Wang,+Honda

// Last Edited: 11 March 2013 //

I debated for Bettendorf High School (IA) for 3 years, I graduated in 2010, and I competed on the national circuit/gotten to outrounds at some national tournaments. I had a short and successful stint in PF my senior year when I was tired of doing actual work. I currently debate for NYU's parli team.
 * BACKGROUND **

PF & LD coach at Stuyvesant High School. I also occasionally judge for other schools/debaters.
 * AFFILIATION**

It's fine. Stop asking me. I'll let you know if you're going too fast.
 * SPREADING**

Theory is fine, so is T. I will discourage you from baiting theory debates, I will have a low threshold for people responding with reasonability arguments/RVIs. Fairness is always a voter. Make sure that you have your standard structure (interp, violation, standards, voter).
 * THEORY**

I don't really think there's such a thing as a neutral/objective standard for awarding speaker points, so I'll try to err on the side of caution. I'll start you at a 27.5. Technical competence (extensions, structured arguments, etc.) count for +/- 1 point, good strategic decisions count for +/- 1 point, and clarity counts for an additional +/- 0.5 point.
 * SPEAKING POINTS**


 * WHAT I LIKE IN DEBATE**
 * Policy arguments that are run well. I'm open to plans, CPs, disads, and the like when I was debating in high school. I feel that these types of arguments draw out the extent of research on debate topics and enhance the quality of debate when used well. On the other hand, if you just read cards without analysis or impact, you'll probably lose the round. The last ex-policy debater I debated was just incompetent at answering deontology, so learn to be flexible. Just because I like policy does not mean I will disregard warrants, means-based standards, or regular, stock cases. If you aren't going to be able to extend everything you need, then you probably shouldn't run the plan.
 * Critical arguments can be good when you don't delve into ridiculous post-modern theory. The same way that analytical Marxists call their school of thought "Non-Bullshit Marxism", you should aim to make an effort to separate substance from intellectual masturbation. I'm also receptive to Ks that discuss real impacts of the debate world in relation to sexism, classism, and pedagogical issues with debate.
 * Oh, and a good, interesting substantive debate. Stock cases are only boring because people run them in a boring manner.


 * WHAT I DON'T LIKE IN DEBATE**
 * There's a lot. I mean, there are big things like sexism and little things like making arguments and not questions in CX. In general, just be a good human being and you'll do fine.

If you're a novice or JV reading this, weigh your arguments against your opponent's. Please weigh. Write the word "weigh" on your flow in big capital letters so you remember to do so. Extensions win rounds. All that good stuff.