Tartakovsky,+Daniel

Updated 4/11/16

Affiliations: Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA), Harvard-Westlake (CA). Also conflicted against Apple Valley. Email me at dtartakov@gmail.com with any questions.

Edit for TOC: I am not going to follow along on the speech doc. You need to be clear. It is not my fault if I don't understand what you're saying. Before beginning your speech, imagine reading more slowly than you usually do. Then slow down more. Then start.


 * General: **


 * I am willing to vote on any argument as long as (a) I understand it (b) it has a warrant, and (c) it is not actively offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise).
 * I default to evaluating which debater's advocacy is preferable, so I won't vote on skepticism or permissibility (or any other argument that doesn't show why voting for you is preferable to voting for your opponent) unless you explain why that is a better model for debate. This doesn't imply anything about what kind of framework I use to evaluate the round (i.e., this has nothing to with whether utilitarianism is true).
 * Although I have preferences for the types of arguments I'd like to see you make, I won't intervene just because I dislike your style. It'll affect your speaks but not the ballot.
 * I strongly prefer positional debating, so be reasonable and talk about the topic. A ffs should be topical, though I will vote on non/questionably-topical positions since no one seems to be able to make good T arguments nowadays. That said, I am quite receptive to T against clearly non-topical affs and don't find "you're excluding my voice" to be a good response to T.
 * I dislike triggers, a prioris, spike-heavy cases, presumption, and other similarly tricky arguments. My threshold for responding to these is low.

** Theory: **

 * I default to dropping the argument on theory (but not T), to competing interpretations, and to theory not being an RVI.
 * I dislike frivolous theory, including things like AFC, CX checks, must run a plan, disclosure theory, and most forms of meta-theory. Edit: I do think that if you are reading a plan you should probably disclose the text of it before the round.

** Speaks: **

 * I won't disclose speaks.
 * The less your arguments annoy me, the higher speaks you'll earn. In general, engaging arguments, being substantive, and being perceptually dominant will go a long way.
 * I tend to value clarity and persuasiveness more than perfect technical ability. I am not at all happy about the recent trend of judges following along by reading the speech doc during the round, so I am not going to give you a pass on being clear just because I'm on the "email chain."