Tang,+Timothy


 * Update for Princeton Classic 2017: the last tournament I judged was the 2016 Princeton Classic. I have judged at ~three tournaments in the past two years. Pref me at your own risk. See tl;dr at the bottom.**

Hi! My name is Tim Tang and I debated LD for Ridge High School in NJ, primarily on the local circuit. I'm currently a student at Princeton. I will try to evaluate anything, and I can tolerate spreading. However, I would prefer that you go at about 50% of your speed in front of me as I have not competed or judged circuit LD in a while.

I definitely don't consider myself a speaks fairy. I operate on a 25-30 scale, and I try to average around a 26.
 * Speaker Points**

If you do any of the following in-round, I will probably drop you or tank your speaks significantly:
 * Dislikes**
 * Blippy argumentation
 * Spending too much time flashing cases
 * Rudeness / condescension

I am fine with most arguments. The theory and the kritik arguments are fine with me as long as you clearly explain the alternatives for both. I can evaluate the LARP argument as well, but I require you to have a solvency advocate for plans and counterplans. The link to the disadvantage must be strong, and I would prefer that your impact be something other than extinction. I have debated and read skep triggers before, but would prefer that you not read these in front of me as I do not fully understand them. I recognize that I am atrocious at flowing, so I might not catch all of the arguments that you throw at me, especially if they are blippy.
 * Arguments**

I attempt to judge in a manner most similar to that of Andrew Monagle (see his paradigm for clarifications).
 * Inspirations**


 * tl;dr:**
 * If you are a traditional debater, be aware that I am OK with your opponent running technical-style arguments in response to a traditional case.**
 * If you are a tech debater, be aware that I have not been in a tech round (as a judge, observor, or competitor) in a long time and cannot guarantee that I will evaluate your arguments the way you intend for them to be evaluated.**