Chang,+Andrew

Stanford 2015 Update: I've been out of the circuit debate community for a year but it feels like much longer. Despite judging a lot of outrounds at this tournament last year, I don't feel particularly qualified to judge high-level debates outside of my comfort areas (I am most comfortable with the k, policy debate, a util framework, and more but not much more). I'm also bad at judging framework. Also I'm not very familiar with some popular bad theory arguments like AFC and other stuff I forgot but heard a lot at Stanford 2014. There might be more but that's all I can think of right now. I'll take your round very seriously and give you the best decision I can possibly make. -- I debated with Ryan Hang at Cal. We evaluate rounds relatively similarly so the below is his paradigm pretty much verbatim. Overview: While I have become accustomed to the Parli framework norms (Util is true), I am willing to listen to whatever framework you provide for me in the round. I will choose whatever the framework the debaters have resolved as the "best" in the round and will see who has the most offense under that framework to decide the winner. I have not kept up with the current trends in LD debate, but I will evaluate metaethics or anyother arguments you want to run...but because I do not have much background with/running these arguments, you need to explain to me how your framework operates within the round. That said, most of my debate experience has been evaluated under a consequentialist lens. However, what I love about LD is the variety and creativity with frameworks that are run.I will be very willing to listen to all of your framework arguments, including those that indict util.

Framework: While you can run any framework you please in front of me, I cannot say that I am extremely familiar with super dense philosophical arguments. As a general rule: The more complex the framework args, the more analysis I need to evaluate them. If you slow down on the card tags and give me awesome short summaries of what the argument is saying and how it functions in round, we should be fine. a. Spikes: Excluding entire positions with a quarter-sentence blip you blazed through is not my idea of what substantive engagement is. You can still run your spikes, but make sure their implications are clear in your first speech if you want me to evaluate them in the next speech.


 * ALSO***I think think that the neg has the right to run alternative frameworks and probably has the right to contest AFF interps (that is the point of debate right?) In terms of 1AC theory, without a violation these shells do not have a context at all, unless you couch your standards in terms of an explicit future violation -- any new violation and interaction between the standards and the violations gets a response in the NR. Also make clear what your interp is in your 1AC, it is your job as a debater to explain things to me and make it clear as to why you win and what your strategy is.

It is your debate round and I am open minded to whatever you want to run (including K's, narratives, and performances) I Just need a clear framework on how to evaluate these arguments within the context of the round. However, I will not evaluate blatantly offensive arguments such as Holocaust or racism good, etc.

Speed: I'm comfortable with speed, I think the biggest issue is clarity. I will shout clear or speed if I cannot understand you. Just slow down for you spikes and your framework, so I can get everything down. I think the best way to be clear is to start off slower and build up your speed. SIGN POST AND TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE

Theory: Slow down for the interpretation. I am sympathetic towards the RVI in cases of silly theory arguments (Such as multiple SPEC shells). Though you must be winning your counter interpretation(s) if you wan't me to evaluate the RVI. I probably will not look towards theory implicating out of round abuse (such as disclosure theory). I understand that debate is a game and I am okay with theory used as a strategic tool, but I prefer a substantive debate. I don't have a preference for competing interpretations or reason-ability, but at least tell me what reason-ability means. (Does it mean, if I win one offense standard you look away or gut check??? What does it mean?) I prefer in round abuse, and I have a very high threshold for theory if there is no articulated in round abuse. I will vote on potential abuse if you flat out win it.
 * I am open to non-traditional responses to theory such as K's of T.

Policy Arguments: Run your Plans, CPs, DAs, K, and more in front of me. I have more experience with these arguments and will embrace them in LD.

Kritiks: I think these debates are fun and enjoy the K debate. However, PLEASE slow down when you are reading these arguments and provide summaries of the argument in your tag lines. You should understand these arguments well and be prepared to simply explain these arguments to your opponent or myself during the round. Again, the more complex the argument...the more explanation I need. You probably don't really need to dive too deeply into your explanation of your Agamben K, but you probably should put more work into explaining your Lacan K.

Arguments: Parli has changed the way I view the round. I probably have a lower threshold for argument quality and extensions than most LD judges. I find it difficult to "dismiss" and argument that was dropped, simply because it was not warranted enough. If the argument was that terrible a simple "no warrant/counter assertion/this does not make any godamn sense should be sufficient," but as a debater it is your responsibility to point these things out.

Weighing: This makes me happy and will win you rounds. Do it.

Speaks: I’ll probably try to average a 27.5 for most rounds. You will get a 28-28.5 if I think you are generally mistake-free. A 29-29.5 means you are phenonmenal. A 30 will be rewarded for people who remind me of debaters I loved watching. If you’re a douchebag in round I will give you an auto-25. [Note: this is Ryan's speaks paradigm - I personally average a little bit higher like around 28-28.5. I don't know, I'll ask about speaks inflation norms when I get to the tournament.]

World-View: I will default comparative worlds unless there is a reason provided to prefer truth-testing. (I don't personally prefer truth-testing and don't think I'm good at evaluating it.)

Don’t forget, debate’s enjoyable, so have fun. Debate is also a game so be nice and don't let anything get too personal. If you have any other questions, ask me before the round.