Yu,+Harry

I was a LD debater in High School (Spring Woods HS) and dabbled in Policy debate in college (Trinity University). I've judged extensively for the past 10 years.
 * updated 11/29/17

Speed: I don't mind how fast you go, but recognize that there are some arguments that I might not be familiar with, especially new/unique kritiques. In those cases, going slower would ensure that I'm on the same page as you. Don't go fast if you're not very clear. I won't say "clear" but it will be reflected on Speaker points.

Value and Criterion: I used to think that the value and criterion are necessary, but I've adapted to the idea that framework can be in flux. Roll of the Ballot arguments are fine.

While I am more than happy to vote on on theory or framework arguments, I much rather vote on impacts. Please provide an impact calculus. If I need to evaluate between environmental advantages over economic advantages, let me know how to weigh them, whether it be probability, magnitude, brink, etc. I will usually default to probability over anything else.

I have a high threshold on topicality and conditionality. It shouldn't be the only voters. In LD, the negative needs to provide a reason to negate the resolution, not just to negate the affirmative. Topicality is more of a check on the affirmative, and not necessarily a voter. Conditional arguments could be a voter because it creates uniqueness issues throughout the debate and needs to be handled like other theory arguments, but like I said, I have a high threshold for both.

I see debate as a game where people know the rules. I don't think it's clever to try to take advantages of loopholes/glitches within the game. It's much more impressive to be great within the limits of debate. I'm also not keen on you telling me how debate works since...I know how it works.

I tend to vote based on who did the better job debating (clash, extensions, line by line, etc.) rather than believing my signature will result in triggering the impacts. I'm not well-verse enough in policies or philosophies to know my vote will be empirically correct. Instead, I believe I can vote based on the flow. On that same note, I believe that dropped arguments on the flow need to have their implications explained. I'll flow "X argument was dropped" but I will not buy "Because X was dropped by my opponent, X must be 100% true!" That's lazy. I want clear analytic voters in the 1NR and 2AR.

Other things about me: -I generally won't read cards after round because it should be the debater's job to interpret the literature. I feel reading cards after round forces me to be interventionist which I avoid at all cost. -Don't pay too much attention to how much I flow in round because I sometimes wait until I actually understand what is being said before I write something down...however if I don't flow at all, then I would be alarmed...it means I don't understand the argument. -I like kritiques, but only run Ks if you are willing to go in depth with the links debate. A lot of debaters work so much on running their shell and extensions, they run out of time on links. Because I like Kritiques, if you do run a K badly, you will surely lose.

PF extension: Public Forum debate is a pretty fun event. I evaluate it the same as an LD round so most of what is written above applies to PF as well. I think rhetoric is more important in PF. Simply reading card isn't persuasive, but utilizing a good mixture of pathos and logos is key to my ballot. I will flow cause I'm more of a technical judge. PF is more of a presentation and perceptional event, and being rude or mean is a straight ticket to a loss.