Wang,+Richard

Experience: 4 years at Thomas Jefferson High School (2010-2014)


 * Outlook on Debate**

Just do what you're good at. Nobody is a blank canvas but if you're making complete arguments I do not care what those arguments are or how they are created.

Tech > Truth. Every argument is functionally the same, if you can't beat stupid arguments like timecube you probably shouldn't deserve to win. Assume I will vote based off where the flow is headed unless you make arguments such as "you shouldn't flow" and impact them out.

Spin > Evidence. Just because you have better Googling skills doesn't mean you are the better debater, properly deploying evidence in round is better than having me read it.

Impacts please. Claim + Warrant + Impact, if I don't know why I should vote for an argument I wont vote for that argument.

That being said...I will vote on presumption or terminal defense if you convince me to do so, I believe there can be 0% risk of aff/K solvency, 0% risk of an impact, 0% risk of uniqueness etc.


 * Specific Arguments**

I like case. Against policy strategies, against Ks, against everything. Most teams do a bad job of covering case and I can be very much persuaded to just vote on case


 * Speaks**

They are subjective and everything you do matters

Borrowed from Shree:

< 25 : You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale 25 : You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech 26 : You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents 27 : You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims 28 : You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers 28.5 : You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. 29-29.9 : You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, you were hilarious (or if you aren't funny, you somehow connected with me as a judge and made me want to care), and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly. 30: Life changed.