Zhang,+Samuel

Experience: 4 Years CX at Round Rock High School Second Year Judging

NOTE: I have not kept up with the topic, so don't assume I know acronyms or jargon specific to the topic.

Instead of labeling myself as a specific paradigm, I'll just say that I prefer policy style arguments (T, DA, CP) because that's the style I debated in high school. I'm also fine with the generic Ks (Cap, Security, etc.) That being said, don't assume that I know the literature just because you read the argument all the time.

When it comes to weighing the debate, **please** give me impact calculus. Not only is it good practice, it just makes the ballot that much easier to write. Some specifics:

//Policy/DA Risk Analysis:// Pretty straight forward stuff. Magnitude, Timeframe, Probability. Weigh them against each other.

//Kritikal Risk Analysis:// If you can make the impacts competitive (either through framework, impact framing, or just through util) then I'll buy it.

Below are some specific arguments that I have concern with (please don't let this discourage you from running them):

//Condo// - Hard to vote on, but I get it. Just be clear when saying all your points. There's nothing worse than spreading through a 30 point argument and the judge not understanding any of it.

//Performative Affs// - I dreaded these throughout HS, but they can be quite enjoyable. Give me a clear way to vote and win on Framework. I will err neg if Framework is a wash.

//Non-Topical Affs// - Same as above.

//Advocacy Affs// - These I have more leniency toward, but if the neg has a good reason why the advocacy/lack of a plan text is an issue, you better answer their argument well.

//"Weird" K's// - If you run these, you'll know what they are. Just explain the literature as you go along. I'm very inexperienced with kritical literature, so take that how you will.

In conclusion, I'll probably vote on anything if you give me a reason to. As every other judge says, "write the ballot for me."