Cha,+Nathan


 * [Updated for Bronx 2016]**


 * I haven't judged debate in a while. Start at about 70% of your top speed before blazing through your AC/NC.**

I debated for Randolph High School (NJ) for three years, qualifying to the TOC my senior year.

Conflicts: Randolph, Bronx Science

I have a very low threshold for extensions if an argument is conceded. If you have a conceded 5-card util advantage, save your time and don't explain every part of the linkchain in the 1ar. I will adopt whatever paradigm both debaters seem to assume for the round (i.e. comparative worlds, truth-testing, offense-defense, etc) unless it's contested. Weighing a lot will get you far in front of me. If a debate is irresolvable and no presumption arguments were made, I will try to resolve the round in the least interventionist I see fit, even if that means flipping a coin.
 * Short Version**: __Slow down significantly on tags and author names.__ I will not vote off an argument I did not understand in the first speech. My visual cues are pretty expressive, so if I look confused, either slow down or explain what your arguments mean. I nod a lot when I agree with an argument you make and make lots of faces when I don't or are confused. I yell "repeat" if I need you to repeat an advocacy text or theory interp. CX is binding.

The rest of this paradigm consists mainly of assumptions that I default to absent argumentation in round.


 * Theory**:
 * Default to competing interps. Drop the arg on theory and the debater on T. No RVIs. Reasonability is fine but give me a threshold for what that entails. No abuse claims are fine under competing interps even without an articulated counter-interp unless it is fleshed out in the initial shell that this is not ok.
 * I do not think that Offensive Counter-Interps make much sense without a RVI but if your opponent doesn’t point that out then I’ll evaluate it like any other theory shell. The following shells probably need a RVI: CX Checks Bad, AFC Bad, RVIs must be bidirectional. You can try to convince me otherwise, but it may be a safer decision to not try to.
 * I will not vote off a RVI to a shell read in the 2nr.
 * I find weighing in terms of strength of link to a voter more convincing than generic fairness vs. education claims.
 * Fairness is a comparative concept, so "you can do it too" claims are probably terminal defense on a shell, unless arguments are made otherwise.
 * I will but would rather not vote on theory shells contingent on an out-of-round violation. You can run disclosure theory, but if you want to run theory, there's a lot of other shells out there.
 * I do not assume meta theory comes before theory.


 * Kritiks**:
 * Ks are fine. I read them, but the literature is so large that you should not assume that I know what you're talking about. Err on the side of over-explanation, not under.
 * Please articulate a role of the ballot or a framework. I do not want to be put in the position where one debater asserts oppression is bad and the other says that you need a framework. Impacts articulated under a framework, in my mind, will come before floating oppression impacts given that the entirety of a framework dictates what is bad and what isn't. I think it’s reasonable to assume that all ethical frameworks should condemn the likes of genocide, but the question that needs to be answered is the strength of the link of those arguments back to the standard.
 * If both performance and method are important for your advocacy, you should clearly explain which comes first (preferably earlier than later).


 * Framework**:
 * If you are a very heavy framework debater, you should probably explain things very clearly so I can make a coherent decision.
 * Please weigh between different arguments on the framework debate. Just because an argument is conceded does not mean that it comes before everything else.
 * Contingencies, triggers, and the like are fine, but you should not be shady in CX. If you're not clear about the implications of arguments in CX, I will probably feel lost.


 * Plans/DAs/CPs**:
 * All fine, just weigh between different pieces of evidence.
 * Perms are a test of competition by default.
 * If perms are a test of competition, absent a role of the ballot or particular framing of the round, "disadvantages to the perm" don't make much sense to me. Perms establish why the neg world is not competitive with the aff, so you need to explain to me why I should still vote for said world. The framing doesn't have to be particularly long, just explain why I should still vote for you (i.e. comparing worlds). This assumption obviously goes out the window if the aff defends a plan.
 * I am very impressed by a good util debate with lots of evidence comparison but if you do not do that comparison, I will be sad. :(


 * Speaks**:
 * I give speaks based on overall execution and strategy. I will give you a 28.5 if I think you should clear and move you up and down from there, scaling to the tournament. I will yell clear or slow twice and if you do not attempt to adapt to me, I will start docking speaks.
 * Here's a list of things that will get you high speaks:
 * Sitting down early.
 * Weighing. A lot.
 * Pausing until I am ready when switching between flows (This is also for your own benefit).
 * Starting the 2nr and 2ar with an overview.
 * Cracking jokes in round.
 * Heading farther left when responding to a K.
 * Engaging a critical position as opposed to running theory on it.
 * Running interesting arguments with ingenuity that I have not heard before.
 * Dominating in CX.
 * Respectable levels of shade and sass.
 * I will shamelessly inflate speaks if you bring me snacks, drinks, and especially water bottles.


 * These will get you low speaks:
 * Being disrespectful in round.
 * Excluding someone who is clearly newer to the activity as opposed to helping them. This means don't run theory or spread. Exercise some common sense.
 * Being Unclear.
 * Poor signposting.
 * Poor job running theory.
 * I don't make debaters run prep when flashing, but if you take time to flash and then halfway through decide to take more prep to change your strategy, I will dock speaks.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round. I'm sure people will disagree with decisions I make, but all I ask is that you maintain some level of respect when grilling me.