Bentov,+Yotam

Hi! How are you enjoying your weekend? Good.

I debated my junior and senior year for Mercer Island (WA) and graduated in 2013. Despite having a relatively short “debate career” I enjoyed my time tremendously and gained a lot from it.

__Short V3RZION__

I care a whole bunch about debate; I want you to see that you care. I will vote on everything as long as it has a claim-warrant-link to my ballot (i.e. impact). I will vote as objectively as I can. I want to see strong frameworks. I have a slight preference to substance over theory. I like seeing things I haven’t seen before. I <3 varied debating so extend where needed, weigh everywhere else, and use novel and imaginative args. Be interesting, be impassioned, and be nice.

__Lawng Version__

* Personal preferences - I like novel arguments. - I like clear debaters and clearer debates. - I like framework debates. - Speed is fine, but I’m a clarity freak (gimme a couple seconds to get used to your speaking style when you spread, and then rev up the engine).

* Theory - I hold the (old fashioned, and quite possibly incorrect) view that most of the times theory is used, no real substantial abuse is taking place. There’s usually a clever way to just answer their blippy spikes at the top of the AC. That being said, I will still vote on what could be considered unjustified abused if I need to, but I won’t like it (speaks beware). - I have a very low threshold on RVIs. - I have a very low threshold on “theory is a wash” type arguments. - In short, I prefer to judge the round on substance, so I’ll be happy if you let me do just that (education, rite?).

* LARP (a.k.a. Policy argz a.k.a. where’s yr tub at) - I like frameworks so make sure your util framework is sound. This isn’t hard to do. - Weigh. A lot. - We are LDers, so I think it’s fair to act under the presumption that not everyone in the room is super well versed in the nuances of policy. So, make sure to be clear to why I should vote on your DA, or why the Perm rules out the CP. Plz.

* Kritiks - See Interesting Philosophy

* Interesting Philosophy/ Unusual arguments - Be clear. If I don’t understand it (and more importantly, if your opponent doesn’t), I might decide it’s your fault and not vote on it. - If you can clearly explain it in CX, bueno. - If you’re being all dodgy, and then extending arguments your opponent didn’t understand, no bueno.

* Speaks Paradigm: If you want a 30: - Be clear and concise. - Be interesting. - Be smart, don’t make it seem like you don’t understand the phil cards you got off that policy back file. - Put your opponent into logical corners during CX. - Be nice, courteous, and act like you’re part of an intellectual discussion and not a dog-race to my ballot. - MAKE IT SUPPA’ EASY FOR ME TO VOTE.

* If you want <30: - Be a dick in CX just for the sake of seeming to dominate without asking smart questions. - Be unintellectual. - Be unclear, disorganized, and MAKE IT UNNECESSARILY HARD FOR ME TO VOTE.

At your discretion you may also: - Incorporate any references/ jokes about Kanye West's ego or marriage. - Incorporate and references/ jokes about elephants or specifically Jumbo the elephant. - Read Zizek cards like you are, in fact, Slavoj Zizek (grotesque hand motions and spitting while talking encouraged). - Or simply put, entertain me (it’s a long weekend and we’re all tired).

Any questions? Feel free to ask.

Yr’s truly & truthfully, Yotam da Judge