Chou,+Aaron

I debated four years at Plano Senior HS and graduated in ’13.

I feel like my role as the judge in this event is to evaluate arguments that are 1) on my flow and 2) that I comprehend. That doesn't mean I will only vote on something I’m familiar with -- it means you have to do a good job of explaining whatever it is you’re running in round.

If you’re looking for a technical judge that coaches and/or judges most weekends, I am not that guy. Adjust accordingly.

//**General**// I genuinely believe in a “tab” judge but I feel like it would be a huge disservice to you if I didn't clarify some things that I find intuitive: I believe LD is a debate of comparative worlds. I am receptive to other interpretations, however. I mostly ran Util so that's what I'm comfortable with and will assume Util is true until told otherwise. On a similar note, I actually enjoy seeing well developed stock positions because it creates the most opportunity for clash. I'll listen to presumption/permissibility arguments but will presume Neg only if there is absolutely no offense or no one telling me how to resolve the round.

//**Speed**// My threshold for speed is much lower than it once was. As a result, I’ll say clear a couple times if you’re going too fast. You’d have to ask if you want that in a paneled round. Again, what I flow is what I go by. It helps me incredibly when debaters do a good job of roadmapping/telling me where exactly you are on the flow. Slow down for author names and tags.

//**Theory**// I’m perfectly fine with theory when it’s being used tactfully and strategically. Just like many other judges, if you run Theory in front of me, I expect you to do the work. That means you should have a clear shell structure and a specific interpretation -- if the text of your interp is very general, it tells me you’re not being very strategic in running it. Explain your voter(s). Explain why fairness/education is important and why it means theory comes before anything else. I also find it intuitive to presume drop the argument which means you need to justify drop the debater.

//**Kritiks, Disads, CPs, etc.**// I didn't run Kritiks that frequently so I’m not that familiar with the literature. If you run a K you need to be especially clear in your reading and explanation. I'm fine with DA's, CP's, etc. as long as you explain how it operates in the round. Weighing is critical. If it hasn't become clear by now, I want to do as little work as possible and just listen to you tell me why you've won :)

//**Speaks**// In my opinion, speaker points are used to evaluate your persuasiveness and speaking ability because you will already have been rewarded with a win for technicality, etc. I’d say more than 9 times out of 10, the two are correlated but this is just for an idea of how my scale works. If you’re incredibly rude to your opponent or offensive, I’ll give the lowest points the tournament allows.

If you have any more specific questions don’t hesitate to ask before the round!