Sun,+Christopher

Update for Harvard: I haven’t judged since November, so I might need you to go a little slower in the first few rounds of the tournament.

I debated for Millburn High School (NJ) for four years, earning four TOC bids my senior year. I’m currently a freshman at UChicago.

I’ll vote for any argument I can understand and explain that has a warrant that in some coherent fashion justifies the claim/impact. I don’t care about how you debate – just bear in mind that I’m more familiar with and probably better at evaluating theory and tricks than framework/K/LARP. That said, I’ll still try to take the path of least intervention and separate my personal biases from the round. Make sure to weigh and crystallize – it’ll make my ballot a lot easier.

Specific Comments:
 * Repeating the claim of an argument suffices as an extension. If something’s conceded, referencing the argument in passing is enough. For arguments that are important for your strategy, spend more time explaining the arguments and the impacts you want from them.
 * __Slow down__ on advocacy texts, tags, author names, and interps – anything that might require that I write down the exact words you’re saying.
 * In general, I’d prefer cases to be structured via numbering or lettering. If the aff framework/contention is just 10 unnumbered analytics/cards, it’ll be difficult for me to immediately find the argument you're extending.
 * I’ve noticed a trend of using convoluted and oftentimes nonsensical words and phrases to confuse your opponents, especially with card tags. If you do this, I probably won't be able process what you’re saying and feel comfortable voting for you.
 * Slow down and do more explanation on important issues for K/LARP arguments, especially high theory. I'm not as familiar with these but always found them the most interesting.

Defaults: these only matter if I’m uncertain what’s agreed upon in round. Otherwise, I’ll adopt whatever’s won on paradigm issues.
 * I’ll default to truth-testing the resolution.
 * I default to evaluating arguments that are explicitly made on the flow. At the end of the round, if there are conflicting claims without sufficient interaction, I'll evaluate embedded clash and compare the quality of each competing claim.
 * I default to viewing fairness as a voter and as a reason to exclude the argument, competing interps (only that offense determines the theory debate’s winner), and no RVIs. I default to viewing T as drop the debater.

Speaker Points: I’ll try to average a 28.5 and vary them based on strategy, efficiency, and to a much lesser degree, argument quality and how enjoyable you make the round to judge. I’ll say clear/slow/loud as many times as necessary, and while it won’t hurt your speaks, if you don’t adapt, I might miss arguments. The one exception to what affects speaks is being rude and exclusionary to other debaters. For example, don’t be mean in CX or make disparaging comments, and if you’re debating novices, don’t spread them out or read theory/tricks/Ks.

Finally, have fun! Debate is a great activity, and it’s better when everyone is relaxed and has a good time. If you have questions about my paradigm, feel free to message on Facebook or ask me before the round.