Cheung,+William

William Cheung

Hi, my name is William. I am currently a doctoral student in the German department at NYU. I am familiar with a number of debate authors and have taken classes with and work with people like slavoj zizek, avital ronell, fred moten, etc. As a shameless self-plug and a way for you to perhaps understand where I am coming from, what literature I work with, and how I think here is my departmental website: http://as.nyu.edu/german/people/graduate-students/cheung-william.html As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 6 years (wow time flies) and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC four times. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.
 * Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:**

As everyone else says, rule of thumb: **DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT** Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round… given that you:
 * Here is the start of my paradigm:**

1) **Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument**. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said. 2) Make sure, on that note to **properly explain your positions**, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out. 3) **Have comparative analysis of** evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and **how I ought to** **prioritize impacts** as it relates to your framing of the round. 4) **Be Persuasive, it** **will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way** if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks. 5) **Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win.** Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"


 * As for some nitty gritty details: **

1) **I love a good K or performance debate but** absent the four points above, **I won’t “hack” for your position**. For instance, saying racism bad without analysis towards your opponent’s position (warrant comparison) won’t get you very far in the debate. I will very often sympathize with you, as my personal debate career revolves around the K more than often, but I will NOT do the work for you. 2) **I love smart, strategic CPs**

3) **I love absurd, creative arguments** – unlike most judges (don’t get too carried away), I enjoy inventive and properly executed arguments whether they be freshly cut CPs like above, or criticisms that challenge debate structures. Reading poems, speaking babble, and “mirroring” your opponents etc, are things I will not immediately hate, just again, PROPERLY execute it. On that note, if you are a victim of some babbly criticism, please go for framework 4) **Go for theory cheap shots** in front of me, just do it persuasively. In-round abuse stories help, pre-empt your opponents final speech, and close the doors 5) **Go for T** in front of me – A good T debate that that includes a discussion on how the topic should be limited, what the value of a particular interp is, and how judges ought to evaluate an interpretation is something I find enjoyable. Just as always, be persuasive! 6) **Have case debates** – forcing your opponents to debate their case position with specific, smart arguments will always go a long way. Even if it is only defensive, mitigating offense will go a long way, and often throws people off balance. I find there to be a striking lack of case debate from my experience, and would be more than happy to judge more of it


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Also, some other things: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">1) **Look up sometimes when I judge you to gauge my reaction** - perhaps you might have said something off-putting sounding unintentionally (race/gender/etc) or have gone for a terrible, terrible flow and I have cringed. It will give you a clue <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2) **I have no problem voting on terminal defense or presumption** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">3) **I will default to competing interpretations and body counts unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed in opposition to bodies in a debate.** For instance, I will presume nukes hurt, unless you tell me death isn’t an impact and why <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4) **I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">5) **I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate**, though of course, I will always already have some bias, I will do my best to mitigate it.