Cao,+Charlie

Williams College Stanford University

I debated nationally in high school in both Policy and LD from 2005-2009. My exposure to debate since then has been very limited. While I'm not familiar with the topics or any lingo associated with the topics, I am still comfortable with the activity itself.
 * Background:**

Clarity and cogency (in speaking and reasoning) are of utmost importance. I don't care about about speed or presentation, so long as they don't get in the way of these two goals. Teams will be awarded for being able to frame the relevant arguments in the round and for making my job as easy as possible.
 * Style:**

I expect the teams to track the prep times.

I approach all issues with an open mind and let the debaters sort them out. I like concrete arguments with tangible impacts and therefore prefer DAs, CPs, politics, etc. I'm fine with topicality and theory and approach them the same way. Speakers should clearly establish the reasons to prefer their interpretations and do substantive weighing with the other side. Kritiks are also fine, so long as they are not generic. The stronger the link and analysis, the better. That being said, I'm unlikely to be persuaded by affirmative or performance ks, especially if I see it as precluding one side from ever winning. At the end of the day, I value clash and analysis above all else.
 * Argument Preferences**