Huang,+William

I debated in high school for Lexington for four years, and went to the TOC my senior year. I now go to Carnegie Mellon University. Also, bee-tee-dubs, I am a permanent member of the TAZ [] I have not thought about the topic at all, so you should keep that in mind and not assume that I know where the topic has developed, or what certain acronyms mean, etc. General: Go for whatever you’re best at, I don’t penalize speaker points for people that run ridiculous things or arguments that I hate, just make sure I can understand it. Logic > evidence in my mind, but this is pretty subjective and situational. Specificity is always better than a generic strategy. People don’t go for case and disad enough. Topicality: T is a voter and not genocidal, and usually a conflict over competing interpretations. You should definitely impact T in terms of how it affects topic development (and especially limits), and arguments on why their interpretation excludes certain arguments that are crucial for topic education or topic development. CPs and DAs: I like them, I don’t really know who writes “I hate counterplans and disads” in their paradigm. Theory: I like PICs, I think offense/defense is good, 2 conditional options are fine, 3 is a little questionable, consult/condition/ international CPs are definitely questionable/debateable, and I don’t really like floating PIKs or conditional counterplan planks. If you win the theory debate though, I will still reject the argument as a default. Even though I debated at Lexington, I think XO/similar process CPs are pretty stupid; that didn’t stop me from running them, but that doesn’t mean that I think agent CPs are educational if you read a card saying “the president can fund whatever through a slush fund”. Kritiks: I understand K literature and I’ve worked on kritiks before, but keep in mind I’ve only gone for only the K twice in my life. I’m more comfortable with specific reps Ks or cap Ks. I don’t like Heidegger or Nietzsche but I have a decent grasp of the arguments. I don’t know much about Lacan/psychoanalysis, so if you want to talk about whatever that involves a lot of terminology, explain things in terms that don’t involve words like “line of flight”. I think the aff should get to weigh their case against the alternative, and this is one of the few theory arguments that I won’t be very persuaded on (but I mean, if they drop it or something…)