Thayamballi,+Fabien

Although I’m a senior in college and thus haven’t judged in quite a while, I debated LD both locally and nationally during my four years at Mission San Jose High School and have taught at various summer institutes. I am willing to listen to most forms of argumentation and will try not to intervene. Clearly dropped and extended arguments, explicit voting issues that tell me exactly how and why to vote, and the use of weighing between issues to explain which arguments are the most important and why—all of these will show me that you have in fact won the round. A traditional value and criterion are not necessary, but you must give me some way of adjudicating the round (an independent standard that is well-justified). I approach the round assuming that I will use my ballot to vote for the side of the resolution that has been proved correct by the arguments, so you need to give me a reason to override that assumption (whether you are running theory, performance arguments, critiques, etc). Other details: - I enjoy fast debate, but this does not mean that I can flow everything. Also, if it is clear that you out-class your opponent in terms of speed, I will not be pleased if you exploit the situation and try to spread him/her out of the round. -I am pretty sure that I will not look at cards after the round because I think that arguments should be conveyed appropriately during the round. -Don’t use complex rhetoric as a way to obfuscate your arguments or your speaker points might suffer. -I enjoy philosophy but am not a philosophy major; it is your burden to make sure I understand your argument. -Arguments must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact (in some form or another). This means that if your argument is a warrantless blip it will not be weighed heavily into the decision. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me before the round.