Tang,+Steven

Niskayuna

I debated LD for three years at Niskayuna from 2006-2008, including two years on the national circuit.

__How I Evaluate the Round:__

I will try very hard not to do any work evaluating the round. I want the debaters to tell me exactly how the round should be evaluated, which means you must present me with some standard(s) by which to vote, though this standard does not necessarily have to take the form of a value criterion. I'm willing to listen to pretty much any standard that is established in the round. If more than one standard arises (ie value criterion vs. theory), then please explain to me how I should resolve the standards. It follows pretty clearly from this that you MUST weigh for me, especially if we are using traditional evaluation methods. In order for an argument to be considered for evaluation after the round ends, it must be extended every speech.

__Speed:__

Speed is ok, but obviously the fast you speak, the clearer you must be. I will yell clear. I can't vote on arguments that I don't understand or that I didn't flow.

__Theory, a priori, off case, alternative frameworks:__

All ok, but see above comments about resolving competing standards. I would rather you not run theory for the sake of running theory, but I will still evaluate such arguments. Just know that it will be easier for your opponent to get out of theory than if there was clearer abuse.

__Pomo:__

I'm not very familiar with pomo. I feel that in order to understand pomo, one has to read the authors' works extensively, which I have not. So you can run pomo in front of me if you want, but if you do, definitely go slow and explain clearly.

__How to get good speaks:__

Be really clear and tell me exactly how I should pull the trigger. I like good signposting, so tell me exactly where I should be flowing at all times. Don't be rude.