Hu,+Jonathan

I dabbled in debate in high school and did it for 4 years in college. My college debating was NPDA for UC Irvine. I graduated college in 2011.

__Overview__: If there’s anything here not clear enough or stated, ask. I think of debate as a game. Thus I don’t think any argument/strategy is unacceptable unless told so in round. If you want to run something that’s potentially sketchy, squirrely, or abusive, be my guest. It’s the other team’s problem to say why It shouldn’t belong.

__Speed__: I can flow speed for the most part. For all our sake, try not to go too fast at least for the taglines. Clarity is what should matter, not fitting in extra cards or arguments.

__Theory__: Go for it. I’m open for pretty much anything. Just make sure the interpretation is clearly stated. I lean towards in round abuse to actually have occurred and be elucidated, but you can always try arguing otherwise. RVIs are fine by me if you want to truly go for it and think it’s something actually of issue.

__Kritiks__: Alas, I’m not that kind of judge. I (think I) understand generic Ks, but honestly my advice/suggestion is that you don’t go there with me as your judge. My exposure to the literature is limited compared to the fluency and consistency that other judges have and thus I typically can’t just hear taglines and fill in all the blanks for you. That also means you can’t just spread your way through the material/cards because I won’t inherently know what the author is saying. Run a K at your own risk. If you REALLY must go the K route, talk slower and elucidate what you’re trying to convey.

__Speaker points__: I’ll average around 27.5 per round. I give 30’s sometimes. Likewise I won’t give anything abysmally (25 or below) low unless I think it’s warranted. Testy rounds are fine, but leave excessive sneers of arrogance at the door. There is no need for sneering if you’re winning like you think you are.

__Weighing__: The world will be a better place if you do it. If you don’t, it begs me to be arbitrary because I have no other choice. Unless there’s an obvious dropped argument in a round, there’s going to be clashing arguments that need resolution when I vote. Tell me why I should believe one nuclear war scenario over another. Why is one source better than another? Dropped arguments that are extended, regardless of how silly they may seem are fair game. If it’s so silly, say so and why. Don’t whine if you don’t put the effort to reject it. I don't mind easy routes out of a round.