Yi,+David

Hi, friends! My name is David. I'm debated in LD for four years at duPont Manual High School (KY) from 2014-2018. I broke at almost every bid tournament I attended and reached multiple bid rounds over the course of my career. I also debated a good amount on my local circuit where the style was predominantly traditional.
 * Background:**

I will vote on any argument that's clearly explained. I think debate is a strategic sport/game (best when it's also education), but I think everyone should do what floats their boat. My only concern is that you don't do anything offensive and that debaters reach an agreement on disclosure before the round. Speed? Yes. Clear? Yes. Efficient? Yes. Weighing? Please. Lastly, feel free to ask me questions before the round about positions or preferences! Have fun! :)
 * TL;DR:**

Email Chain: dsyi12400@gmail.com

This is the order of how well I can **evaluate** a certain type of argument—not how much I like it. I'm open to anything! 1 — LARP/Util, T 2 — Kritiks, Theory 3 — Framework 4 — Tricks (only because they're hard to flow sometimes; I think strategic tricks that make the decision easy can be cool)


 * Extra:**
 * Please slow down on author names, tags, analytics, texts/interps, and most theory arguments, as well as pause after reading a card/change your voice while starting a tag.
 * If you're debating a lay debater/novice, I'd appreciate it (i.e. you'll get higher speaks) if you make things more accessible for them. If your nontopical aff is all you have, go ahead and you'll probably still get my ballot, but at least try to slow down or explain things well in CX.
 * One final thing to add is that you need to emphasize big issues. If you make a weighing argument that decides the debate, but it’s 0.452 seconds long, made halfway through the 2NR, and never brought up again, I may mess up and forget about it. Tell me to start things on my flow, or bring it up in an overview, or at the end of your speech. This is especially important when you’re neg due to the 6 minute 2NR, and also highlights the importance of not going for everything (the same thing technically goes for the 2AR).


 * Likes: **
 * smart arguments
 * good strategy
 * great weighing
 * offense offense offense
 * tech skills
 * strategically written cases
 * being funny (if you’re really good and also make me laugh, you might just get a 30)
 * good CX questions
 * good CX answers
 * demonstrating a thorough understanding of the literature you’re reading (literally just sounding SMART)


 * Dislikes: **
 * lack of weighing
 * poor strategic decisions
 * going for everything in your last speech (this is justified sometimes though)


 * LARP/Util: **
 * Read impact defense. It makes it a lot easier to prove why your offense outweighs.
 * Do impact calc!!!!!!
 * Try not to have tags that are really short like “plan kills polcap” or “dems win,” it makes it harder to flow.
 * Great evidence comparison will give you good speaks.
 * You don’t need to read evidence for everything; smart analytics are good too (especially when you're responding to these positions).
 * Extinction is cool. If you win that extinction precludes Kant then I might give extra speaks. ;P
 * All types of CPs are cool, but don't blame me if your opponent reads theory.


 * Ks: **
 * Please have a text to your alt, but texts for framing arguments aren’t required.
 * Performance args are cool, but if it’s very graphic/would make people uncomfortable/etc, please ask if the people in the room are okay with it.
 * Not everyone who doesn’t read performance or Ks is a horrible person; you don’t need to be mean.
 * You don’t need to be topical.
 * I’ll give you higher speaks if you really know your literature.


 * Theory: **
 * I don’t have “defaults” in the sense that the debaters need to justify these things, but I guess I “default” to the norms of the activity, which seem to be drop the debater, no RVIs, and competing interps.
 * In addition to doing so for the interp, please slow down/emphasize when reading the abuse story if it’s not immediately obvious what that story is. (i.e. I know why PICs moot the aff, but I’m not sure why not speccing something is bad for neg ground.) I need to see an abuse story (it may be bad, but it just needs to be there) in order to make a coherent decision. Sometimes just explaining your arg in easy terms makes everything easier.
 * Reasonability is underused, but you need some sort of a brightline.
 * Please weigh, especially when there’s a ton of arguments interacting in the round.
 * I default to a strength of link style of evaluation on various meta-layers of the theory debate, such as on paradigmatic issues or voter weighing (i.e. if you have a ton of offense to education, and they have a tiny amount to fairness, the fact that fairness outweighs is not sufficient to vote for their shell).
 * I don’t like 2NR theory being run as drop the debater, especially if it’s against things like perms, but 2NR meta-theory or 2NR theory on things like advocacy shifts seem to be okay.
 * I tend to get bored while flowing theory debates, so if you spice it up, bonus speaks. I’ll leave this open for your interpretation.


 * Framework: **
 * Make sure you explain your arguments if they’re really dense. I'm generally good on most framework authors.
 * Being able to weigh between framework warrants is a really good skill and I’ll give you good speaks, mainly because without it framework debate is hard to resolve.


 * Tricks: **
 * I think that the tricks that are strategic and make it easy to resolve the debate are pretty cool. They kinda suck for your opponent, but if you make my life easier that's cool. If your opponent calls you out for your crap then that'll get them extra speaks.
 * Tricks are arguments too? Lol


 * Case: **
 * Labelling/clearly distinguishing categories of arguments on case is helpful. For example, if you read 3 pieces of impact defense read it on the impact section of case and number them 1, 2, 3, and if you read 5 solvency indicts read it on the solvency section and number them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That'll make me happy. People seem to just be reading card after card these days.
 * Responding to the warrants of args on case is good. You should do it.
 * If you’re aff, I’ll give you bonus points for strategically writing your aff/having a clear game plan for the 1AR to defend against case dumps. Group args when you can!

**Speaks:** Speaks are generally scaled based on the difficultly of the tournament, but this is a general guideline.

30.0 — You were perfect in this round. You should win the tournament. 29.5 — You did amazing. You should make it to late outrounds. 29.0 — You did great. You will break at the very least. 28.5 — You did good. You should be able to break. 28.0 — You did alright. You might break. You have some work to do. 27.5 — You did average. You have many things to work on. 27.0 — You did eh. You have a LOT of areas to improve on and you need work. Below 27.0 — You did something offensive or terribly wrong with evidence.

That's basically it! In high school I had such a good time with debate. I was fortunate enough to never have any drama or traumatic experiences with debate and I really think that everyone should be able to say the same. Have fun and good luck! :)


 * Disclaimer: A lot of this was borrowed from Kieran Cavanagh. Shout out to him for letting me borrow some of this stuff.