Yu,+Yvonne

I debated for Hong Kong International School for 4 years, doing both LD and public forum on a southeast Asian circuit. I am currently a junior at Brown University, and have spent almost 3 years debating on the American Parliamentary college circuit.

Paradigm: --While I can flow at a fast pace, I prefer clarity to speed and believe that an understandable, less manic pace is significantly more conducive to good debate. --I will not engage with rebuttals that attempt to clash on sources alone (eg "my source is X while yours is Y, and mine is clearly better"). Explain exactly why your arguments, definitions, statistics, or examples hold more weight or legitimacy. "X source > Y source" is not sufficient. --I generally try to be non-interventionist in deciding on the result of the round, and slightly more interventionist when assigning speaker scores. So if you make bad arguments/assumptions but your opponent does not engage with them or acknowledge their flaws, those arguments will flow through the round and may end up giving you the victory. However, I will personally take your inconsistencies and flaws into account when giving you speaker scores (and I will not base my interpretation of a "bad argument" on my own personal opinion of how the round should have gone, but instead on how logically consistent/accurate you have been). --I get that debate is sometimes a snarky activity, which is okay, but don't be mean. Personal attacks and belittling anything other than actual arguments is unacceptable to me.