Wu,+David

Short Version: Establish a positional framework for me to evaluate arguments. I will not vote for arguments that are not linking to an established framework. I prefer substantive debate, and like arguments centered around clear positions. Theory is fine but must be clear. Speed is fine, but I will let you know if you're going to fast.

Long Version: I debated for 4 years for Southside High school from South Carolina. I stuck to mostly topic-centered arguments (philosophical and policy-esque), and theory. I did not dive deeply into critical literature or discursive arguments. I understand most debate jargon. I understand how most case structures work.

I will listen to whatever framework you want and evaluate whatever framework you wish to advance. It is your burden to enable me to understand your argument. You must analyze how your winning certain key arguments leads to your winning the round, even though your opponent also has ink on the flow. Given that you have won certain arguments, tell the story of how you therefore win the round. At the end of the round, I do not want to have to sort through random extensions on my own. A lack of weighing analysis will force me to intervene, or look for different arguments to vote on.

I evaluate theory based off the competitive interpretations paradigm. I have a higher standard for RVIs than other theory arguments. There must be a very strong link and reason for me to go for the RVI, and I will only consider it if the opponent's theory told me to drop you in the first place. You will lose on theory if there is a performative contradiction. I am not a K debater, but I am not opposed to Ks; however, you will have to be extremely clear about what the position is. Speaker points are more about how you manage your arguments than speaking style. I would be happy to discuss my paradigm at the tournament or after the tournament.