Huang,+Brent

I debated LD for Starr's Mill High School '12 (GA) and was on the Policy team at Vanderbilt University '16 (TN).

Speed is fine. Slow down for taglines. I’ll say “clear if needed.” Pretty basic stuff.

**Framework** I'm not a fan of vague standards like "structural violence" where practically anything commonly considered bad can be considered an impact. Winter and Leighton are the bane of my existence. I've seen too many rounds of "Sure, maybe a lot of people would die, but is that really structural violence?"

For similar reasons, I will not immediately accept that death, racism, economic inequality, or whatever are inherently bad unless you provide suitable warrants for an ethical standard under which they would be considered bad. This does not mean it’s okay to insult your opponent, only that I will not consider those impacts bad at a pre-fiat level.

I'm pretty well-versed on analytical philosophy, so I really enjoy framework debate. I strongly prefer rounds where both debaters either have different ethical standards like the common util/deont debate, or where both just immediately agree to pick one standard. A good pure util debate is surprisingly rare in LD.

**Weighing** Weighing is wonderful, and probably the point where you will best be able to pick up high speaks.

I will generally default to offense-defense over truth-testing. If you go for skep but don't explain why I should evaluate the round under truth-testing, it will be difficult to get my vote.

Impact turns are great. I can’t promise it’s always the best idea, but I’ll probably love it if the 1AR is four minutes of “global warming good.”

**Theory** I like clearly articulated theory shells in standard Interp-Violations-Standards-Voters format. It makes it much easier to flow compared to paragraph theory.

I generally presume that aff gets RVIs. I am also open to neg getting RVIs, and in general I believe that RVIs are a good norm for debate.

I will default to reasonability unless an argument is made for competing interpretations.

Conditional CPs are probably bad, and I’ll lean aff on theory.

**Kritiks** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I am not the best judge to pick if you’re a Kritik debater. Although I’m generally well-versed with Cap/Fem/Nietzsche K or whatever, my understanding of the more esoteric ones falls off. Although I will try to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, I haven’t spent any time reading 1970s Continentals, and you can’t assume that I’ll have intimate knowledge of their arguments ahead of time.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I’ll evaluate pre-fiat Kritiks against the opponent’s case, but post-fiat ones will need extra explanation as to why I should evaluate them that way. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Please provide an alternative other than “reject the aff.”

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Miscellaneous** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If the AC is super spiky, please number them. This will make it a lot easier for me to flow. If you spout out one-sentence a prioris for a full minute, I’ll be more inclined to vote on them if I can clearly tell where one ends and another begins.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Plans are fine, although I'll definitely be inclined towards Neg T shells if I think you're being overly specific.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">If you say the word “we” in LD, I’ll mentally replace it with “Me and my imaginary friend.”