For email chains: tate.oien@gmail.com
 Overview:
 Four years of Parliamentary Debate and Congress, as well as one year of Policy and Public Forum at San Dieguito Academy High School. Used to competing in traditional (more lay) Parli, but prefer to compete in circuit/flow as well as judging the latter. Spent a year at the POI Debate Institute at Berkeley. Below are my preferences, if you want me to expound upon them in greater detail, ask me before round. I'm a Junior at UC Berkeley studying Philosophy and Political Economy, so those topics are my area of expertise. My paradigm is my paradigm, if you think something is unfair feel free to let me know but don't expect me to change my mind without good reason.
 Tech vs Truth:
 It's a false dichotomy, and, in a perfect round, there should be no distinction between the two. But in the event that there is conflict, I'll probably default to tech. It varies from round to round, but more often than not tech provides greater equality in round between both aff and neg.
 How I value args epistemically:
 Theory > K > Regular Case
 My reasoning is theoretical debates frame pretty much the entire rest of the round, and Ks, as unique as they are, are pretty much just a Disad. I default to the idea that debate ought be an educational event and not just a sport, and so I'm more sympathetic to theoretical arguments because they tie directly into that thesis. However, if the K directly attacks that thesis and critiques the fundamental assumptions of not just the aff, but also the debate, then I will weigh the K and the Theory against one another on equal footing.
 Weighing/Extension:
 I won't flow arguments that aren't extended. When you extend them, you also ought to explain the argument and not just mention it. This isn't a deal breaker, but it helps me remember what your argument was without having to go over my flow again.
 Please try and weigh your arguments in the rebuttal/last speech. It helps me judge the round by condensing the main points of the debate.
 Speed:
 I can flow at most, if not all, speeds on my laptop. If you're going too fast, I'll say clear. If you don't slow down, I'll repeat a couple of times but if you don't adjust I will stop flowing until you do. If the other team calls clear, you better show them the same courtesy you show me. If they're clearly being absurd, I'll call them out on it, stop time, and tell them to show you more respect.
 On Counterplans:
 If your CP doesn't prove mutual exclusivity, I'm just not going to flow it. Simple as that. A counterplan that can be done in conjunction with the plan is not a counterplan, it is a non sequitur. Other than that, go to town, Counterplans make the debate incredibly fun.
 However, I'll flow PICs if your opponents don't run theory against it.
 On Links:
 If you're going to cite any data, especially economic data, you need to have very solid links. Don't just tell me that employment increased after the passing of NAFTA, tie it directly to NAFTA. Explain how free trade led to a growth in positions for the service industry. If you just mention a figure without linking it to the trend you're talking about, I won't consider it. It's in your best interest to explain yourself as fully as possible.
 On Theory:
 I'll accept any theoretical argument, so long as it's substantiated. This is certainly the area where I feel the most comfortable judging in terms of non-standard arguments.
 On Kritiks:
 I'll vote on pretty much any standard negative kritiks, just make sure you fully explain the argument.
 I /can/ vote on performance Ks, I just prefer not to. Make it very clear what the argument is to the other team, if not it's just abusive. If both me and your opponent don't understand the performance, then I'll probably hand the other team my ballot.
 Generally, I'm not voting on Aff Ks. They're abusive. If you want to run it, tell me beforehand and give me the broadstrokes. I'll more often than not just say no, but I'm open to having my mind changed.
 On tricks:
 I'll vote on a prioris and skepticisms, so long as they're substantiated, but I refuse to vote on theory spikes. Theory is an inherently reactionary argument, it's meant to respond to something your opponent has already done, a theory spike is counterintuitive to the purpose of a theoretical argument.
 Speaks:
 I don't really have a set system for determining speaks, but I assign speaks entirely based on rhetoric and actual speaking ability. Think of it like a bellcurve.
 25 = 2.1nd Percentile of speakers
 26 = 16.1th Percentile of speakers
 27 = 50th Percentile of speakers
 28 = 84th Percentile of speakers
 29 = 98.9th Percentile of speakers
 30= 99.9th Percentile of speakers
 Weighing Mechanisms:
 Justify. Justify. Justify.
 This is a big pet peeve of mine. If you don't justify your weighing mechanism, and the other team does, I'm using theirs. If neither do, I'll either choose or use neither. If you don't like that, then you better provide me with a weighing mechanism and justify. Justify. Justify.
 Speaking of pet peeves:
 1) Please signpost. It makes it much easier for me to flow. I don't care if it sounds stunted, just let me know what argument you're making, and what specific section of it we're currently at.
 2) Don't be vulgar. I get it in the context of a performance, but otherwise there's no place for it in debate.
 3) Politeness. I'm fine with you getting provocative and even a bit heated, so long as it's proportional to the arguments your opponents make (i.e. if they're lying about something, misconstruing data to a gross extent, or saying something bigoted). If your opponents say something stupid and bigoted and you call them out for it feel free to be as heated as you want. I'm not gonna punish you for it.
 4) That being said, don't be arrogant, especially if you're winning the round. This won't cost you the ballot, but it betrays bad character and will probably end up being reflected in your speaks.