Wei,+Kevin


 * Greenhill (Policy/CX) '16 **
 * Columbia '20 **
 * Updated: 10/2016 **


 * TL;DR: I agree with most of what Eric Forslund says about debate. I'm fine with k debates that aren't Baudrillard/postmodernist high theory or some other obscure argument that I won't understand, skills impacts > fairness impacts on framework, tech over truth, arguments must have warrants, specific case negs/args/cards are good, be nice to each other in round, and judge intervention is bad except judge kick. Unless told otherwise in round: default to offense defense, role of judge = policymaker, judge kick, and consequences first. Love CP/DAs/plans/technical debates **

**LD DEBATE ARGUMENTS/SUBSTANCE: everything I say about policy debate above/below applies. Values and framework debates: I can and will follow/flow/judge them. K debates: go for it. Theory debates: I can and will follow/flow/judge them but honestly I think people can debate better than silly violations such as "opponent must flash text of perm before the speech." If you can win a debate on that, you can win the debate on better arguments. Extra +.1 speaks for a Batman joke.**

**LD DEBATE NORMS: flashing and disclosure: encouraged but understand different schools have different policies on this. Ev quality/depth of analysis: much more lenient on both issues than with policy since debates are shorter. Cards that are miscut: I will throw them out and not evaluate them. And finally, IF YOU CLIP CARDS, READ OTHER TEAMS' CARDS WITHOUT PERMISSION, DON'T MARK YOUR CARDS, MAKE UP EVIDENCE, ARE RACIST/SEXIST/HOMOPHOBIC/OFFENSIVE IN ROUND, OR CHEAT/ACT UNETHICALLY IN ANY OTHER WAY, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU.**


 * If you have questions about anything, email me at ghskwei@gmail.com**

Please ask questions about my philosophy if you have them before the round begins. I debated for four years as a 2N for Greenhill on the transportation infrastructure, Latin America, oceans, and surveillance topics. I won't be as familiar with the China topic but have judged Bronx on this topic.


 * Basic procedural things:**
 * 1. Flashing isn't prep**
 * 2. Flex prep and open CX are fine if both teams are fine with it**
 * 3. You don't have to stand up during CX, but remember that you should be looking at the judge, not quibbling over some minor point and yelling at each other**
 * 4. I encourage all teams to disclose and flash in round and believe that at the very least past AFFs should be disclosed on the wiki or before the debate to opponents who request such information; however, I understand that different schools will have different policies concerning this, so I won't and can't penalize/reward you for this**
 * 5. Offensive args are an auto-lose, and be prepared for me to give negative speaks for running offensive args. Clipping cards/reading other teams' ev/other unethical behavior is an auto-lose. Also, you should apologize for g-lang or ablest language**


 * Content:**
 * 1.** **AN ARGUMENT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT IF IT DOES NOT HAVE A WARRANT.**
 * 2. Default to: offense defense, role of the judge is a policymaker, judge kick, and consequences first unless you tell me otherwise**
 * 3. TECH > TRUTH**. I'll vote on anything, but you have to convince me to vote on it, AND it's your burden to prove solvency and/or a link and impact. Not meeting the burden of proof or mixing burdens = not winning the arg. Also, the threshold for winning some offensive/obscure/silly arg (e.g. spark, wipeout, Boudrillard, etc.) is much, much higher than the threshold for winning other args. You must extend impacts.
 * 4. Judge intervention: I hate it and will try to do as little work for you as possible unless you tell me to do it, with the exception of maybe judge kick**
 * 5. Making claims about opponent's ev: always read lines from their evidence //and please slow down when doing so//. This saves me from having to read all their cards myself and potentially missing whichever line you thought made a claim you wanted to concede/extend for them.**


 * Specific thoughts about specific arguments below:**


 * T** - I'm fine with it. I like T args about the lit base, and reasonability args about the lit base are awesome. I think reasonability is kinda a defensive and silly arg.


 * Framework** - please contextualize to the aff as much as possible. Read Scott Phillips's HSImpact [|posts]. I was a policy debater and generally not much for untopical AFFs. Framework on the AFF is much more fun since you hopefully also go for some sort of substance, especially when the NEG says things like "you don't get to weigh the AFF" or "you only get to weigh the AFF after defending your reps." I often find NEG K roles of the ballot to be silly, such as "the judge is an educator." Giving specific examples from the debate world is a //very good idea//.


 * CPs** - love them, love them, love them. Great way of mitigating case. I lean reasonably NEG on most theory args such as international fiat, agent CPs, and PICs bad. Process CPs and word PICs are perfectly fine as long as you contextual ie to the AFF. AFF, having a theory arg, any theory arg in the 2ac is probably a good idea, especially for abusive CPs such as "China pays for the AFF." AFF must have offense against the CP in the 2AR if that's what the 2NR went for.


 * DAs** - love these, too. AFF must have offense against these. Impact comparison is very important. You should give me a reason why time frame outweighs magnitude, etc. Otherwise, I will evaluate magnitude, time frame, probability, ethics/horribleness in that order. Turns case args are good - don't drop these. Also: I think many politics DAs are bad. Like, really, really bad, especially the elections DA - I will vote on it but please make your cards better than the usual garbage...


 * Ks** - please tell me if there's an overview. I'll understand generic Ks like cap or reps ks, but I won't be familiar with your Baudrillard or Bataille jargon (I'll probably be able to follow Derrida/Nietzsche/security/cap debates very well). You cannot be a buzzword debater - you MUST explain the k, especially the specificity of the link and how the alt functions. If you don't go for the alt, it will be hard to win when the 2AR calls you out on it unless you give some reason why your impacts are unique. Extra speaks to good K debaters who can explain the k. K tricks must be thoroughly analyzed in the block. A three word, two second "fiat is illusory" arg isn't enough //even if they drop it and the 2NR spends a minute on it//. AFF: I think conditional ethics is a voting issue, especially when you can make alt solvency deficits, link turns, etc. based on condo ethics.


 * Case debates** - love these, too. Refer to the DA section. Case and impact turns are great.


 * K AFFs** - You'll have to explain why debate is key, why you get an impact, why I should vote for you, etc. If you run some K AFF w/ a 1AC that's all impact turns to F/W and doesn't defend an impact, I'll be annoyed about your AFF but will still vote for you if you win the f/w debate. NEG, I like specific strats against these AFFs, but I understand it can be difficult to prepare for the multitude of different K AFFs out there.


 * Debating K AFFs as the NEG** - lower threshold for otherwise-shady args like word PICs, non-unique DAs, etc. Always engage the case, since the k team will have embedded offense; if you drop the case it's usually game over for you. I like skills-T but will vote on fairness args if you can convince me to.


 * Theory debates** - default to the following: 2 condo is fine, 3 is a bit iffy, anything past that I'll be sympathetic to the AFF if the 2AR is condo. Condo ethics is amazing and a voting issue. Neg gets fiat. Most CPs are fine, especially ones that are well researched and contextualized to the AFF. CPs w/o solvency advocates are questionable; PICs or process CPs w/o solvency advocates are definitely pushing it though I will be perfectly happy to vote for them if you can contextualize. Condo ethics is probably a voting issue. You MUST do impact calculus or I/L calculus or somehow engage with the other team's theory args, otherwise I might as well flip a coin when the 2AR/2NR is theory.


 * SPEAKS -** ** debate is primarily a speaking/argumentation activity **, so I will try to evaluate the round based on what is said rather than reading through all your horrible politics cards. If I can't flow theory/analytics/tags, I can't in good conscience evaluate it. Will probably put my pen down and/or stare at you quizzically if this begins to happen. I also have nothing against yelling "clear" at you; speaks will suffer if I have to do this more than 2-3 times. Be clear, and be organized. Being technical is a plus. Would prefer numbering args and compartamentalization. However, I also believe teams should be BOTH rewarded for doing good research or for speaking really well, so bonus speaks below:


 * Average is 28.0, adjusted for the tournament**
 * Extra +.1** speaks for making an angry porcupine/angry teddy bear joke in round, for exceedingly stellar/clever/specific strat or args or analytics (awarded at my discretion), and for extreme courage in the face of near-certain defeat
 * Extra +.2** speaks for K teams doing line by line
 * Extra +.3** speaks for going only for case in the 2NR or for AFF-specific strats in the 2NR. Vs. a policy AFF, this should be pretty self-explanatory - sneaky CPs/DAs/Ks, read lines from their ev, etc. Vs a K aff, this means not T or some generic K like cap. By "specific strat" I probably don't mean a K with some links that might/might not be the AFF, I mean like a PIC out of part of their plan text/rhetoric/method, etc.