Xie,+Kevin

Lexington High School ‘14 Harvard University ‘18 Edited: January 2016
 * Kevin Xie**

I debated at Lexington, and attended the TOC my junior and senior year. I was a 2A throughout my debate career. I don't debate in college.
 * Personal Info**


 * General Thoughts**
 * my role as a judge is to decide between two courses of action - whether they be policies, critical affirmations, or anything else
 * i am more experienced with plan-based debate. However, I am open to all forms and styles of argumentation and will adjudicate different debates to the best of my ability.
 * i judged some camp debates at the DDI on the surveillance topic
 * however, i do not have much familiarity with the topic - you should explain highly technical/specific concepts
 * the main thing which guides the way I view/think about debates is specificity – the more well-tailored your arguments are to the particular debate, the better. In-depth research and preparation will be rewarded by better points and a higher chance of victory. This also applies to how you apply your arguments in the context of your opponents’.
 * tech over truth, although I think the best debates involve some degree of reality.
 * high quality evidence is important to me. Research was one of my favorite things about debate, so I have great appreciation for quality research and disdain for terrible research.
 * that being said, you do not need evidence to make arguments; intelligent analytic presses can be very effective against weak/illogical claims.
 * there is such thing as zero risk of an argument.

Many of these preferences can be overridden based on what is said in the debate.
 * Specific Arguments**

//Topicality// –
 * should be about competing interpretations, and it would be hard to persuade me otherwise
 * strong, well-researched definitions, clearly explained impacts, and caselists are important to me
 * generic topicality and specification arguments are very unpersuasive to me

//Framework/”Non-traditional” Affirmatives// –
 * you don't need to defend a topical plan, but you should defend a positive action related to the topic
 * framework is a relevant response to affirmatives that do not defend a plan, in my opinion
 * that being said, I think a lot of framework debates lack specific impacts and contextualization and the aff can easily benefit from that
 * non-framework strategies are potentially more strategic and also interesting to adjudicate
 * on the aff, I find arguments about the importance of your education/discussion/skills the most persuasive
 * i'm undecided on the question of perms vs alternate methods - I lean towards the aff not getting perms - I find theoretical neg arguments about opportunity cost fairly intuitive
 * regardless of argument, both sides should stake their ground and defend it - being shifty will only put you in a worse spot

//Critiques// –
 * I'm mostly familiar with IR-related and Marxist authorship, as well as some neoliberalism literature
 * while I have some basic understanding of most authors/arguments, the more explanation the better
 * if I don't understand what you're talking about, there is no chance I am voting for you
 * you should contextualize your criticism to the aff and make specific link arguments - otherwise you are very vulnerable to the perm
 * the aff should use the case more vs most Ks
 * traditional K "tricks" are not very persuasive to me - while the aff has to answer them, a short response will suffice (assuming it's a relevant and coherent response) - you are better off trying to win the thesis of your criticism

//Counterplans// –
 * not a fan of generic process counterplans; I lean aff pretty heavily for the associated theory/competition questions
 * they, like most other arguments, can be made more palatable with specific solvency advocates
 * most other counterplans are fine; pretty ambivalent about international fiat, states, etc.
 * my default is that presumption goes to whoever proposes less change, but that is up for debate
 * not a huge fan of judge-kick - I will only get rid of the CP for you if you explicitly say I can + win the conditionality debate

//Disads// –
 * are great. I went for the politics disad a lot, but topic DAs are more enjoyable to debate and judge
 * I think that the link controls the direction of uniqueness, but you better win at least some risk of all components
 * controlling the impact debate and turns case debate is extremely important

//Theory// –
 * in-depth theory debates are good; fast, blippy theory debates are bad
 * all else equal, I'd prefer to hear a substantive debate - but if it's your best/only option for victory then obviously go for it. If you go for it well, that's also cool.
 * for conditionality, 2 options is probably the limit - I am very sympathetic towards the aff after that point
 * default is reject the argument, not the team - except for conditionality

//Speaker Points// –
 * I’ll adhere to the tournament guidelines, if they exist. Otherwise I’ll start at a 27.5 average.
 * clarity is important - I'll say clear twice and then only flow what I can understand after that. It'll also affect your points.
 * cross-ex was also one of my favorite parts of debate - I will attempt to "flow" parts of cross-ex, and will reward effective cross-examinations with higher points
 * please be respectful – some aggressiveness is fine but there’s a fine line between that and just being unpleasant

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck and have fun!