Wong,+Michael

Last updated October 31, 2011.

Michael Wong
Senior at Arizona State University. Three years of Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school, three years of NDT-CEDA debate in college.

I attempt to be as "tabula rasa" as possible when adjudicating rounds, but I acknowledge that I do have some preconceived notions of how the world works that ultimately bias my decisions, and even some clear lines in the sand when it comes to what I do with my ballot. Thus, I'll do my best to use this space to articulate those things for you.
 * 1) Debate is whatever we want it to be. It can be a space for a plan text. It can be a space for critical advocacy and engagement. It can be a space for performance. I am always more impressed by teams that can engage the substance underlying unconventional methodologies, rather than simply rejecting these methodologies from debate space. That said, I ask that you give me some impact to work with. Clearly explain your politics (if applicable).
 * 2) My ballot will never endorse the idea that racism, sexism, or homophobia are good things. In that regard, sorry I'm not sorry: you know it in advance.
 * 3) The politics disad, when deployed in generic and nonspecific form round after round, is not a useful form of education. I thoroughly enjoy and will entertain as a viable strategy a 2AC intrinsicness permutation in response to generic politics arguments. In an odd bit of contrast, specific and gutsy politics arguments are among my favorite types of arguments to see in a round.
 * 4) Counterplans, criticisms, disadvantages, procedurals: the specific is always better than the generic. I have a deep appreciation for thorough and nuanced case debate.
 * 5) I have never been a fan of specification arguments or plan flaw-esque arguments and, barring gratuitous Aff abuse, do not consider them winning strategies.
 * 6) I endorse what I once heard Dan Fitzmier say about flowing. To paraphrase, I follow the flow pretty meticulously, and I'm rather good at it. However, if you're faced with a time-pressured choice between explaining an argument completely and placing it in all of its proper niches on the flow, err in the direction of the former.
 * 7) Don't assume that I want to read your evidence, and definitely don't formulate a debate strategy that banks on me reading your cards for warrants. Sometimes I call for evidence, but I've found myself lately making most of my decisions without calling for cards.
 * 8) Don't presume that because I don't offhandedly reject critical or performative arguments that I am some sort of "K hack" -- whatever that means. Please don't read a criticism in front of me just because you think I have an affinity for those arguments. I really don't. Yes, my ballot has stood in solidarity with Troy Davis every now and then, but my ballot has voted for traditional (counter)plans, and disadvantages more often than not. Do what you do best.
 * 9) Finally, barring direct contradiction with anything I've posted above, most things that Adam Symonds says.

Lastly, to maximize your speaker points and tip close rounds in your favor, you should always:
 * Provide sound, specific, and comparative impact calculus.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Be kind to, courteous to, and understanding of other debaters, people, cultures, and perspectives.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Not do things like clip cards or steal digital or paper evidence. Substantiated proof of any of these things will automatically result in zero speaker points and a loss.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Speak clearly. I'll let you know if you need to adjust.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Slow down a little bit for theory. I'm good, but not that good, and you probably want me to flow it completely.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Most importantly, I do my best to have fun and come prepared to learn something new. You should, too.