Chen,+Travis

I debated for four years at Palo Alto High School and now attend Stanford.

I will try my best to evaluate most arguments that are made in the round as long as they are clearly impacted and warranted. I won’t vote on any argument I didn’t catch or understand the first time it was made (the exception is that if the 1ar extends said argument from the AC, I’ll treat it as if it was made in the 1ar and accept new 2nr responses), and won’t be afraid to admit that in my RFD. In addition, I’ll reject most new arguments – arguments that become significantly more developed or are implicated differently may also fit into this category. In extreme scenarios, I’ll “intervene” against arguments that I am //convinced// are absolute non sequiturs or have no possible weight on the ballot. For example, if you say “no warrant” against an argument for which a warrant has clearly been made and extended, I’ll ignore it.

I’ll award speaker points mainly based on how impressed I am with your overall performance – having great strategy, establishing clear decision calculus, and being easy to follow, etc. will all improve your speaks. As a general rule of thumb, if the round is messy and/or difficult to resolve, speaks will be lower and the chance of an arbitrary decision higher. In particular, I’ll be happy if you can establish a smart, clear, and preemptive calculus for how to evaluate late rebuttal arguments such as 1ar theory and NR vs. 2AR weighing.

See Erik Legried for more specific defaults on certain issues. (I have a pretty low threshold for extensions especially if the argument is conceded, but underdeveloped extensions come at the risk of worse analysis and comprehension.)

Oh, and most of all, have fun!