Hart,+Nathan

I debated for Los Altos on the circuit for three years. Conflicted with MVLA.

I think of debate as a game and I want to do as little intervention as possible. That being said, if a) I don’t understand your arguments or b) your arguments are offensive, I can’t justify voting for you. Besides that, you can win on an argument as long as you explain it well and weigh properly under the best justified criterion in the round.
 * Really short version**:


 * Long version**:

Ballot: I default to truth testing. Aff proves resolution true, Neg proves negation of the resolution. I presume aff. If you want to win off an argument, you need to clearly link that argument to some criterion for me to vote on. If there are multiple criterions in the round (including fairness/edu/etc) they too must be weighed. It’s crucial that you weigh arguments and paint a very clear picture of why you win in the 2NR/2AR.

Speed: it’s been awhile since I’ve been involved in the activity so you should definitely go slower than normal (especially when reading a card’s author/tags). I’ll say clear/slow down. I can’t justify voting off an argument I couldn’t flow.

Extensions: I have a high threshold for these (include the warrant and impact in the extension) unless the argument has been dropped.

Theory/Topicality: frivolous theory is okay, but do it well if you want better speaks. I default competing interps/RVI/fairness > edu/drop the debater but I’m open to alternatives.

Kritiks: you’ll have to explain these reeeally well because I’m not familiar with the literature and probably won’t understand what you’re talking about otherwise.

Pet peeves: -don’t spend 10 seconds drinking your water after your opponent asks you a question in CX -don’t stop prep time and then spend 45 seconds getting your stuff together before your speech

Speaks: I’ll probably average higher speaks than a typical judge. Speaks go up/down based on clairty, strategy, being courteous, and signposting/weighing well.