Chao,+Hong

Coach at Downtown Magnets High School since 2010 Part of the Los Angeles Metro Debate League (LAMDL) area from 2010 - present

Zero debate experience as a debater in high school or college.

I enjoy debate and the creativity it brings. I treat debate as a Game. I am open to all types of arguments as long as they are explained well, extended throughout the round, impacted and the best overall decision within round. I will not vote a team down because they drop an argument. I will vote on the argument that is explained well enough for me to understand and determine that it is the best decision based on what is presented. Tossing around debate jargon does not mean something was explained well enough for me to understand. I absolutely dislike spreading to the point where your voice is blurred beyond recognition and I will stop flowing. Speed is part of the game, but there is speed and then there’s clarity. I can handle some speed, but I need clarity.

**Topicality/Vagueness/Plan Flaw/Whatever-SPEC** – All are fair game. When going for arguments like these especially for Topicality, explanation and comparison are the best ways to convince me. On the T debate, tell me why it's a voter. What education have you lost in debate or maybe why should fairness be //a priori?// Why is your interpretation the better version of Debate that occurs in this round? Explain and tell a story on T about the effects your interpretation has on the round that are drastically different from the AFF interpretation and creates a better debate that I must vote. Fulfill those requirements and the ballot is yours. As for the Affirmative, I need to hear counter-interpretation. Why do you say your definition is better and some standards. I find reasonability to be a good standard and if the definition is good, then it’s good enough. I will only vote you down on topicality if you cannot justify that your interpretation also creates a version of debate that is just as good as what the Negative is arguing.

**Theory –** Similar to T. Explain why your version of debate is better and why should I vote on it. I will listen to all theory arguments, but I will only vote on it if it is thoroughly explained why it creates a better debate and is a drastically better version compared to the opponent. Dropped arguments do not lead to a vote for me on Theory.

**DA**- The link must be sufficient, explained and extended. I also need explanations of why the impacts turn or outweigh case. If explained thoroughly enough, DA is enough for me to vote Neg.

**CP**- I personally believe CPs are one of the most effective Negative arguments. You need zero evidence if it's a plan you never heard of before and the CP does everything the AFF does but better. You must read Disads as net benefits and let your logical explanation on how the CP works be your solvency. If the Aff does read or make solvency deficit claims, then Negative team needs to provide evidence on how your actor or CP will solve. I’ll listen to all types of CPs. Permutations are fair game and I expect AFF to explain how and why their permutation(s) can happen while avoiding the Disads.

**K's** – They need to be explained well and intelligently used. Too many debates skim through the ideologies of the author and denigrate the author's ideologies. You must explain why the ALT is a better choice, how the Aff links to your K and why the impacts outweigh. Root cause arguments that focus on one root cause leading to any impact are not believable and just not true. I'd prefer to hear the Aff specific action that would justify these horrible impacts and how the ALT solves for those specific actions. If I don't understand the K, I will stop flowing because it was not articulated well enough.

**Performance** - Very entertaining to watch, but same as K please explain clearly and have good reasons why the performance is the Aff and the impacts that occur. I will vote for either team based on the evidence presented, impacts, and solvency presented by both sides. I will not vote solely on the performance itself. Be ready to defend against T arguments and be ready to explain why your performance is a better version of debate.

**K Aff's** - Same as performance. Be ready to defend against T arguments and to explain why your Aff is a better version of debate.. Be clear, articulate your arguments, and tell me how you want me to evaluate the round. Neg should be ready to run framework/t. Neg can also analyze the evidence and the authors argument to identify fallacies in the Aff interpretation and explain how the Aff has a solvency deficit.

**Framework**- I need both teams to tell me how the debate should be framed in whatever way you want it to be framed. Give me standards and reasons to prefer. I need to clearly understand the framework, standards and reasons, and why it generates a better debate.

**Role of the Ballot**- This only works if it is explained. Each side needs to identify their interpretations and counter interpretations for me to use it as an evaluative mechanism. If y’all win the role of the ballot and can better solve, then y’all also have my ballot.

**If there’s anything else missing from here, feel free to ask before the round begins.**


 * ~Hong Chao **
 * Downtown Magnets HS **
 * Los Angeles Unified School District **