Ning,+Kense

Currently affiliated with: Wake Forest University, North Carolina (2014 - 2016.) Previously Associated with: Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School, New York (2009 - 2014)

email: live.on.clouds@gmail.com (enter it into the email chain)

**At a glance:** -Speaks (novice&jv will vary)- Line-by-line is necessary to break 27.0

Correct debate execution without appearance of deliberate strategic choices nets you 27.0 - 27.5

Deliberate strategic choices 27.5 - 28.5

Impressive execution and strategic choices 28.5 - 30.0

Missing decency - will not break 26.0

-Opinion on the current meta: teams are running towards affs that defend less and less, and teams are running towards reading framework against those affs. This meta is fine but stale. I think if you want to go for presumption (your aff doesn't do anything) just do that and don't read framework. I won't put you at a disadvantage for making the correct call.

**-Decision Making-** Debate is a game. It has an established meta. Both sides believes they are correct while the other side is wrong. I'm of the opinion that it's not a game of proving who's right, but effectively translating your ideas and communicating them to me so that I can write a ballot with your name on it. (i.e: policy debate is not an exercise in writing a thesis paper, it is an exercise in translating from your language to mine.) Speed is good. I akin it to dribbling in basketball/tech-skill in videogames, a barrier of entry that allows for a wider range of volatility, providing an avenue for potential creativity (if you're not fast) or defeating shortcomings through sheer dedication (if you wanna be fast). Evidence is good. Claims with warrants is an absolute deal breaker. Tech that is true > tech beleivably true > truth without tech > truth. (and this is a personal bias. If you can deliver a good cross ex and give off an aura of kindness, your speaker points will be extremely high off that cross ex performance alone, barring any extenuating circumstances). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**About me:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I'm an all around low-maintenance judge. But here are some things to keep in mind behavior-wise: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- Please clean up after yourselves. We're most likely having a debate in a public space (some school) or a rented space (some hotel). It would be nice if you are courteous of your surroundings. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- I'll smile and give facial feedback (I am human after all) while you are debating. Look at these and adjust accordingly and you will have more success. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- You can easily hurt my feelings by: not appearing to listen to my reason for decision, appearing to degrade others for wanting to debate, insulting people I hold close to me. Most of the time if this happens before the round, you'll probably lose since I'll look for every reason to vote against you :') <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- In case this becomes important, I live under a rock. I don't really know anything about "pop-culture" so your references will most likely fly over my head. Sorry ^^ <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**My history:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">For those people who think that getting some background on the judge's history tells them more about how they judge debates, I've listed out some important historical details about me: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I've done pretty much all sorts of things in every facet of Debate. I've read a plan text that had ten words to a plan text that read like a novella. I've read a plan without a plan text. I've read a policy big stick aff. I've read a small squirrely aff designed to beat T-substantial but was not substantial. I've read an identity aff. I've read all sorts of negative arguments from consult to pic-ing out of individual debaters, to reading poems about purple kush. I've read everything from Mills to Baudrillard to Rodriguez to Wilderson to Kagan. I've read DisAds that didn't have uniqueness but were 'linear' to the DisAd formerly known as "the Obama DA."

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I haven't done all of those things with tremendous success, but I've done all of it at a national-circuit level. Which is something that not everyone can say.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I guess what I'm trying to say is that in front of me, you can be whomever you want to be. You don't have to be yourself if you don't want to. You can be the best politics debater (and by that virtue you can be the worst politics debater and instead go for something else), you can do a mean line by line, you can drop the overview and go for truth, or you can go for conditionality bad for however many minutes your rebuttal is. Whatever floats your PIK. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Lastly:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I used to really like debate. Now it's an old memory of mine. If you're really passionate about debate, don't be afraid to let it show. Hold onto that flame and enjoy it while it lasts. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Best of luck.