Murayama,+Takumi

LD
I don't know if you read these things but basically, I am first and foremost a flow judge, but if I am told absolutely nothing about how I should evaluate the round I will default to judging like a policy debater/jude would. That said, if you are clear about what I should vote for and there are good reasons why, then I will vote for you.

Anyway, policy means a couple of things—
 * 1) I default to thinking of the aff as defending a plan, i.e., only an example of the resolution. If the aff can prove that their example is a good idea, they have proved that their affirmation of the resolution is a good example. This makes neg arguments like "the resolution is bad" in the abstract unresponsive—it is the neg's job to contextualize their case in the context of the aff case. But that doesn't mean I ONLY care about the plan: the whole first speech is what I am voting for. This means that the negative has the power to stick the aff to the arguments it said in the 1AC by saying why severance is bad. If the neg wins why voting aff means voting for their value/value criterion also, and the value/value criterion is bad, then this means that voting for the aff, and thus agreeing with their whole speech which includes the value/value criterion, then I can vote neg.
 * 2) Value/value criterion is less important—I will default to Consequentialism unless told otherwise. Other frameworks make less sense seeing as the way people debate is based on consequences most of the time. As in policy debate, then, the question becomes which consequence is more important. Is value to life more important than extinction? Does a sense of morality have better consequences for society because it prevents deaths/suffering/etc.? Reasoning for why deontology is good, for me, eventually devolves into a debate about consequences of adopting it.
 * 3) The neg doesn't have to negate the resolution in the traditional sense—since I default to the aff saying why an example of the resolution is good, I am open to counterplans that present other options that are better than the aff in some way, i.e., with a net benefit that cannot be accessed by the aff via a permutation.
 * 4) The aff is bound to their discourse—the neg can garner critical ground off of what the aff said and why that's bad.
 * 5) If you think my interpretation of LD is wrong, I want an explanation of is what my ballot means, and what I am voting for. You can convince me that LD should be a different way—am I voting for your value/value criterion in the abstract? Am I voting for the resolution as a whole (and therefore, are you willing to defend every example of it)?

Policy
I debated for Head-Royce for 4 years (2006-2010), and if that's not enough for you to know what I ran, basically, I ran lots of critiques and debatably abusive counterplans. My old wiki from high school is [|archived].

I'm currently a student at Princeton University (Class of 2014, Mathematics Major), and debate on a hybrid team with [|Columbia], and have been running Baudrillard and Agamben affs, and mostly Baudrillard, Norm, and Psychoanalysis arguments on the neg.

I would like to say that my judging paradigm is all objective and blank-slate and all, but when it comes down to things, I frequently see myself relying on what I think of arguments and what the cards say instead of what is said to me, only because many debates I've seen lack comparison between different arguments. Debating warrants and impacts comparatively to each other is the most important thing in a round, in my opinion, and that is what I'd like to see. If you do that, and if you do it well, I'll probably vote for you. I also have a habit of taking things to their logical conclusions, especially when they are dropped. A dropped argument that the last rebuttal extends will certainly affect everything else in the round.

In other words, everything comes down to framing/comparison and specificity. If you win the framing of the round, that changes how I view the round completely and that is how I look first. The main criterion in weighing comparisons is specificity—your opponents will be able to get away with "even if your argument is true in general, our argument is a specific example that you don't assume—it's distinct for xyz reasons."

That said, here is an argument by argument paradigm:

Topicality
I usually think in terms of competing interpretations, and especially think the limits debate is the most important to win. Reasonability is winnable as long as your we meet argument is decent. Kritiking T is always an option but make sure it is impacted well, especially in terms of the debate space.

Critiques
I debated for Head-Royce, which should tell you something about what I think about critiques. On the aff and neg, I ran them almost every round. I'm the most well-versed in Foucault-style arguments (especially security), Lacan (especially Stavrakakis, but I feel well-versed enough in Zizek as well), and Baudrillard (now that I debate for Columbia). When presented with a critique I'm not as well-versed in, I might have to read the cards, but I can get it. But if you explain it well that's best.

Specific links are good. Or at least, specific explanations in the block (I understand that lots of authors don't talk about, but that just means you should give your explanation yourself). I think the way affs will best win K debates is to debate the link specifically having to do with the aff, which the neg usually doesn't account for. Negs too, say how the alt can solve specifically for aff advantages.

I used to think plan texts were good, but as long as there is *some* reason to vote aff I'm fine with whatever. I usually read whole rez in college.

I like real alt's since I think I can justify more easily why I can vote for them (they would solve the entirety of case). Not to say that you need one.

Affs, perms are good, but explain them.

Performance
Read the Critique section, and other than that, I'm a fan of Performance.

That said, you can still lose on Framework. Also, aff's can totally perm (or at least run one against) your neg performance.

Counterplans
I love them. Especially clever, debatably abusive ones. In high school I ran lots of critical PICs. If there's a net benefit with some risk, and you solve the aff, I don't see how I can't vote for the counterplan!

By the way, this came up at a round I judged, but I generally believe that for both Kritiks and Counterplans, reject the argument not the team for alternatives and counterplans means I would reject the advocacy itself, but the net benefit stays. For example, if you read Consult NATO and they ran consult CP's bad, you could still theoretically go for the internal net benefit if you win reject the argument not the team. After all, why would I reject a Politics DA because of 50 state fiat?

Also, especially against Kritikal affirmatives the CP becomes hard to win, for me. Seeing as most Kritikal affirmatives also defend an ethics/methodology (think Security affs or Levinas affs), the neg would have to explain why they solve that portion of the aff as well. The aff frequently gets away with "you don't solve our methodology" (heck, that's what I always went for!), so you should be prepared to debate the methodology of your CP as well. For example, against a Security aff you should be prepared to defend the DA with security-based impacts's methodology as well as articulating why the CP can solve for the actual plan action.

Disadvantages
I must confess I didn't read many of these. Politics is okay, but the neg needs to be specific since affs usually win on specificity questions to win the link turn. Overall, I feel that the internal links for these arguments are what need the most work, and probably the easiest place to attack. Also, negs should be prepared to defend their discourse in Disadvantages if the aff runs a critique of that discourse.

Theory
I can vote on it, but you have to slow down or else I'm not going to flow your kick-ass point tucked in between two worse ones. That said, I was usually the person abusing people to no end.

Some theoretical biases (This is just what I believe, but that doesn't mean you can't run it in front of me. I'll try to keep pre-conceived notions outside of my reasoning for voting a certain way): Conditionality - Fine, but multiple doesn't have to be. Consult - If the lit supports consultation, sure, why not? My bias here is less strong than with Conditionality, though. PICs - Good, but of course, it has to be competitive. Competition - On the competition debate, it's more important to win why your CP is both textually and functionally competitive rather than how one is more important than the other. Affs also have a harder time debating why you're not textually and/or functionally competitive, also. Which reminds me, you should tell me what both of those mean.