Young,+Jared

Im a sophomore at Tufts and debated for Scarsdale and qualified to toc junior and senior year. Didn't go junior year because i got sick and dropped in the bubble round senior year.

In general I view debate as a game.i know a lot of judges say that, but i think i actually mean it and truly honor it when judging I will not make arguments for you and my decision calculus will be to vote the easiest way. For example, if a debater makes an argument saying you didnt have X in your case or something in you case said Y, and you dont respond to it, or adequately provide the evidence combatting their claim, then even if i call your case after the round and find out that the debater's accusations or arguments were in fact wrong and you didnt say that, then I'm not going to disregard their comments because i believe it is on the onus of the debater to make the argument. Also, in regards to extending. I hate bad extensions and love good extensions. Please extend the claim warrant and impact, and not just say 'extend sub a and b they went dropped'. With that being said, if you do make that extension i wont disregard it, i may dock a speak or two but i wont disregard it. BUT, if your opponent realizes you made a crappy extension and calls you out on it and explains the problem with your extension and why it was not sufficient, (and if they are right) then i will disregard it to the extent of which they tell me to. So the thing you should take from this is that I thing its in the onus of the debaters to make the arguments and i will try to intervene as little as possible.

In regards to types of argumentation I will vote on anything and in any way as long as you explain it and why it is sufficient to vote for you. it can be a stupid ass argument but if you explain why its sufficient and win, then il vote for you. with that being said, i never ran narratives or hit them or really was told how they function, so i dont know jack shit about how they function or why they are sufficient to vote one way or the other, so just be weary that if you do decide to run a narrative that you realize itl probably need extra explaining for me to vote on it.

i havent been following this whole topic nul thing and im not sure what people are really saying about it, but from what i know i can say this- if you and your opponent both ask me to debate a different topic before the round and both of you truly want to then for me its cool i guess. once again im not totally sure if thats what people are talking about, but if it is then im cool with that.

i went pretty fast when i debated but wasnt always the best flower, that being said im sure i can flow whatever u deem speed for the most part, but since i havent judged or been in debate for a little bit id start off a little slower just until i get back into the flow of things. Go on the slower side tho when reading, i can def flow your top extemping speed. if your going too fast or unclear il say clear.

i also ran a lot of theory in my day, but that has no effect on what i want to see in the round. some people think i want to see theory cus i ran it alot-i dont care. go with whatever strat you feel most comfortable with and can win with, thats why i ran theory cus i thought it gave me the best chance of winning, so go with what you are best at.

With that said, i do appreciate a GOOD theory round, i dont care what garbage violations you come up with to be honest so long as you have good standards weighing and analysis. I won off interps when the aff said 'the neg must clarify topicality and theory violations in cross ex' and ran theory saying against that and won like 8 times senior year. its a stupid violation by the initial sound of it, but it had good standards analysis and made the abuse clear. if you are going to go theory in the round then please WEIGH standards. weigh on importance of the standard or strength of link of violation of the standard. Make sure you link all your standards to the vote, (it is not assumed that reciprocity inherently links to fairness you need to say that). Please have good reasons why fairness is a voter and why it precludes substance, most fairness warrants are shit and if your opponent calls you out on it then i will give that credence. a fairness warrant needs to explain why fiarness is imortant and why it precludes substance and why its sufficient to either drop the debater or teh argument (whichever one you choose given the scenario). I would prefer to not hear like 10 reasons why fairness is not a voter, thats not what i mean by someone calling you out on your fairness voter. Fairness isnt a voter dumps are different than calling someone else out on the lack of sufficient analysis of their voter. So while i will adjudicate the fairness dump, i will be very sympathetic to arguments that explain why fairness dumps are whack....they cant just come up and be like 'this is too much to handle' and cry about it, it has to be a warranted argument as to why i should disregard the dump. To make things more clear i think that a dump would qualify as anything over 5 generic AT fairness arguments. 3 or 4 AT fairness args you should be able to handle on the line by line. Dont get me wrong i also think its very possible and id def give you better speaks if you beat back the fairness dump on the line by line, its not too hard seeing as how most of the fairness arguments are stupid and easy to beat. i presume theory to be competing interps unless otherwise justified.

Often times i made up standards, if you can create a unique theory standard thats pretty baller and youd get better speaks so long as you execute it well.

I decide speaks based upon the speed, clarity, and execution of strategy. if you have a more interesting round or make me laugh ul get better speaks. average is a 27.5 or a 28 and i go up and down from there.

with more complex or nuanced philosophical positions go slower when reading the cards, it would really suck for you if i didnt catch the total jist of your meta ethic or K or something, so just go a bit slower for stuff like that.

I presume aff if the round comes to a wash. if you both extend terminal defense and there is no way to decide the round i presume aff because affirming is harder and if the aff debater can nullify the negs offense andmake the round a draw then they had a tougher job and in my mind did the better debating. There is a caveat, if the round comes to a draw but the aff or the neg CLEARLY was winning more arguments and more effective and was just better, but the other debater got lucky and somehow caused the round to be a draw then i would presume the better debater. Note that this does not mean that 'presumption' arguments are influenced by this, if you make presumption arguments then this doesnt matter

In the end this is just debate so just have fun!!!!

(i always hated judges who had their wikis end with this so just to screw with kids in my little way im gunna keep it)