Uesato,+Jonathan

Last Updated: September 2014, for Yale Invitational

**Background**: I debated for Lynbrook High School in LD on both the local and national circuits. I qualified for the TOC my senior year with bids at St. Marks, Stanford and Berkeley. I’m currently a sophomore at MIT.

**Summary**: I will attempt to objectively evaluate all warranted arguments. Generally, I determine which framework is won, and then who has better offense under that framework, though I'm open to alternative interpretations or decision rules if they are justified. I will try to be as tab as possible, but in the name of full disclosure, as a debater I generally debated policy-making or other stock argumentation, and avoided theory; however, I will do my best to prevent these preferences from influencing the round.

**Speed**: I have a relatively high threshold for clarity. I will say “clear” or “slow” as necessary. I will not evaluate arguments that I did not understand in the first speech; this means that if I tell you to clear after you read a warrant, you should not assume that warrant is on my flow.

**Speaker points**: I average around a 27.5. As a rule of thumb, 30 means I think you are one of the best debaters in the tournament, 29 means you should be in late outrounds, and 28 is breaking. In particular, I will reward you for: responsive argumentation, specific and comparative weighing (evidence comparison is a must), literature-based arguments. I’m not a fan of blippy argumentation, or misleading argument representation (this includes power-tagging) and will dock substantial speaker points. Being rude or offensive is also negative speaker points.

**Weighing**: Please please do it. If neither debater does weighing analysis, I will look to other areas of the flow to try to resolve the weighing debate. If there is nothing else, I find that I will often turn to strength of link; I believe that the strength of literature-based, common sense arguments is often overlooked. Especially in util debates, the importance of weighing and meta-weighing is too often overlooked. However, weighing is not limited to util debates; please weigh between arguments whenever possible (e.g. study methodologies, standard justifications, theory standards, etc.). Warranted and clearly articulated weighing is more helpful than the arbitrary insertion of jargon.

**Line-by-line**: I think almost all debaters don't do enough line-by-line, and replace it with too much repeating the same buzzwords and extending tags, so in general, doing more line-by-line work will only help you. Try to be explicit in addressing arguments (i.e. "Group the 1st and 3rd justifications - here are _ responses"). I'll also reward good line-by-line with higher speaks.

**Cross-examination**: CX is binding. Please be polite as well. I will dock points for clearly intentionally wasting CX.

**Extensions**: I expect to have an extended warrant or I will not feel as comfortable voting on an argument. I have a lower threshold for affirmative extensions and extensions of conceded arguments. Please also extend all parts of a theory shell, including drop the debater.

**Theory**: I will evaluate theory. The burden of proof is on “theory is a voter,” so I default to theory is a reason to reject the argument, not a reason to reject the debater. This means that if you want me to vote on theory, I need an explicit warranted justification for why drop the debater from the first speech i.e. an explanation of why rejecting the argument is insufficient. I default to reasonability. I am open to reverse voting issues (RVI's).

**Kritiks**: I ran a few kritiks as a debater, but you should not assume that I am familiar with whichever position you are running. Feel free to run kritiks, but understand that you will be held to a high standard on warrants and clarity.

**Evidence**: If you do not compare evidence yourself, you will find yourself with lower speaker points and a decision that rests more on the phrasing of your evidence than the merits of your debating. In util debates, evidence comparison is a must. I will also request to view evidence if the text of the evidence is contested or I have doubts about evidence integrity. I reserve the right to award a loss to a debater I find guilty of blatantly misrepresenting evidence.

**Courtesy**: Please be polite in round; I think this is fairly obvious. In particular, nasty looks while your opponent is talking does not count as a refutation and will lose you speaker points. I think most debaters are nice people, but it's easy to get worked up in round; just please be cognizant of this.

**Final Thoughts**: Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round. I am here for you, not the other way around. If you would like to contact me outside of tournaments, feel free to do so via email at juesato@mit.edu