Tran,+Nathaniel

= = toc =Info:= Nathaniel Tran LHS Class of 2018 I want to be in the email chain. My email is nathanieljtran@gmail.com if you have questions. This is my 4th year debating. I've debated three years VLD for Loyola High School in Los Angeles. =Summary:= Debate is a **game**. Read anything: Tech>Truth, but your tech must be backed with arguments. Arguments must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I will try my hardest to not intervene in my decision; if I think you make bad arguments it will affect your speaks, not whether you win or lose. I flow CX. Trolling in CX is funny. Disclose. I will not evaluate embedded clash. New in the 2 will not be flowed. Don't be stupid; have fun. =Short Version:= =Policy Arguments:= =Kritiks:= =Philosophy:= =Tricks:= =Non-Topical Affs:=
 * I can flow, but your spreading must be clear. Go slower on tags and authors and dates.
 * 27 speaks is my minimum and 30 is my max. I'll average a 28.5.
 * If you ask your opponent to delete everything they didn't read, your speaks will **scream in anguish,** my friend.
 * Flashing is prep.
 * If your computer has issues, talk to me before round and I won't grant you flashing
 * I will vote on literally anything as long as it has a link chain and you explain it to me.
 * Good evidence will be **rewarded**. Bad evidence will be **punished**. That being said, I will not call for evidence unless you tell me to or if I have to do so to make a decision. It is //your// responsibility to tell me to look at the piece of evidence.
 * If you don't disclose at least 10 minutes before round, unless you're breaking new, your max speaks will be a **29**.
 * If you hide from a flip, you're a coward.** I think cowardice is a voter .**
 * I have a high threshold for extensions. Know your evidence, explain the warrant, and impact it.
 * I like policy arguments a lot. DA's, CP's, all that good stuff. Your weighing game best be on fleek though.
 * Plans and Counterplans should have solvency advocates. I default to **drop the arg** on solvency advocate theory, but that doesn't mean I can't be persuaded otherwise.
 * Use impact calc. Please.
 * I want fleshed out perms. If I don't hear a clear net benefit in the 1AR, I will face the other way in the 2AR if you begin to make one.
 * I think impact turns are fun. I think the burden is on the person introducing the impact turn to do the evidence/impact weighing.
 * I love Kritiks. I read Cap on the Aff and Neg almost every single round my junior year. That being said, you will be disappointed if you think this means I will be a softie for Cap K's. You still need to explain what everything you say means. For example, what is "ontology, epistemology, anonymization"? Please explain what these words mean.
 * Explain to me why the K is on a higher level than the Aff.
 * I do not like reject alts. Let me re-phrase: I do not like debaters who read reject alts and cannot explain what they mean. If your alt is structured like this: "Reject the aff in favor of...x" then you better be able to explain why "x" is a preferable world than the aff world. "x" cannot be "the absence of an aff world". If you are hitting a K like this, I expect **you** to make these arguments.
 * I default to "policymaking simulation good" as opposed to "fiat is illusory" and allowing the Aff to weigh against the K.
 * I am okay with phil NC's but don't have a great understanding. Please explain them.
 * Phil is a pretty good strat against K's.
 * I like Lib.
 * I think K tricks are entertaining.
 * I will vote on skep. If you go for it, **-1 speaks**.
 * If you have an original a priori, I think you are a cOoL Kid. That being said, it better make sense.
 * **-1 speaks** if you go for a blippy, one sentence a priori.
 * I always wanted to run contingent frameworks but my coaches advised me not to. They seem cool.
 * I don't like them. But I will still vote on them.
 * If you're the neg against one, I think a K v K Aff debate would be very fun. I read 6:30 min K's against Non T Affs, and I'd say those rounds were the most fun I've had in LD (besides reading [[file:NC-v-San-Marino.docx]]).

=A Brief Precaution:= If the following are your primary strats, I'm probably not your judge, **unless the aff is clearly non-topical**. =Theory:= =Topicality:= =Cross Examination:= > media type="youtube" key="NavenqcFKyY" height="200" width="262" =Speaks:= I operate on a 30 point scale, but adapted to the 27-30 range. So a 27 is like getting 0 speaks and a 30 is like getting 30 speaks. **The lowest speaks I will give you will be 3.0 speaks away from your max possible speaks.** =How to kill your speaks:= =How to increase your speaks:=
 * Go medium speed. These are analytics. You're not supposed to spread full speed through them.
 * I default to **drop the debater, competing interps, text>spirit of the interp, and no RVI's** unless I've mentioned otherwise in certain instances.
 * If you go for an RVI in front of me, **-1.5 speaks**. I'll still vote on it though.
 * I evaluate Fairness vs Education with epistemic modesty. Your weighing must be preclusive for me to prioritize one over another.
 * I think Jurisdiction is probably the terminal impact to all voters.
 * If you don't have a concrete text of the interp sent to me and your opponent, I will **trash** your speaks.
 * See point 1 above.
 * See point 2 above.
 * Tech matters, but I want explanations.
 * I think the 1AR should weigh the T vs the K.
 * Ask what a floating PIK is and your speaks will suffer. Ask me before round what it is if you don't know. Don't play dumb. I know which schools know what a floating PIK is.
 * Don't be discriminatory.
 * I flow it.
 * This is an entertaining CX. I may be biased because Reece is a god, but I think he is walking the line on obnoxious and entertaining very well. I won't get offended easily, but tell me if you are feeling super uncomfortable.
 * Ask for links to the K in CX. For example: "Do you think racism is good?" or some stupid move like that.
 * Ask an "Are you aware" question in CX.
 * Racial slurs.
 * Ask to take part of CX as prep.
 * Reading pre-written generic blocks and not doing weighing.
 * Saying "Perm double bind" and nothing more.
 * Not being able to explain your argument.
 * Run cowardice as a voter, go all in on it in your last speech, and win and you will get a 30.
 * 30 speaks if you win off of a one card K using only the Zizek and Daly 04 card.
 * No CX no prep.
 * 4 minutes of prep going into the 2AR.
 * Open Source.
 * Good overviews.
 * Being funny and running funny strats. Not stupid strats. If you're aff, run it by me before the round begins.