Wu,Curtis

I debated four years at Palo Alto High School (Class of 2014). While I went to a few circuit tournaments during my high school years, I mostly did lay/persuasive debate, and have not been involved in high school debate since graduating. This means that I have a pretty low tolerance for jargon and speed.

As far as arguments go, I'm willing to vote on anything so long as you justify it to me. However, I will need more explanation from you on how to evaluate certain cases. They include:

1. Theory - need to have a clear interpretation 2. Kritiks 3. Plans/Counterplans/Disads 4. Philosophy-heavy cases - I've seen far too many misinterpreted philosophers in debate cases, but if this is your thing, I'd love to see it done well.

Things I like to see in a debate round:

1. Clear signposting - claim, warrant, impact 2. Rebuttals which engage with the substance of your opponent's arguments 3. Full extensions, with the exception of a dropped argument, then tagline and impact are sufficient 4. Use of information gained during cross-x 5. Original, substantive arguments 6. Crystallization in the 2NR, 2AR 7. Being respectful towards your opponent and towards me.

If you do all that, and throw in some appropriate literary references, you're well on your way to winning the round and earning good speaks.

Note: I may call for evidence at the end of the round if I think it necessary. So cite your sources well!

Good luck!