Wang,+Fred

Arcadia ’16

Clarity and respect, as always, are well-rewarded—so is specificity. Blips and clips are not, and neither is stealing prep. Please slow down on CP and plan texts. Re-highlighting/reading their cards as arguments that go the other way is always fun and indicative of smart, attentive debating and preparation—just not in CX, please.
 * Speaking/Speaker Points **

I tend to lean aff on CP theory questions (e.g., word PICs, consult, process, etc.) and to lean neg on condo, within reason.
 * Counterplans **

Nuance and specificity are key; this is especially true for link analysis and alt explanations. I’m not a fan of generics that do not interact with the aff. Assume I am not as well-versed in the literature as you are—that means minimize jargon or, at the very least, explain it thoroughly.
 * Kritiks **

Pretty good for the neg on framework but obviously, the arguments actually being made and executed in the debate matter more.
 * Non-traditional **