Tran,+Nicholas

So some background information first:

I am a seasoned debater, having experience in PF, Policy, and LD, so I have an understanding of most procedures in debate. I keep up with the current resolutions and literature tied to the resolution, so I have a strong working knowledge of the topic. Philosophy is one of my majors, and I have taken many classes on Law/Criminal Justice so I am versed in both of these areas, so don't try to pull shenanigans.

Okay, so moving on to my judging style:

I am a relatively lax judge. I enjoy discourse, especially of the unexpected variety. I will listen to any and all arguments, even the troll ones. So what does that say about me as a judge? I like being entertained. There is a legitimate reason that will be stated later explaining this, but that is the gist of my judging style. So having debates that are entertaining would be foremost concern if you would like my vote.

But besides that, I vote heavily on storytelling. The ability to structure your argument so it has a clear distinct path, from beginning to end is important to me. The main idea is that having more impacts that flow through does not always win my vote. If impacts are spread out, instead of being able to connect to each other to form a bigger picture, then the storytelling is broken and the weight of your impacts are lost. Almost always, make sure your impacts connect and bundle together to give a clear and distinct vision of the world you are arguing.

I will vote off Theory, but I won't vote off Topicality. I enjoy K, especially in LD, and may vote off it depending on how well it is run. This leads to how I view certain portions of a debate case:

Framework: Unless you really know what you're doing, so as in Varsity-level-you've-gotten-to-quarters, I really don't like V/VC debates. It can be a bother and most of the time, it is a waste of time. Especially Util vs. Deontology debates, where people should at least read literature on these before throwing arguments that don't correspond to their chosen ethical standpoint. It's embarrassing as a Philosophy student to sit through that. Besides that, it's fun to see people run interesting frameworks like Ontology or TimeCube.

K: Kritiks are super interesting when they're run in LD, especially if they're run well. If a Kritik debate comes up, who wins that sub-debate will definitely become a voting issue.

Perms: Another interesting strategy to run in LD, will listen to it, and if it is run well, will vote off it. (This basically extends to everything. If it's interesting and ran well, I'll vote off it).

Topicality: As long as your case can be remotely tied to the resolution, I'll listen to it.

CX: I will not vote off CrossX. I have had people say the stupidest things in CrossX before, and I would rather not vote off those instances of stupidity.

Abuse: It's hilarious when it happens, and I generally don't care.

Politeness: It's okay to be informal, but please don't physically harm your opponent, that has happened before. And I mean informal, I have had people strip to almost bare nakedness to prove their point, and I was fine with that.

Impact Calculus: Everyone votes off Impacts. It's whatever.

Theory: Here is where my entire debating philosophy ties together. Almost 95%~ of the time, I will vote off education. Yes yes, it may not be an orthodox policy, but here's why. I value education over everything. Education will lead to better decisions for everyone and lead to a better future in both a utilitarian and deontological sense. The purpose of debate is to have discourse that propagates education for the debater, the judge, and the audience. This is why I accept all debate cases and allow for Policy-type arguments in LD, it helps education. This is also why I value being entertained. Scientific studies have shown that when a person is entertained, they are more likely to pay attention to and remember the event. Thus being entertained is a key concept when it comes to education. If you can prove your debate created an environment that was more educational, you probably automatically win my vote.

I will explain a story of one instance in my debating career. I used sock puppets and structured my entire debate case, including CX, as a skit that you would see on Sesame Street. I answered and asked questions through sock puppets in CX and I read and wrote all of my speeches as a dialogue between two sock puppets. In the end, my argument was that I structured my case so that the entire debate was more educationally accessible to people, that even a five year old could understand the debate because of how I structured it.

This is a rather extreme example, but it illustrates what I mean by being educational. (I won that debate btw.) There are many ways to increase education, and if you do, you have my vote. An interesting note in the sock puppet case, the opponent argued abuse because I was using two puppets making me technically "two people" and it was unfair that it was a 2v1 debate.

Some ways people have done to create a more educational debate: -Sung the entire time, while maintaining arguments -Completely dropped the pretense of debate rules and asked the opposition to accept a sit-down discourse on the topic -Asked for time extensions for all the speeches and CX for both parties -Literally read their speeches as if it was a story, where the Aff and Neg were characters -Ran a plan (Aff) and a PIC (Neg) in LD -This: @https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz1YQW4J6s