put me in the chain pretty please: jbalanovsky@gmail.com

tldr: read whatever just explain why you win and don't be offensive. don’t make me cry :(

Background:

- upenn '26, atech '22 (policy in hs)

General things:

- tech > truth

- idc what you read

- don't be rude, none of the offensive -isms. i will vote you down for that type of rhetoric

- speed is cool just be clear, i am willing to clear you a few times (especially if the tourney is online) but I'll have to dock speaks if it becomes excessive. slow down a bit on tags/ things not on the doc ESPECIALLY ONLINE. 

- i don't want to give super low speaks so please don't make me do that

- write the ballot for me or I will cry

- partner cross is fine with me as long as everyone in the round is also okay with it. please don't have one partner ask/answer most everything because i will dock both your speaks for that.

- i'm fine with flex prep if everyone is okay with it too, but please still do significant cross examination.

- you don't have to take prep to send the doc (i feel you computer issues gang). stealing prep makes me cry, however.

Mildly Specific stuff:

Policy affs: irdc what you read just have good impact framing and calculus. your aff exists for a reason, use its strategic advantages to your advantage. i enjoy the use of 1ac cards to answer neg args when applicable.

DAs: please do impact calc or i will cry. i think turns case arguments are fun and compelling.

CPs: id prefer you to tell me to judge kick. explain perms. pics are something that exist in debate i guess.

Theory: i can vote for any theory arg if you win it, but your speaks will reflect if you go for a silly shell/go for a silly shell when you had so many other ways to win the debate. If you are extending a blippy or friv theory shell, do more work than you had done when you read the shell or I will cry. tell me why your arg matters.

Topicality v Policy: im a sucker for good t debates honestly. i default to competing interps unless instructed otherwise. i like hearing caselists for the good things you include/bad things you exclude. please please impact everything out and compare impacts. why does your interp being good for ground outweigh their definition being more predictable, etc etc.

General K things: i don't know some of the more obscure lit bases so please do extra explaining if you're reading something like that. i have primarily read setcol, cap, and security args in my career. please tell me what my ballot does.

Policy v K: specific links are good. impact out those links. if the framework debate exists, it probably matters. i am willing to vote on the link/impact level alone.

K v K: really fun debates. do that clash thing and you will be golden.

K v T/FW/whatever you wanna call it: just as cool with these debates as with k v k. prove why your model of debate is preferable or I will once again cry.

have fun! fr y'all you should be enjoying your debates.

I would call myself a heavy tab judge. I will listen to any argument that you could possibly read in front of me, but only if you can do so, well. Ks, K affs, theory, framework, performances, wipeout, CPs, Ts, and anything else you could possibly run is okay with me. My only condition is that Voters must always be read. I don't care how long you spend on the argument, if you don't properly cover the voters on the individual argument, then I have no reason as a judge to vote for it.

Explicitly sexist, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic discourse does not belong in debate, so don't engage in it. People should be nice. If you are not, then you may be looking at a low point win. I do not vote based purely on speaking style but if you are rude or offensive, then don't hope for anywhere near that 30. Other than these caveats, I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. On all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Speed:

Won't be able to spread me out of the round as long as you are clear. If you are not then I will say clear once and then after that anything that does not end up on the flow does not get carried over.

Email: jameshaydenporter@gmail.com