (Deleuze + Guattari, Habermas, etc.) In fact, with me categorizing these authors as "crazy" you can probably tell how well versed I am in the critical literature. 4) Quoting from Ankur Mandhania: "I like it when debaters make debate accessible to everyone. I have a lot of sympathy for the outsider/underdog/novice, so be nice to them. If you're not, don't be shocked when your speaks suck. If you are, you will probably get the highest speaks I give all tournament, and make me say nice things about you to everyone I see for the rest of the weekend. Don't necessarily "go easy" on novices, cause I'll vote for them if they beat you, but do try to make the experience of debating a big shot like you less terrifying for them." 5) At the end of the round, I evaluate the arguments based on the warranting given, including the weighing analysis. If there is no real discussion of argument interaction, I default to my own intuitive evaluation as the debaters have left me with no choice. 6) I reserve the right to look up cards after round. 7) My field of study is History, and egregious historical misrepresentations and errors are a pet peeve of mine.
 * I have a low threshold for responses to RVIs and I generally do not vote for them as long as the other debater/team gives a decent enough response.

Despite the tone and tenor of my paradigm, I am generally a very relaxed and easy-going guy. Try to make the debate round enjoyable for me as a judge.