Yagoda,+Joseph

BACKGROUND: I debated LD for four years on the local and national circuit. I'm familiar with a variety of styles. I'm currently a Yale sophomore.


 * Winning my ballot:** Give me a way to evaluate the round and link to it. Make sure to extend your warrants, not just card names. (I'm finding debaters more and more likely to mess up on extensions.) Tell me how to prioritize different evidence and weigh between the evidence on an impact level and a technical level (strength of extension, quality of evidence.)


 * Speed:** Speed is fine, but you need to be very clear. I'll say "Clear" once, but you can probably tell if you're going too fast by looking at me. Signpost really well.


 * Theory:** I've run and hit it, but it's not my favorite form of argumentation. I’m willing to vote on theory if: a) something is so truly abusive that I really ought to punish the debater via the ballot (because I do think theory can be really awesome for dealing with truly abusive arguments) and b) the theory argument is thorough. That being said, underdeveloped theory arguments being flung around the flow are not fun for me (nor your speaker points.) Most of the time, I prefer the use of theory to decide through what framework arguments I ought to evaluate the round. At this point, I won't vote on disclosure theory.


 * Non-traditional cases:** I'm okay with them: Just make sure you understand how they work and explain how I vote for it. I'm not too familiar with critical writers, so go slow with those. I don't love a priori arguments and off-cases, but that's usually because I find that they're usually silly and underdeveloped. If you have an awesome one, that's great. I'm willing to listen to almost any well-developed and justified non-traditional form of argumentation.


 * Speaks:** I usually average a 28. Good strategic moves, interesting argumentation, being nice, and signposting/clarity will get you high speaks.

Definitely ask any questions before the round.