Morihisa,+Nick

I'm a sophomore at Harvard College, and I've been debating in the Parliamentary (both American and British, though I prefer British) style since I arrived. Thus I am primarily looking for strong framework and arguments, but I am definitely open to hearing about theory and kritiks.

From my time as a parliamentary debater I have gained a greater concern for the topicality of a debate round for two reasons. The first is that a fair amount of people consider it important to be prepared for what the round entails by setting the limits and parameters. The second is that this allows for each debater to get the most out of each round in terms of what you have learned about a particular topic that you might not have been that well informed on previously.

In terms of speed I am not the fastest at flowing, so I will call "clear" or "speed" if it becomes excessive. This is so I can understand what you're trying to say and when you hopefully do your overviews and crystallization points for the round it makes it much easier for me to determine which side to pick up or drop. Other things that I value are how persuasive you are, including, but not limited to your articulation, word economy, and taking time to weigh each argument properly.

When encountering theory, I am open to it, but please don't Rambo in with something that is not flushed out (weighing and warranting), is dumb (if you have to ask, well...), or is reading theory. This will most likely result in lower speaks for you. My default for theory would most likely be competing interps.

For Ks, I find that they do have an important role in debate, but if you are going to run one in a round it better have a link that is actually specific and ties in with the aff/neg of the topic. Your kritiks are not allowed to exclude anyone, just as people are not allowed to exclude your kritiks. Please have harms and an alt, which is not merely "we reject the aff/neg", as this is a waste of time for everyone. Finally please do not use the largest or most sophisticated words that you can muster, even if you just learned them for the SATs and feel the need to let everyone know. What this means is that I want you to thoroughly explain your kritik to me and not glaze over it, as it is not what I have encountered a lot of in my debating experience.

In closing I have a couple of points that may come up and are thus important.

What do I consider most important in arguments/impacts: Fairness and practicality

If I'm not familiar with a topic, which is very possible, then I expect you to explain it thoroughly to me, lest my RFD be I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

WEIGH. Whoever does the best job at weighing has a pretty good chance at winning my vote.

I will not penalize you for any tricks, spikes, triggers, a priori or anything similar, but it will not be easy for you as these can devolved into a less enjoyable round (e.g. tautology resulting from a priori).

Finally, I will not vote on "risk of offense" or "risk of violation" on theory so please save yourself time and do not make this an issue. If you wonder why I have this opinion then please check out this article, (http://vbriefly.com/2014/09/23/swing-and-a-miss-part-1-silly-things-debaters-believe-about-theory-for-no-reason-by-leah-shapiro-and-christian-tarsney/ Apologies as I can't/don't know how to use a hyperlink for this post) particularly the second point.