Wang,Frank

I debated 4 years of LD for Harker and judge on the national circuit. So, if you don’t want to read the rest of my paradigm, I always vote in the most non-interventionist way possible. So, I ask myself what’s the standard in the round and who best meets the standard? That’s how you can get my ballot.

Arguments: I am fine with all types of arguments. You can run theory, critical arguments, kritiks, plans, off-case etc., given that you provide me a good reason to vote off them. In terms of more postmodern arguments like Zizek, Nietzche, Foucault, Baudrillard, etc., feel free to run them as long as they are clear and well-warranted. Remember, if I don’t have a general understanding of an argument when it is read in the case (regardless how clear it is in the rebuttal speech), I won’t vote for it. (Hint: Critical arguments at high speeds tend to be very unclear even though I might not have a problem with the argument itself.) Every argument has to have a tag, warrant, impact. I am always open to new and interesting case positions, so feel free to run those as long as they are well constructed. If you have questions about an argument, just ask before the round.

A priori/Theory: There has been a recent trend toward a priori spikes in cases. I am willing to vote off of them, but they have to be properly labeled in case. You have to explain to me what you want me to do with those arguments, i.e. look at them pre-standard, and why they are pre-standard. I have NO tolerance for one-line, unlabeled a priori arguments that are extended from case in the 1ar. Similarly, for theory arguments, I am more than willing to vote off theory, but they have to be structured like a proper theory argument. However, any overuse or misuse of theory will lead to lower speaker points.

Presentation/Speed: I like to be entertained in a round. I welcome any humorous and/or interesting arguments. You might even pick up some extra speaker points from me. Speed is fine with me, but if it is a really dense argument, I would appreciate if you spoke at a pace where I can process and flow the argument.

Evaluation: I like if there is a clear standard in the round. This does not mean you have to have a value/criterion. You can have a burden, alternative, theory standard, or anything to create a clear framework in the round. It will make my job easier. Also, it is imperative that you weigh in the round. Debaters are not doing this enough in rounds, so at the end of the round, I don’t want to be stuck with two arguments without knowing which one is more important. Those instances make my job as a judge very frustrating. Warrants and impacts are also necessary, and clear layering is also a sign of a very good debate. Basically, make my job easy. Pretend you are writing my ballot. You will be rewarded for it, so do whatever it takes (crystallization, etc.). If you make my job hard, you won’t like my decision. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before a round.