Harris,+Joshua

I am a college student at UC Berkeley. I debated policy at Nevada Union High School for two years and helped coach to varying degrees for the other two.

__As a judge:__ As of 2017, I haven't competed for 3 years. That is the overall mindset you should understand coming into a round with me. I like a clear story to be told, and at the end of a round I would ideally like to have all the dots connected for me. Your job as a debater is to make my job easy, if you do that you will win your argument. I will put a strong emphasis on impact analysis (tell me why I should care about your systematic impacts in the face of terminal impacts [I will happily take cards on this, but you should tell me why your author's argument matters.]) In your 2 AR/NR give clear line by line, make me know what args you are responding to, make me know why yours are better. I will default to a policy making mindset unless you convince me what the role of the ballot would be otherwise.

__RFD:__ I will try to be as clear and concise as I can be about why I voted and what decided it. I am happy to entertain any questions after round but try to keep them based in reality.

__Speed, Clarity, and Speaks:__ Being a little rusty from the circuit, speed is a rough place for me. If you think that you are the clearest speaker regardless of speed feel free to spread but go a little slower for me. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. If I have to call "clear" too many times I will stop flowing you. Make sure that your tags and authors are especially clear. Also if you genuinely make me laugh I will boost your speaks. Don't be an ass and you will be fine in terms of speaks. One last note, on theory and your analytics, make sure it is slower and clear if I can't understand you I can't write it down.

__DA's:__ Are wonderful. They are an argument which has fallen out of popularity but can still win rounds. If you play it out and do your impact calc I'm happy to vote on one. Make sure to have a clear link story and the more specific the link the better.

__CP's__ Same as above. I spent my first year of debate running spending and state CP every neg round. PICs and specific CP's/DA's are great. I am open to theory debates on this and if you play it out right it can win you an arg.

__T:__ Topicality is a strong argument that can help you win rounds. I will hold the neg to a higher standard though to explain their T story. I will default competing interpretations but I need you to spell it out. Don't just throw out "Fairness and Education" explain to me why each matter.

__Theory:__ Similar to the T section. I really enjoyed a good theory debate when I competed. Make sure to make clear arguments though not just rolling trough a theory block. Respond to points and I believe that being a great theory debater makes you a better debater case debater. Same as above though explain out your impacts. I will default to "reject the arg not the team" unless you give me a clear reason why whatever violation really matters.

__K:__ These are perfectly fine to me. Be aware that I will most likely not be super familiar with your author or the general thesis of your arg. Make sure to explain out your link and impact. Regardless of your alt, explain to me why it solves or why I should prefer it.

__K Aff's:__ I have some experience surrounding them and they are perfectly valid arguments. As is the theme here, tell the story and tell it clearly. I will welcome framework debates from both sides and everything from theory/topicality applies.

__2N/AR:__ Briefly, "they dropped X so we win" is not an argument that will win you a debate. Carry your impacts through each speech and bring your arguments to light here. This is the speech where your line by line and impact calc matters the most.

If you have any questings shoot me an email at jshhrrs767@gmail.com, or joshuatharris97@berkeley.edu