Horvat,+Jonathan

I debated LD for four years (2008-2012) for Timothy Christian School (New Jersey). I never earned a bid and never made a bid round, and never went to camp, but I was an above average debater for most of my career breaking at tournaments and usually having more wins than losses. I debated mainly on the regional and national circuit using a fairly progressive style of debate. I used to have a long and drawn out paradigm, but I decided to change it to reflect my current views as well as to minimize the length. If you'd like to see that paradigm, check the previous revisions. Updated: 2/28/2017 Speed is fine but be clear, slow down for card names. I'll vote on any argument as long as it's warranted, impacted, and is clear. Theory is fine, just be clear for your interpretation and standard. I default to reasonability and drop the argument on theory, and competing interpretations and drop the debater on T. Policy arguments (CPs DA's Plans, Performances) are fine too and encouraged. Kritik's are fine as well, just slow down if the literature is extremely dense and nuanced and try to over explain rather than under explain. Structure the round anyway you want, I don't care, I do as you tell me too, just make sure your ballot story is extremely clear and weigh your extensions and ballot story against your opponents. I'm generous with speaks. I'll usually average 28-29.5.
 * Short Version:**


 * Long Version:**

I'm open to any argument, I fully believe my job as a judge is just to vote off what ever argument is winning, regardless of how nonsensical the argument may be. I'm not easily offended, so don't be afraid to run anything in front of me. Entertain me, I enjoy judging because I enjoy being entertained. Be funny, tell jokes (as long as they are good) and do not be afraid to run risky positions such as performances.


 * Speed:** Go as fast as you want, I don't judge nearly as much as I would like too, but I should have a problem flowing your speeches. I'll yell clear if you're being unclear and louder if you're not speaking loud enough. Flash me your cases if you want to make it easier for me. **Slow down for card names and any important spikes you may want me to definitely flow down.**


 * Theory:** I'll vote off theory, but I will naturally default to reasonability unless told otherwise to default to competing interpretations. Your theoretical arguments should show that clear abuse is happening in the round or that somehow you're at a structural disadvantage. If you run a shell that sounds like structured whining (IE: AFC, Must run Meta Ethics, Speed theory, etc) your speaks will suffer but I'll still vote off it as long as you clearly win the shell. Paragraph theory is completely acceptable. I'll vote off an RVI if it is won but you need to give me a clear ballot story to why the RVI wins you the round.


 * T:** T is fine, I default to drop the debater on T and competing interpretations. Slow down for your counter definitions or interpretations.


 * K's/Kritikal Positions:** Completely fine and encouraged. Slow down for dense philosophy and and over explain rather than under explain. My last year of debating I ran kritikal positions ranging from whiteness bad to fem/queer theory. I encourage these arguments for a change of pace.


 * Performances:** Go for them, just make sure there is a clear ballot story. I encourage performances, mainly because a performance usually creates an interesting debate round that usually entertains me.


 * Plans, PICS, DAs, CPs, :** I really enjoy these type of arguments. I really do enjoy the LARP style of debate and when I debated, I tended to run these types of arguments quite often.


 * Default Positions:** I presume Negative in the absence of offense unless otherwise told so. I default to comparative worlds if no standard is won, unless otherwise told so. I default to reasonability on Theory and Competing Interpretations on T, unless otherwise to so.


 * How to Win a round I judge:** Quite simply, I am not as involved in the activity as I wish I could be. That being said, the easiest way to win in front of me is to have an extremely clear and weighed ballot story. Your last minute of your final rebuttal should crystallize why I am writing your name on the ballot compared to your opponent. You should weigh your offense/extensions against their offense and extensions and tell me why to prefer your offense and vote for you. Giving voting issues throughout the speech is fine too, but it's easier for me when the debater crystallizes at the end. Quite simply, your ballot story is the most important aspect in the round, make sure its clear and better than your opponents and you'll most likely win. Make sure to weigh, if you don't weigh I'm left with a bunch of random offense that links to nothing and from that I'll formulate a decision that will probably piss someone off.

30- You displayed utter dominance, made smart arguments, and gave me a clear ballot story that weighed all offense and did not require me to intervene with a decision. 29.5 - You did all of the above but slighted on a small issues (didn't slow down for card names, I had to intervene somewhere, one bad argument, etc) 29 - I think you should break and you're one of the better debaters in the tournament. 28 - You're on the cusp of breaking. 27 - You have potential but you made some technical mistakes in the round. 26 - You have some work to do. 25 - You should consider Public Forum. 24 or lower - You did something that I find extremely distasteful or you were just down right awful. Being rude to me or your opponent is probably the easiest way to lose my ballot and to get crappy speaks.
 * Speaks:** I'm fairly generous. I was a victim of the 4-2 screw many times, quite simply because my speaker points were never that great. I try to average a 28. Here's how speaks break down for me.


 * Please Read:** If you're a more experienced debater hitting a novice or someone who simply does not understand circuit style arguments, show humility, and take the time to teach rather than to win. Still win your arguments, but I will reward you greatly for fostering an attitude of teaching rather than just winning. I remember being a freshmen novice debater debating in Varsity one tournament and debating against a debater that was clearly better than me. He ran theory on me, and that time I didn't understand theory. He won his shell, but in his last speech he actually spent time trying to teach me how theory works and how to argue against it. Please use the same mindset within in your rounds. Remember that debate is a competitive and educational activity. Winning is very important, but learning is just as important. Take time to teach an opponent of lesser skill and your speaks will be greatly rewarded.