Huang,+Christian

I've debated for 4 years at Jasper High School and Plano Senior High School in Lincoln Douglas. I mostly competed on the state level, but I'm not unfamiliar with the national circuit. I'm a first year out of high school.

__**TL;DR for debaters in a time crunch**__ I am fine with almost every type of argument that doesn't perpetuate some form of oppression. I prefer kritikal arguments, but I am perfectly capable of evaluating Plans, Theory, Performance, and Stock debate. Framework > Contention level. I'm not as fast as most judges so I recommend you to speak slower than you would other national circuit level judges. I like my rounds to be laid back and debaters to be nice to each other. Anything specific questions you should ask or read parts of my philosophy where I might address it.

__**NOW ON TO THE FUN PART**__

In my years as a high school debater, I ran a lot of arguments (how about that). My Junior year I ran deontology for the first half, and kritiks for the second half. In my senior year, I ran mostly kritiks and plans/CPs. I am a big fan of kritikal arguments that are relevant to the debate at hand, the debate community, and society as a whole. If your K fulfills those three criteria, you should be in good shape to run it. That does not mean I will automatically vote for it, or think that the K is particularly good.

__**Slow and steady wins the race... sorta**__ This is probably a fault of me, but I can't flow as fast as most people who competed on the national circuit. This and the fact that I haven't seen a debate related activity since Harvard 2014 should probably be a warning sign to go slow for me. I rate myself a 6/10 with regard to speed with 3 being the traditional judge's speed and 8 being the national level debater speed. This is a rough estimate, and I will say slow down or clear twice before I stop flowing. Please emphasize tags or important details you want me to hear without emphasizing everything in your 2nd theory shell or whatever you kids do nowadays.

__**Divine Intervention**__ I rarely intervene, and when I have to I'll intervene based on which argument is objectively better substance wise.

I don't default to competing interpretations, reasonability, permissibility, neg skew, etc. Unless there's an argument clearly extended through the round with proper justification, I won't default to anything and will decide based on what's given to me.

I hate oppressive arguments, but I will evaluate them nonetheless. I will give you a 25 even if you win with said argument because I am a firm believer in setting a norm against using these arguments. I also can't help that my non-racist, non-sexist, and non-bigoted bias might come into play and I end up preferring an argument based on that. That being said, if you aren't actively being offensive, and are implicitly making uncomfortable arguments, I won't drop your speaks and talk to you specifically about why your mentality might not be OK. This I feel is more effective than giving you a 25 or a loss. I also won't give a 25 just because your opponent tells me to give it to you unless there's a really compelling reason to do so.

__**K's for days**__ Most K's are formatted Link/Impact/Alt or something of the like. You don't have to follow the traditional format of the K anymore than you have to follow the Value/VC/Contention style of traditional debate. That said, it helps to make clear the nuances to your formatting of the K, and formatting for the sake of strategic benefit may end up confusing me more than your opponent. I think most K's should have a framework to evaluate the round, or at least link into the opponent's framework. With regards to Theory > K or K > theory, I think that norm has to be set by the debater as I don't feel comfortable intervening.

__**Framework**__ Framework is one of the most important parts of the debate to me if not the most important. I think almost everything has to have a framework whether it's yours or your opponents. That being said, I love clash and I expect a substantive framework debate with clash. It doesn't matter if both of you have fantastic frameworks, if you don't interact with each other I will probably do the best of my ability to give a passive-aggressive non-verbal to suggest that I hate both of you. That doesn't mean I don't evaluate the substance. I think clashing on both the layers of debate is extremely important. Turns are the most strategic means of winning in my opinion, so don't neglect the contention level arguments.

__**Theory**__ I see theory as setting norms on how debaters are and are not allowed to debate. The only norms that are set by default are the time constraints and the law (so please don't break your opponent's laptop or show up naked to the round). If you question a norm (like the time constraints) then you're going to need a good justification on why that norm should change. I don't mind theory so much as I think most debaters can't successfully debate it correctly (at least from what I've seen). If you're Jackson Lallas or something of the like, then go for it.

__**Stoc****k** **arguments**__ This is the last part because I don't think a single judge out there can't evaluate stock debate and debaters would probably like to hear what I think about K's and theory first. I'm fine with Util vs. Deon. I'm fine with hearing you citing locke, kant, bentham or any other analytic philosopher. One Caveat though: **NOTHING SHOULD BE ASSUMED.** If I hear you say "this hurts democracy" I want to know why democracy is good. You don't necessarily have to say "genocide is bad because of x" but I'd really like a good link between your framework and substance. Do not assume you've won the debate because your case appeals to intuitive goals that society has.

__**Speaks**__ If you want a 30 from me, just show a mix between substantive warranted arguments presented in the most efficient organization of your arguments on top of being someone who's fun to watch debate. Easier said than done obviously.

30-29: You're a fantastic debater and I expect you to get far into outrounds if not win the whole thing 29-28: A solid debater. You just need some work on some minor things (either substance or technical skill). You should break. 27: There's room to improve. Most debaters end up in this category. 26: You're not exactly where you need to be with regards to your argumentation, fluency, substance, etc. This is easily fixed by training. 25: You said something offensive or did something in the round that was appalling.

If there's something I didn't address here, feel free to ask before the round. Note that this paradigm is subject to change and might not be up to date so it's highly encouraged that you ask me questions before the round