Zhao,+Evan

=EVAN ZHAO= I was the President of Speech and Debate at Whitefish Bay (WI) and debated VLD on circuit since 2012.

edit: any argument that makes sense is good w/ me. scratch the stuff about intervention and "offensive" positions. (pls be reasonable tho will reflect in ur speaks.) edit for gbx: i have been out of debate for ages. i had trouble reading my own paradigm so pls be considerate dont do too many theory things.

toc =TL;DR= I lik3 ks but everythin is cool. =TRADITIONAL LD= Coming from a team in Bumfuck, Wisconsin that has had no tech debaters before me, I have a soft spot for locals debaters. But at the same time, lay debate is not the most appealing to me. Fun debates make for better speaks. I am sympathetic to small school args if they are well warranted. If you hit a debater who obviously won't be able to deal with progressive debate and speed, don't hurt them too much, but don't feel obligated not to run your K. Just don't read 6 offs. =SPEED= Go up to an 8/10 but slow down significantly for tags and authors. I won't need to hear every word in your cards as long as both debaters make it clear what is important to me in the round. Make sure you slow down for things you want to //make sure// are on my flow. And I mean //slow//. I don't personally believe it's the debater's job to make me hear things, so if I miss something simply because I'm tired or dying and you clarify something in CX or make a clean extension in your rebuttals, I will fill in the blanks on the flow. I will yell "CLEAR", "LOUD", and "SLOW". If you're just unclear and fast through your whole speech despite my cries for help, I will probably lower your speaks and won't evaluate those arguments you mumbled at me. I'm also rather incompetent at flowing. =POLICYMAKING= Policy argumentation is somewhat interesting. Just don't make it banal and don't make it very boring for me to judge. Plans, CPs, politics DAs, go for it. I'm really indifferent, but you need to weigh everything very clearly for me- compare your worlds. I don't generally debate in this style, so you have to explain to me the interactions between the parts. Don't just yell CP-part names at me and expect me to have some revelation as to what you're saying. =THEORY= IMO theory is a very asinine practice especially the way it's utilized by most debaters today, which is minimizing a debate from being interesting, educational, and interactive into a mundane tech debate with the same standards, voters, and arguments that any other "theory debater" makes. Theory checks abuse, and simply calling something abusive doesn't seem to have any implications in the round, so theory that actually checks for abuse is probably necessary. If there is a clear way to engage the position and have a better debate, I'd prefer you allocate most of your time to doing that rather than simply running 7 minutes of theory in the NC. If you do decide to run an entire theory strat, I'll vote off of it and give you decent speaks if you do it well, but I probably won't enjoy it. Just saying.

Defaults
I'll use these unless debaters tell me to do otherwise. But I'm definitely open to changing my defaults as long as your arguments make sense. =FRAMEWORK= Framework seems to be somewhat important, but in the end, it's your job to tell me how to use it. Don't have a values debate between Justice and Morality if both debaters have a V/VC framework. Framework debates often bore me, especially if there's very little clash between boring standards of Util and Deont. I'd much rather hear substance either about the topic or some other interesting perspective that isn't analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy becomes a bore to listen to because of the lack of interaction that often occurs. You have to win the framework //and// offense under the framework in order to win the round. Simply winning the framework in a round doesn't do too much for you. Tell me the implications of how your framework functions.
 * Drop the argument
 * Reasonability
 * No RVIs
 * Spirit of the interp
 * Theory comes before the K (but I'm easily persuaded otherwise)
 * Fairness and education are not terminal impacts (tell me why I care about them)

Defaults
For critical arguments, I default to an intuitionist framework in the lack of another one. Do not use frameworks to exclude genuine arguments or say things like "rape is virtuous" unless you're looking for intervention and low speaks. Uncontested frameworks do not come before critical arguments unless you give me a reason why. Framework does preclude theory arguments, and you can utilize frameworks to call theory unethical. =TRICKS & STUFF= Trix are for kids. I will not vote off of anything that is "triggered" in later speeches or anything that is not clearly articulated in the constructive speech. You cannot extrapolate on arguments to suddenly make them a prioris or prefiat in later speeches. Skepticism, a prioris and the like are acceptable arguments but I have very low thresholds for answers to these. Generally, try not to go here, and if you do, clearly articulate what your arguments mean in the round. =K & CRITICISM= I love Ks and critiques and critical argumentation. I love performances. Do an aff K if you give me a method to accept it. But I do not like bastardizations of critical argumentation with rando European continental philosophers who don't actually criticize anything but say nihilistic, asinine things. They are still valid arguments but less interesting for me to judge. But I am very comfortable with identity politics and cap and biopower and the like. Don't be afraid to run something extravagant or throw glitter in round. If you run a K that you obviously didn't write and don't understand, I will likely dock your speaks. If you run a K that you do understand and explain clearly and I find it interesting, expect high speaks. I have lower thresholds for Ks that pigeonhole the opponent into being unable to win, ie Resolution Ks or Debate Bad Ks, but if you can give me examples of how the opponent can engage in the debate (for example, if you say they can engage in a methods debate or a ROTB debate) then that's sufficient for me to think it not excessively abusive. Slow down for tags and authors so I know what you're saying.

Defaults
=SPEAKER POINTS= Most judges say speaker points don't reflect speaking ability, but if you made it really hard for me to flow, your speaks will be hurt. Otherwise, I won't dock based on presentation or speaking ability. Tech and strat are what I will award you speaks on. I will try to average around 28, and if you do something I like, I will be a point-fairy. If you do something that upsets me, I will dock your speaks as low as a 15 if you say heinous things in the round or try to justify genocide. If you make me uncomfortable judging, speaks will go down. Be clever, funny, and sing me a song before starting each of your rebuttals to make me really happy. If you are running a genuine position, expect high speaks. =INTERVENTION= I will intervene if you make the debate unsafe. I will intervene if you say heinous things like "rape good". I will intervene if you read "Debate Bad". I will intervene if you pigeonhole your opponent into conceding or make ad hominem attacks that are irrelevant to debate. If I decide to intervene against you, expect very low speaks.
 * Theory comes before K (but I have a low threshold for K before theory args)
 * K comes before framework unless I'm told otherwise
 * Ks need a ROTB (which doesn't need to be carded)
 * Ks do not //need// an ethical framework (intuition is enough)
 * If there's lots of prefiat going on, I'd be happy if you weighed

See Froh, Kali.