Zou,+Danlei

**Danlei Zou** Lowell High School '17 University of California, Santa Barbara '21 **Email:** dazou0112@gmail.com **Background:** I debated 4 years of policy at Lowell High School and am currently not involved in college debate (no college debate team) but am still doing some work for Lowell. I'm still in the loop with most of the happenings in the debate world and try to keep up with the topic and its relevant arguments. If there's anything y'all have qualms on that isn't covered in my paradigm, feel free to email me; I'm more than happy to answer questions. **tl;dr:** 1. Tech>Truth: I don't care what you run as long as its not offensive - just win the LBL and you'll get my ballot. 2. Flashing=/=Prep but don’t abuse it. Yes, I want to be on the email chain or in the speech doc room or whatever kids are using nowadays. 3. I default to a policymaking framework unless I am presented with a different framework in the round. Then, it is the other team's job to prove why the opposing team's framework is bad. 4. One thing that I find lacking in high school debate nowadays is the lack of substantial explanation behind specific arguments - I am guilty of not doing enough analysis myself during my debate career which is why I want to stress the importance of this to y'all. I'd rather y'all choose a few of the most important arguments to explain to me in depth rather than spew as many lines as you can at me. I want to be able to fully comprehend your arguments and know why you think you should win the debate by the end of the rebuttals. 5. If there is no clash, I will be extremely bored and my facial expressions will reflect that. I am very expressive; anyone who knows me will tell you so. Exploit my expressive personality and know when you or the other team is saying something that's complete BS. 6. I will vote on presumption, but explain to me why I should. Simply saying "vote neg on presumption" without any explanation of why will not convince me. 7. I'd prefer not to call for cards after the round - I will be doing my best to keep up with reading the cards in speech docs during prep and whatnot. If you think the opposing team's cards are sketchy for one reason or another, say so during your speech. I will not point it out for you. 8. Be nice. If you are a shitty person your speaks will reflect that, even if you win the ballot. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">9. Speed is fine. I'd prefer if you don't go your full speed, but as long as you are clear and are organized I will be able to flow you. If I can't, I'll say clear three times max and then stop flowing and do my own homework. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">10. You do you. Do your best and go for what you think you're ahead on and what will win the round, not what you think I like. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Complete paradigm:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Nontraditional:** I strongly believe that the affirmative must **defend the hypothetical implementation of a an action done by the United States federal government.** It is difficult but not impossible to convince me otherwise. I will try my best not to let my personal biases interfere with what's happening in the round. That being said, it is the neg's burden to prove why reading a nontraditional aff is bad. A competent extension of framework all throughout the debate usually does this for me, but I think having a TVA and education/fairness impacts are key. Prove why their interpretation is bad for debate and you'll win my ballot. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Topicality**: T is great. Run T. Personally I think limits is the most persuasive and easiest standard to win on, but do whatever floats your boat. I default to reasonability and competing interpretations. 2A/2Ns should really focus on explaining to me the impact debate and why you should win your education/limits claims in the rebuttals.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Theory:** As the 1N who usually took theory for 5 minutes in the block I usually lean neg on theory, unless it's condo. 2 condo is fine, read more at your own risk. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed. Usually "reject the argument, not the team" is pretty convincing.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Kritiks:****PLEASE EXPLAIN.** Unless your K is security, neolib/cap, or Orientalism, I probably will not have read much literature on it. Don't let that discourage you from running high theory Ks, I'll still vote on them if those debates are done well. I have a high threshold for K's; if you run one, you gotta explain how it links to the aff, how the alt solves/is a priori issue, and for the love of coffee please explain the jargon. Using big fancy words does not win you the debate. I know what epistemology and reps are, but you need to show me that you do. The more specific the K is the to aff, the better. Reading framework against K's is always a good idea - especially if you have no idea what the K is and feel that you can't win the K proper debate. However, I will not simply vote on "if we win FW then we don't have to win that the alt fails/solves". If the other team drops this, I will probably vote for you but I will not be happy about it. It is usually pretty easy to win that extinction is a prior issue than eliminating cap from society (Bostrom) in front of me, but I will not assume this if you don't read a card on it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Framework:** I'll be honest - I run framework a lot, way more than I would like to. The biggest problem with traditional framework v. a K aff is that it falls prey to the exclusion DA. K affs should be closer to the topic than not, but it is up to you to explain to me how your aff relates to the topic. I will vote neg on framework debates if the neg convinces me that K aff is just unrelated to the topic. We have a resolution for a reason. There are great K affs that engage with the topic, and even if your aff doesn't convince me that it does. Neg teams need to explain how their model of debate interacts with the aff.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Disadvantages:** Love them. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch. Prioritize your impact work!! Make your links specific, especially if you are reading something generic like politics. The more specific the DA the better. Even though I love these debates, it's pretty easy for the aff to convince me that most DA's are stupid by using author indicts/smart analytics. Be smart and it'll save you loads of time.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Counter plans:** I love watching good CP+DA/Case debates. Please have a net benefit/solvency advocate, or else you're probably going to lose the CP. I don't have a favorite type of counterplan, but I ran a lot of really specific PICs in high school and think they're cool.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Case:** Too many teams disregard case as the debates go on. I like to see clash between the off case and the aff both from the aff and neg teams. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the aff team doesn't extend any impacts through the end of the debate, there is very little chance that I will be voting for you. Also, simply saying "extend the nuclear meltdown impact/Kagan card, that's our impact" is not an extension. Explanations are key.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Cross-X** is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or if you are blatantly rude. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**Speaker Points:** I usually give between a 27-29 depending on the general skill and choices made in the round. < 25 is reserved for people who are blatantly racist, sexist, or mean. Or if you read wipeout. If you catch the other team clipping, record it and show me. Clippers get a 0. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**How to get better speaker points in front of me:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Make me laugh! Jokes/puns are appreciated as long as they are not offensive. Snarkiness and sass are welcome, but never at the expense of the opposing team. I'll give you 0.2 extra speaks if you can tell me who I poached a small part of my paradigm from (hint: Cal). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">**DO NOT:**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-be racist <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-be sexist <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-be homophobic <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">-read wipeout (willing to give leeway on this if it's justified, but it rarely is)