Wong,+Eric

Eric Wong Years judging: 2 I went to Crowley High School, where I debated CX for four years. I now work with North Crowley High School.

Let's see, as far as my paradigm goes, I would have to say that I lean heavily towards policy arguments, though I am open to most arguments and enjoy game playing as long as the arguments are coherent. I'm big on impact calculus and "big picture" stories (though this cannot and will not replace proper line by line refutation.)

Some specifics:

__Critical arguments__ As I said before, I am a policy maker; but, this being said, I am comfortable with kritiks and other critical arguments. I will say this on kritiks: 1) Be able to clearly explain the kritik in your own words, and don't try to morph the kritik throughout the round. 2) I don't really like kritiks that have rejection as their alternative, an alternative that functions as a counterplan or at least calls for some sort of action is preferre. 3) The more specific the link, the better.

__Topicality__ Topicality isn't usually a strong voting issue for me. Unless the case is obviously not topical, concessions are made on the flow, or there is clear in round abuse, then I usually won't vote on topicality. I say usually because I will still vote on topicality on competing interpretations if the neg interpretation is much better than the aff interpretation, but that also means that the negative has to commit the time to develop the argument (i.e. just going for T in the 2NR)

And I will never vote on an RVI... ever. Judge intervention? Possibly, but the argument is so stupid I can't in good conscience vote on it, tough cookies.

__Speed__ Speed is not an issue as long as there is clarity. However, when going at very fast speeds, try to be vocally dynamic...that constant, monotone humming sound makes me zone out sometimes, though I try to pay attention as best as I can when such situations arise. Also, a brief pause when transitioning both lets me know that you are transitioning, as well as gives me time to move where I need to go on the flow. And slow down a little bit on stuff like theory where you have multiple short arguments strung together, I listen fast but write slow.

__Theory__ When it comes to theory arguments, I am more apt to drop the argument than the team, with the exception of a very poorly managed IV, which I would be more than happy to drop a team for. Unless a theory argument is obviously in the right, I find myself minimizing the effect of the arguments for both teams, since in some cases it's simply a matter of opinion for the judge.

__Performance__ Not a big fan... if you want to do this, have a solvency advocate, preferable one with credentials. But it's not like I will refuse to listen to the argument, I just find myself more often than not voting against performances, so yeah.

__Other general notes__ You can be assertive, and even aggressive, without being rude. I understand if sometimes a few words slip past your mental filter and I don't punish for that, I DO however punish debaters heavily for ad hominem attacks, as these are COMPLETELY inappropriate and contribute NOTHING to the debate.

I consider myself a pretty laid back judge who just wants to be entertained by a good debate with clash.