Kwan,+Jonathan

I have debated on the national circuit for four years in LD. I have taught at the National Symposium for Debate (NSD) and the Stanford National Forensic Institute (SNFI). I currently coach for Lynbrook High School.

By default, I will evaluate arguments through the value and value criterion. I am not predisposed to this model and will evaluate through any other framework provided that you justify it, this includes kritiks, theory, or prima facie/a priori arguments. I have no objection to the content of your arguments but you should be able to explain your arguments clearly whether they be “critical” arguments or not. I am fine with speed so long as you are clear and I will yell “clear” if you are not.

I do not like blippy argumentation, especially when it comes to a prima facie/a priori and theory arguments. Thus, if you are extending a conceded blippy prima facie/a priori argument it will be tenuous to get me to vote on it.

In terms of theory, I tend to think that theory is a gateway issue, RVI’s aren’t persuasive, fairness outweighs education, in-round abuse trumps potential abuse, and multiple prima facie/a priori arguments are unfair. That being said, that does not mean I won’t be willing to vote off theory arguments that I find less appealing but merely that it may take more convincing to get me to pull the trigger on them.