Liang,+Frank

I debated for Sioux Falls Lincoln (SFL) High School in South Dakota and I am currently a student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. I debated policy for two years, 2008-2009 (alternative energy) and 2009-2010 (social services).
 * Background **

Most of my debate experience was confined to South Dakota, but I did compete at a few national tournaments.

I have judged infrequently in the past two years, and I haven’t judged any rounds this year.

Make smart arguments, explain them well, and tell me why you are winning the round. I default to a policymaker, but if you tell me to vote differently, I will. I think that debate is just as much of an educational activity as it is a performance. It is very important that you act like you are winning the round. I come from a fairly conservative circuit so speed is not my favorite. I can handle it as along as you are clear but the slower and more deliberate you are, the more you will like my decision. My ideal 2NR would be case and a good disadvantage, but close for what you are most comfortable closing for. Make sure to explain why your arguments mean I should vote for you. **Politics** Make sure what you are saying on politics is true. I am open to theory on politics, but I would prefer that you just beat the disadvantage. If you are going to go for politics make sure to tell a persuasive story. I want to know how your disadvantage functions as a whole and how that impacts the round.
 * Paradigm at a Glance **

**Kritiks** I did not run kritiks in high school, but I do not have a problem voting for them if you have clearly won the round. I think that these rounds can be very messy. Do not run a kritik that you do not understand because I will probably not understand it. Do not assume that I know what your authors are talking about because I don't. If you are going to go for a kritik in front of me explain it well and explain why it means I should reject the other team. Also make sure to explain the role of my ballot. I have no problem using my ballot as a tool, just tell me how to use it.

**Topicality** I have a high threshold on topicality. I think that topicality should be used as a tool to check for abuse in other places in the round. I will obviously vote on topicality if a team clearly does not meet the resolution, but if a team explores or develops space I am probably going to err affirmative on T. If you want me to vote on topicality you are going to have to spend a good deal of time on it. I do not like sneaky things on topicality. Slipping a reverse voter in the middle of the standards debate is abusive. I am not going to vote you down if you do this, but I am probably not going to evaluate it at the end of the round.

**Counterplans** I have limited experience with counterplans. I think that a good counterplan is a really effective negative tool. A well researched counterplan with a solvency advocate is very persuasive. That said, I dislike generic counterplans and I think that they make for really lazy debate. I do not have a problem with counterplan theory and I do not have any predetermined biases either way. Feel free to debate it out during the round. I think that it is very important for the affirmative to put offense on the counterplan. If all things are equal on the counterplan and the affirmative does not put offense on it, I will probably vote negative. Offensive provides judges with a good reason to reject the counterplan. I prefer non-topical counterplans. I do not have a problem voting for a perm.I will vote on PICS, but I am very open to PICS bad theory on the affirmative. Agent counterplans are more legitimate.I am okay with consult counterplans are fair game. I have voted on a conditions counterplan before, but I think the theory against it is persuasive.TheoryI have a pretty high threshold on theory. I think that theory debates are usually pretty messy and pretty boring. I think that theory can be used as a tool to check abuse within the round, but I have a hard time voting on theory alone. There are instances where I do think that theory is persuasive - like if a team reads five different conditional arguments- but most of the time I think teams play pretty fair. Going beyond the usual 1 K and 1 CP brings voting on Condo into the realm of possibility. Otherwise, winning on condo bad will be very tough. If you are going to go for theory you need to spend a good deal of time on it. If all things are equal at the end of the theory debate I am going to vote for the affirmative. Performative contradictions are fine as long as the 2NR closes for a single world.

**Nontraditional** **Debate** **Approaches** I would prefer you not run any performance affs in front of me as I believe debate should revolve around specific policy proposals. That being said, if performance is your thing, go ahead and do your thing. I will evaluate the performance however you tell me to, but you must explain very clearly what the role of the ballot is.

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">I think that debate is a professional activity. That means that you need to dress and act in a way that convinces me to take you seriously. You also need to take the other team seriously. This means do not be rude. It will not make me think you are cool, it will only give me a reason not to like you. I don't have a problem with humor, but I do have a problem if your jokes come at the expense of the other team.
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Other **<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;"> **Things**

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Tag team cross-x is fine, but you should stand up during cross-x and you should stand up during your speeches. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Don't be lazy.If you are debating paperless, I will stop your prep once the flash drive leaves your computer.