Victor+Wu

I competed for four years in Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate at Albuquerque Academy with experience on both national and traditional circuits from 2011 to 2015.

=**Please use Pocketbox**=

St. Marks 2016 update: I've become more familiar with the types of arguments being run on the topic. I still don't think you should pref me very high if you're a top level debater

Grapevine 2016 update: I've been pretty removed from the debate meta since judging and competing last. I'll be able to understand your arguments but you probably need to flesh out your arguments a little more than if you were in front of a more well versed judge. Strike me if you're legit super good at debate.

__My View on Debate__

As a debater in high school, I often felt constrained by my local circuit in that I couldn't run the arguments that I wanted to run. Kritiks and even topicality were frowned upon and speed would 99% lose you the round. I fortunately had the opportunity to attend NSD and compete nationally at tournaments that allowed me to debate the way I wanted to. I believe that debaters should never have to be afraid of losing a round just because their style of presentation or argumentation is palatable with a certain judge. Thus, I evaluate rounds purely based on content of argumentation regardless of what the arguments are and how they are presented. Unless you make racist, homophobic, or offensive (ie. "genocide good") arguments, I won't have a problem with voting for you so long as you give me a clear story as to why I should. Please avoid bad extensions. I don't care if your opponent //COLD CONCEDES// the link turn if you don't tell me what the argument is and why it's important.

__Speed__ I like fast debates but that doesn't mean you should feel compelled to sacrifice your debating style or clarity. I'll yell clear twice if you're slurring and after that tough luck. Slow down for authors and tags. If you're neg and your opponent reads a constructive at normal pace and you spread them out I'll wreck your speaks.

__Kritikal Arguments__ Absolutely love them. That said, please understand what you're reading. I'm tired of seeing coaches sending in proxy debaters who just have files of stuff they tell them to read. If you don't get the philosophy and merits behind the arguments you run please don't waste my time or your opponent's. I like interesting kritiks that can really delve into a topic as opposed to generics with shady links, but I'll still vote for those if you argue and understand them well. Kritikal affirmatives are baller, but once again please know what you're saying and not just read whatever your coach told you is op or something. I'm not super well versed on every single philosophical stance so make those clear to me too

__Theory and Topicality__ I have a very high threshold on both theory and topicality. Unless you specify it, I assume that theory is a drop the argument issue and topicality is a drop the debater issue, and that RVIs don't exist for either side. I don't like assuming things so please tell me these things. If you run frivolous theory like aff must separate arguments with commas or something else stupid in that nature I will not write down a single word you say. I do believe that theory and topicality are salient voting issues and fosters a fair debate, but don't run it just because you didn't do research or as a time suck. I can tell when debaters do this. Please don't do it. Give me clear reasons as to why your shell is relevant

__DAs__ I love creative DAs, especially ones that speak to a specific plan for a resolution. If you have well researched links I'll probably give you increased speaks just for that. I don't like generics but I understand that they can be strategic and make for a fairly good debate. Just make sure that the link story is clear and that you give me a mechanism to evaluate them (ie. impact framing and calculus)

__Plans and Counterplans__ Go for it, I don't assume TSPEC/ASPEC/OSPEC but if you don't specify you'll probably run into some theory issues. You need to tell me explicitly the plan and counterplan text. PICs are chill with me

__Framework__ Pretty key if you make any argument period. I like to know how things should be viewed or weighed in a round. I love policymaking as a framework but don't be afraid to throw something else my way. I love util

__Speaks__ I'm pretty generous with them. 28.5 is my standard for most people, higher if you're respectful, clear, and persuasive. Lower if not. If I see that you're in your bubble round and you happen to win I'll be more generous to help you out a bit

Please pre-flow before the round starts If you have an email chain I'd like to be part of that: vwu@unm.edu Time yourselves Don't steal prep. Flashing counts as prep if I see that you're blatantly just prepping more Don't use cross-ex as prep

tl;dr: everything underlined is cool with me as long as you understand the arguments you make and present it clearly. Don't be rude or offensive. Ask me before round if you have any other questions