Hesu,+Alan

Background
Alpharetta High School '15 (4 years of debate) Georgia Tech (no longer debating) Email: alanhesu@gmail.com

Rounds judged: Surveillance (2015-16): 25

Last updated: 2/25/16


 * Disclaimer: Anything you see here is my own view of debate. Yours need not be the same. This page should give you an idea of who is sitting in the back of the room, but it should not necessarily overpower what you read and how you debate.**

Overall
- I believe that debate is ultimately an educational activity. I enjoy debates where each side not only presents well-researched, well thought-out arguments but also learns from their opponents. Debate can teach us how to see issues from many different perspectives, and I like seeing debaters who display that level of knowledge and flexibility. - The real world still exists. The more an argument is grounded in facts and reality, the stronger and more valuable it becomes. This is not to say that you should forgo explaining true arguments, but the best arguments will let the truth speak for itself. There can be zero risk of something. - Good research is good. I value good quality evidence, but that doesn't mean you always need top-notch cards to win. In fact, smart, logical arguments can actually be more devastating than simply reading that fancy new impact defense you pulled off Northwestern's wiki. Many times, internal links and solvency claims are far worse than teams give them credit for. - Effective debating requires clash and framing. I will be very lost if, for example, each team has 10 warrants for why they win uniqueness and zero way for me to resolve the issue. Many debates are decided on arguments that just happen to have the most lasting impression in a judge's mind, so it would be in your best interest to choose which argument that is. - Flashing/emailing the speech does not count as prep time as long as you're being reasonable. The other team should always be able to access the evidence you read, which may mean providing a viewing computer. - And of course, be nice, be respectable, and have fun. Humor is an effective rhetorical tool.

Case
- In depth case debates are awesome. Good case turn strategies can be strategic and are often under-utilized. - Too many times I see teams save their analysis and warrant comparison for the final rebuttals. Don't do this. - As I said before, attacking the internal link chain can be vastly more effective than just reading impact defense. - I'm a fan of teams that look at the context of the other team's evidence and point out why it's bad or concludes the other way.

Disads
- Politics has consistently been around 50% of my 2nr's throughout high school, and I think it's an effective generic argument that neg teams can have in their arsenal. It is not a substitute for thorough research and specificity, and aff teams need to do a better job of actually pointing out the plethora of holes and flaws in the internal link chain of a politics DA. If you have not read Scott Phillips' Politics and the Case is not a Strategy - Part 2, I highly suggest you do so, even if only for a good laugh. - Nuanced turns case arguments are good, but you need to win the rest of your DA in order for them to matter. - Not all disads are created equal. If a DA does not make any logical sense or is not supported by the evidence in any way, it will be very difficult to convince me to vote on it.

Counterplans
- Specificity is good. I enjoy good, technical counterplan debates when both teams can effectively explain their arguments. - Solvency deficits need to be impacted by the aff for them to actually matter. - What does sufficiency/necessity actually mean, and why should I care? - I will not judge kick a counterplan unless there is a specific reason given.

Theory
- I've been a 2n basically my entire debate career, so I am more neg-leaning on a lot of theory questions. Theory is best debated by the aff when there is a specific abuse story in the round. - Again, specificity is good. I think a specific solvency advocate (or lack thereof) can do a lot to swing theory debates in favor of one team or another. - Going for theory is not an excuse for not having thorough explanations and impact calc. A blippy 5 second theory argument in the 2ac is probably not very effective, and since I flow on paper, I will not be very pleased if a single sentence in one speech gets blown out of proportion in another. - Conditionality can be good. It can be bad. The neg has the right to utilize conditional advocacies, but the aff has the right to punish them if there is clear abuse in the round. I think condo bad is a strategic and viable aff argument under the correct circumstances. - RVI's do not exist.

Topicality
- I enjoy judging a deep, well thought-out, and well-impacted T debate. I do not enjoy judging a late-breaking debate where the 2nr and 2ar consist of a bunch of new arguments. - People seem to have different ideas of what reasonability actually is. To me, all T debates are about competing interpretations, and reasonability is just a way for the aff to frame their offense. - Evidence is good. T is ultimately grounded in the evidence that each team reads. Given the quality of T evidence I've seen teams use, this should be a warning to some of you. Evidence can and should be used on more than just the interpretation question. - I've said it before and I'll say it again. Impact calc is necessary for me to reconcile each team's offense.

Kritiks
- I did not do much research in these types of arguments, so I am not too familiar with the literature. These debates will often require much more explanation than a simple DA-case debate. - Specificity is (still) good. If the neg can contextualize how their K links to and interacts with the aff, they are more likely to win. If the aff can utilize the specificity of their aff to beat back the generic nature of the K, they are more likely to win. - Framework is a nebulous and quite often useless portion of the debate. You should tie framework into your overall strategy. The arguments on framework should be explained and impacted. I generally don't care if your framework is that the judge is an intellectual critiquing capitalism if the aff has won that capitalism is good. - Seriously, what does the alt do? I wish more teams could answer this question.

K affs/Framework
- I generally think the aff should affirm the resolution. - Refer to my above statement about debate being an educational activity. I think debate is a good way for people to learn about socially relevant issues like racism or sexism. I do not think the purpose of debate is to teach use about dead French philosophers or obscure postmodern ideas. - I view framework/T debates as a question of competing educational paradigms, which means the team that wins that their vision of debate is good will win. The neg effectively debates framework if they can contextualize their offense to the aff.