Wei,+Jonathan


 * Jonathan Wei**
 * Conflicts: Clements RG, FT (TX), Dulles (TX), St. Thomas JB (TX)**


 * Background:** I debated LD for Dulles High School in Sugar Land, TX for three years on both the local and national circuits. I am now an assistant coach with Dulles, and I'm studying Business at Texas A&M University.


 * General Philosophy/Short Version:** I think debate is a unique activity that gives students the ability to read what they feel is best suitable for them. As such, I am willing to vote off of __most__ arguments that are well warranted and impacted back to some sort of decision calculus. Although I have preferences for what I like to see, it's a better idea to debate whatever style you feel most comfortable with in front of me. The most important things for my ballot are good weighing and crystallization.


 * Speed** is fine and I will say clear if I cannot understand you. Please give me a bit of time to adjust to your voice before going as fast as you can. Also, please slow down any time you read an advocacy text (plans, counterplans, alternatives, theory interpretations, etc).


 * Theory:** I default competing interpretations, drop the argument, and only actual abuse matters, but once again, these are only defaults. Feel free to make arguments against these assumptions, but if you're going for reasonability, you need to tell me what exactly is considered reasonable. I'm okay with RVIs assuming you are generating offense, so an I meet or defense on the shell is not sufficient to trigger an RVI. I'm fairly predisposed to thinking the aff should get an RVI. Please note that theory debates invite intervention, and to minimize this, it's important to weigh between the standards in each shell. Good weighing in theory debates will lead to high speaks and likely a favorable outcome at the end of the round. **Because I default competing interps, I will not disregard any theory shell read in round as "frivolous", although I might dock speaks.**


 * Policy Arguments:** These are probably my favorite arguments and definitely the majority of what I read. Plans, CPs, Disads, PICs are all fine given they have all of their necessary parts. Weighing and evidence comparison is key.


 * Critical Arguments:** Critical positions are fine, and I have no higher threshold for voting on them than any other argument. That being said, I must understand the argument for me to vote on it, so go slower and explain your position more if you're reading something dense. All kritiks need a framework and some sort of alternative. I prefer kritiks with specific links to the AC rather than generic arguments built around the wording of the topic or arguments that can be recycled every topic. Please also identify whether your position functions pre or post-fiat.


 * Speaker Points:** I think speaker points are somewhat arbitrary, however, **strategy,** **humor**, **assertiveness** (not rudeness), and good **weighing** of arguments will guarantee better speaks. I tend to give higher speaks than most judges, and I don't think you have to be perfect to get a 30. I probably average around a 28.5. ** If I am judging you in the break round of a tournament, tell me __after__ I have disclosed my decision. If I voted for you and think you deserve to clear, I will give you 29.5-30 speaks to help boost you into out rounds. Additionally, if you are clearly winning the round (conceded theory shell, double turn) and sit down early/don't finish prep time, I will increase your speaks. **


 * I will never vote for anything sexist or racist. These problems are serious and should never be taken lightly. Additionally, please do not read confusing arguments unnecessarily against a clearly less-experienced opponent.**

This is probably just the basic info, so if you have any other questions please feel free to ask before the round! Please be nice to each other, and I will do everything I can to judge the round to the best of my abilities. Thanks and Gig 'em!