Huang,+Jim


 * Background**: I debated at Jesuit High School (New Orleans, LA) for five years, four of which were predominately on the national circuit. I qualified to TOC for four years but didn’t attend senior year; I was an octa-finalist and 7th speaker my junior year.


 * SHORT VERSION**: I like well-thought-out framework debates mixed in with a healthy amount of substantive clash. All offense MUST link back to a framework. Strategic frameworks should exclude a clearly defined set of impacts. Minimal theory/topicality is appreciated. Only go for triggering presumption when you feel like substance has been lost beyond repair. I’m open to comparative worlds/truth-testing/offense-defense paradigm arguments and why said paradigms exclude certain arguments.

DO WHAT YOU DO BEST. I may disagree with you on some issues, but if you are abysmal at doing what I like and are awesome at doing what you like, I’ll still be a fair judge. A good debate full of things I hate is better than an awful debate with arguments I love (exception: see the theory and intervention sections.)


 * Speed**: If I didn’t flow it, I **__will not__** vote on it. I will yell clear and slow over and over again until I’m sick of it, and if you don’t take a hint then…well. Sucks for you.


 * Permissibility/Presumption**: I am convinced that offense only links to a framework and that offense is not weighable under certain standards, so I do vote on presumption and permissibility arguments. **__However__**, I’m also very friendly to risk of offense arguments against, for example, super sketchy presumption/permissibility blip spreads that just aren’t substantive. I will vote on these args if they are being __clearly__ won; but I will never give leeway to those types of debaters in terms of explaining the impacts of their arguments.


 * Role of the ballot/Pre-fiat**: I’m not very familiar with these arguments, so explain well. Considering the type of debater I was, I am thoroughly convinced that a normative framework of some sort is necessary to evaluate any impacts coming off your advocacy; so please have one. If I’m wrong, then tell me why because I will not assume I have any proactive obligations to constantly reject some system of oppression with my ballot.

Don’t get me wrong. I personally agree with a lot of things said about structural violence and oppression. However, I don’t know if my ballot is the best tool to use to fight against the system. If you’re winning the round though, I will absolutely vote for you.


 * Theory and T**: No voter means I get to use my intuition to decide how the theory is evaluated. I will also assume that fairness and education are voters absent any voter arguments and that fairness outweighs education.

I hate dumb and/or frivolous theory. Your speaks will be wrecked if you do that, even if I vote for you. Ask me privately before the round if I think your interp is full of stupid if you’re unsure. Shells which I think are utterly disgusting include but are not limited to: “Must have counter-solvency advocate”; “Must run contingent standards”…you get the point, right?

If you run an interp which I think is absolutely ridiculous, I will look for any way possible to not vote for your shell. Likewise, if I think that what you’re doing is too crazily abusive, I will look for ways to drop you on theory. My threshold changes depending on your argument quality and whether you’re on the side of truth.

CX is binding. Use it to clarify theory interps. (I don’t think CX checks is a good argument if used to further your own selfish, abusive ends though L )

Because close theory debates are always messy and because theory is very distinct from substance, I think of theory as a more big picture style of argumentation. I will not drop anyone based on one line blips or one-argument drops. I will always evaluate embedded clash and try my best to think through it carefully. As a result, it is in your best interest to crystallize effectively and try to do more weighing as opposed to extending “err neg” or “never drop aff on theory” type arguments. Don’t like this? Don’t run frivolous theory, and don’t be unfair.


 * Intervention:** I will not hesitate to intervene if (A) I just didn’t flow your arguments; (B) an unnecessary and bad theory debate has begun; (C) the round is really messy and irresolvable; (D) your arguments are too offensive for me to handle.


 * Speaks**:

Starting point—28 Deserve to break—28.5 Doing a lot of things right—29 Impressive—29.5 I think you should win the tournament—30

I will add or subtract tenths of speaker points depending on: (A) your sense of humor; (B) your sassy demeanor (NOT synonymous with rudeness); (C) quality of on-the-spot refutation; (D) being pleasant to listen to; (E) wearing something(s) super chic and unique; (F) being nice to JVers and novices.

Be very kind, and you shall be rewarded. Be a jerk, and you will be punished—maybe even with a loss. Everyone should have the chance to have fun at debate tournaments and learn from their rounds, and spreading out someone who’s attending his/her first varsity tournament is such an asshole move.

Please ask if I didn’t mention something.

Last updated: 9/15/14