Goren,+Nurry

I'm sometimes listed as Nurullah Goren instead of Nurry Goren at tournaments. I was an LD debater at Eagan for four years, and am currently studying pure math and linguistics at Pomona College. I competed on the circuit and at nationals, so I'm fine with either traditional style or circuit style debate, although I prefer circuit. The best way to get my vote is to create an easy-to-digest narrative in which you weigh your arguments against your opponent's with respect to the accepted framework for the round. Having excellent clash, rigorous burden analysis, and a creative position also makes me happy, but doesn't necessarily get you my ballot. My biggest pet peeve is when somebody reads a study but not the methodology. My second-biggest pet peeve is when people are nasty and disrespectful to each other. My third-biggest pet peeve is when you try to come up to me and shake my hand after the round. I will do my best to evaluate the round objectively (with the exception of idiotic theory shells, see below), but that being said it's unavoidable that my personal biases will somehow come into play.


 * Speed:** I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. However, I don't judge very often so you might not want to start spewing out words at light-speed. If you're literally incomprehensible, I will say clear, but only once. Slow down a little bit for tags.


 * Theory:** If you're running incredibly silly strategic theory I might vote on it, but expect to get horrible speaker points. If legitimate abuse is occurring, then you have my blessing to read some theory.


 * Plans/CPs:** I'm fine if you read one of these, but you have to present it in the correct format and understand how it functions. Be sure to include arguments for inherency/competition and a solvency advocate. Be ready to answer questions about and defend the status of your counterplan. Know what type of counterplan you're running and why it is theoretically legitimate.


 * Kritiks:** I'm totally fine with kritiks as long as you're able to articulate why your kritik satisfies your burden. The critical philosophers I'm most familiar with are Heidegger, Baudrillard, Derrida, and Agamben.


 * Speaker Points:** These reflect your ability to present arguments clearly and efficiently. An average debater will get a 27.5 from me. There's no quick and easy way to get me to give you a 30. I'll only give one out if I think you're astoundingly good. I don't disclose speaker points, so don't ask me to.


 * Extensions:** If all you do is repeat your tag and your author, I won't count it as an extension. You have to reiterate your claim, your warrant, and your impact if you want me to draw an arrow across my flow.


 * Philosophy:** If this wasn't already clear, I absolutely love it when people read interesting and unique philosophical positions, even if they're extremely dense. The non-critical philosophers I'm most familiar with are Kant, Hegel, Habermas, Sartre, Rawls, and Hobbes.


 * Flex Prep:** I don't like it, but I'll allow it if you missed some important things in your opponent's speech that you need to have on your flow.


 * Other:** Just ask me before the round begins.