Yang,+Bryant

I debated at Sioux Falls Lincoln. I have a diverse background in debating styles - I had a winning record at the TOC and broke consistently on the circuit, in addition to competing on our local circuit and staging at NFLs and winning NCFLs.

I'm fairly open to all arguments. My preferences can be easily changed based on your argumentation. Smart arguments are most preferred, but even dumb arguments can become smart if debated well.

Explain your arguments the way you want me to evaluate them. If you want your argument to function a certain way in the debate, or be a framing issue, say it and explain it. If you are making a gutsy decision, explain your rationale. This allows me to connect the dots between your arguments the way you want me to, making it easier for me to evaluate the debate and for you to win. The best way to do this in front of me is through comparative impact calculus - the more in-depth comparisons you can do, the better.

Specifics:

Case: I love case debate. An aff case with only impact defense from the negative is enormously powerful. The more specific the neg can be, the better. I will evaluate anything from core solvency takeouts to inherency. A 2NR/2AR with just case (and adequate turns) is probably my favorite to watch and evaluate.

Disads: Love em, including politics with clash, and not just card spitting.

Performance: I am open to these arguments. They should probably be germane to the topic. I do prefer teams that engage in the performance, and I am not a fan of the totally exclusionary framework. I do think the proper framework arguments can be very useful, which would include arguments about topical versions of the aff, a rigorous defense of your methodology, etc. The role of the ballot needs to be very clear for me on both sides and should be a central part of the debate.

Kritiks: If you are running one that is outside of the stock arguments like security, cap, fem, etc, I will need a more thorough explanation. If you are trying to confuse your opponents, you’ll probably confuse me too. Other than that, I am fine with virtually anything, as long as the role of the ballot and methodology is clear from the beginning. The aff must have a rigorous defense of their own methodology from the 2AC on to beat these arguments.

Topicality and Theory: I will admit, I am not the biggest fan or the most experienced person in evaluating these debates. You’ll need to go slower for me, and be extremely comparative. No abuse arguments are very persuasive to me. That being said, if you want to rely on T or theory, extensive impact calculus is a requirement. I do default to rejecting the argument and not the team (for theory other than Condo) as well as competing interp unless otherwise argued. Two condo positions is probably reasonable.

Counterplans: Okay with it, but also okay with theory against most, particularly process cps, and generic word PICs.

Calling for evidence: I prefer the warrants to be fleshed out during the debate, and not afterwards when I’m reading it. This means I prefer to only call for evidence if the claims/warrants allegedly in the card are directly challenged in the debate.

Other notes: Clarity is an absolute necessity, and I will let you know if I cannot flow you. I am probably an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10 for speed. I am a flow judge, but I do value persuasion, and it will be healthily rewarded in speaker points. Common sense analytics are severely underutilized, and deserve more weight. Aggressiveness is okay, but rudeness is not - know the difference. I stop prep when the flash drive leaves the computer.