Kleiner,+Sam

Sam Kleiner
I debated for four years at Catalina Foothills High School in Tucson Arizona. I now attend Northwestern University and sparingly debate college LD and parli. I have judged high school LD a little this year.

Congrats on making it to TOC.

Voting paradigm:

I first select some kind of decision mechanism. This can be either the criterion or a burden etc. If there are multiple mechanisms that are put forth (T, discourse, 'a prioris,' burdens etc) I need specific arguments made telling me where I should look to first. Weighing in this sense is particuliarly crucial.

From this mechanism I then see who is winning this. If the mechanism is just a straight up criterion that can be done at the impact level (weighing is key) or if its some other mechanism then I will evaluate it based on the way the debaters structure it.

Random:

Speed is fine. Theory and framework are fine. The strategic debater will create a solid framework for telling me what the resolution is talking about etc. Performance/narrative/Ks are all fine but I oftentimes see debaters doing a poor job giving me the theoretical grounding for these arguments. I don't have a default neg paradigm. Default arguments need to be made in round.

The Big Picture:

I enjoy seeing really strategic debaters who are willing to do unconventional weighing or framework-ing.

I don't particularly care if you have a lot of 'substance' to your arguments or not. The strategic argument need not be brilliant.

In short, I will try to be as 'tab' as possible and vote on whatever but have a preference for the strategic debater.

A debater interested in my ballot will:

1) Compare standards 2) Weigh (especially their general 'ballot story' against their opponent's) 3) Give me even if scenarios for what happens if you lose certain arguments.