Tong,+Alan

I debated for Ridge High School for four years and now attend Northwestern University.

Speed - speed is fine, as long as you're not incomprehensible. I'd also prefer that you use speed for depth in argumentation, rather than just making as many blippy responses as possible. Slow down when you read author names. Also, if you're able to say the same thing while going slower, you're likely to get better speaks.

Theory - I don't like theory. I think it sucks, but its necessary. I am very receptive to theory in situations in which there is real abuse. I am fine with voting off theory as long as you (a) clearly justify why it precedes other issues in the round and (b) explain why it is a reason to vote your opponent down. I agree with Anjan when he says, "I believe the best use of theory argumentation in the debate community is check against outlier abusive practices rather than to declare "best" practices." If you're using theory to skirt substantive argumentation, you're not likely to get good speaks. Be sure to extend every part of the shell throughout the round.

Critical Arguments - I treat these arguments the same way I would any other - they have to be clearly warranted and impacted. If I don't understand the warrant in your Zizek evidence, I won't vote for it, so be sure to be extra clear when using this type of argumentation.

Cross-examination - I don't care whether you stand or sit during CX but you should actually have one. Don't just sit there, ask one clarification question, and take 6 minutes of prep. I think the best debaters are those who are able to utilize CX effectively and integrate it into their speeches.

Standards - I default to a value/value criterion model, but alternative frameworks as fine as long as you justify them.

Evidence - I'm not the kind of judge who will sit there evaluating and comparing evidence at the end of the round. That's your job. I'll only call for evidence if there is a disagreement over its meaning or legitimacy in round. I won't do it if you were simply unclear.

I would like that you weigh and **very clearly compare argumentation**. Explain what competes with what at the end of the round and why I should prefer your arguments. I'm a sucker for extremely positional arguments, novel types of argument comparison, and good on-case refutation. I don't like positions which tend to evade clash - I'll vote for a seven minute K about language that precludes the AC, but I won't be happy. I also like debaters who are upfront about the function of arguments. For example, if you're running a prestandards argument, then be very clear and explicit when you say that your argument is an independent reason to vote. The same goes for spikes and other framework arguments. If the function of your argument magically changes in the next speech, then it doesn't matter in my decision calculus. In other words, if your strategy is to win just by tricking your opponent, then don't bother. You need to prove that you are the better debater.

In general, be smart and strategic, and be nice too. If you do that, you'll get good speaks. Good luck! :o)

If you have questions, email me at alantong2013@u.northwestern.edu