Wu,+Henry

Hi, my name is Henry and I graduated in 2016. I debated for Upper Arlington for three years, with two on the national circuit. Much of this paradigm was adapted from Jacob Nails, so I guess I should include a cite:

Nails 12 Jacob Nails (coach and instructor at camps, debates occasionally, massive troll). “Nails, Jacob.” JudgePhilosophies. 2012. HW. http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Nails%2C+Jacob

General
1. I will call clear if necessary, but will start docking speaks if I have to call it three times or more.

2. I prefer over explanation on Ks or dense philosophical frameworks, and will not vote off an argument I don’t completely understand. If you are reading such an argument, please go slower than you would normally go.

3. Don’t need full extensions, but I would prefer more than just something like “extend all the contentions, moving on.” Doing a lot of good weighing and having smart overviews in the later speeches is the best way to earn high speaks in front of me.

Theory/T
I don’t really care about how frivolous your theory shell is, but I am not the best judge for messy theory debates. Clear signposting is also often missing from theory debates.

Feel free to run tricks, but slow down when extending blippy arguments.

I slightly lean in favor of theory over the K, but this is by no means a strongly held belief.

CP/DAs
I really enjoy these kinds of debates, and I enjoy interesting and well researched counterplans. My default is that one conditional advocacy is OK, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I also think that one PIC is probably fine.

Framework
I am familiar with most of the common LD frameworks, but find frameworks debates difficult to judge, especially when debaters are just extending preclusive arguments. Keep in mind that you still have to do weighing between these arguments.

I find it frustrating when debaters engage in big framework debates over very similar (often util-ish) frameworks, so I often prefer it when debaters just concede the framework and go for turns.

Kritiks
I’m not very familiar with a lot of critical theory, but I have some basic understanding of most critical positions run in debate. K links should be explained very well in the later speeches, and you should be explaining the interaction with the Aff or other arguments.

Misc
I like if when debaters are funny in round, and will be even more of a points fairy than other first year outs.

Happy debating!