Wang,+Mike

I debated for Meadows from 2007-2011 and qualified for TOC when I was a senior, if that helps you pin down what I was as a debater.

I'll preface this with a couple of things that I think should be done in all rounds. -__Unless you flow, it is nearly impossible to get above 26 points__. -Theory is NOT something where both sides read their blocks at top speed until the last two speeches and THEN explain them with actual examples and analysis. -Clash is important. It should go without saying that if your arguments are not placed in a place where they are directly responsive, they are much less credible. It makes for better debates to actually put arguments and evidence where they belong rather than couching things where they do not belong in attempts to be tricky. (This does not preclude smart cross-applications; teams should be rewarded for using interaction between arguments strategically.) -Controlling the framing of the debate (i.e. impact calc, meta-level arguments, kritik frameworks) is an easy way to swing debates that I think more people should take advantage of. That does not mean that you should couch 10 cards in your 4-minute overview that you just extend later in the debate where they actually belong. -Persuasiveness is very important. I know sometimes it makes you slow down, but your arguments will bear more weight.

None of these things are necessarily reasons why I will not vote for a team, but rather things that irritate me and are things that will almost definitely hurt your points and your persuasiveness.

I'll divide the rest into categories. Before I start, though, I'll say that I do not have a preference toward any kind of argument, given that they are debated well. I think that generics are usually not the best arguments and I prefer case-specific strategies and evidence. I guess I have a slight-K bias than some since I will vote on arguments like "winning framework means that the other team does not get their impacts" if one team wins that debate. More on that in the "Kritiks" section.

I am sympathetic toward computer problems and will not count the time spent flashing speeches on teams' prep time. I will, however, count all computer-related prep, which is five minutes. Computer prep is limited to things like computer crashes, running out of battery, flashing speeches, readers going to sleep, etc. That does NOT mean prepping the part of your speech that's on a computer for you hybrid-paperless teams. I WILL count printing on your prep, not computer prep.
 * Paperless**

If I can understand it, you're fine. I will tell you if I cannot understand you and if you do not improve after two warnings, obviously I will not be able to flow what your saying (your argument was not made) and your points will be hurt.
 * Speed**

I really like qualification comparisons and I consider it a good tie-breaker. Keep in mind that you need to give real analysis and direct comparison rather than "X is a professor of climate studies so prefer this evidence to theirs" and then move on.
 * Qualifications**

I listen to CX and if you're asking silly questions just for a little free prep for your partner, your points will reflect that. I like when CX is referenced in speeches and when debaters make real points in CX that can discredit an argument. Likewise, I like when teams know their arguments better than the other team. You should know the files you're using.
 * CX**

Both teams need to answer arguments. That said, teams extending an argument that the other team has dropped NEED to extend a warrant and impact it. "They dropped the impact to our DA. That means we get 100% of it and you can pull the trigger right now," is not an extension. Give me an author, a warrant and why the argument matters.
 * Dropped arguments**

I like K's, but that doesn't mean that your generic ontology K or truth K is a silver bullet any time you debate in front of me. Don't depend on me understanding every argument you make (that goes for both sides) and explain your arguments like you would anything else: do not rely on jargon and obscure examples. Aff, be extremely cautious to use realism as it pertains to your aff. For example, do not read Mearshimer in your security block if your impacts are predicated off decreasing US power or building soft power. I think that I am more easily swayed to extremes on framework debates. I think that if an aff mishandles a no-fiat debate, that means the plan does not happen. I guess this is where I kind of sway neg on K's because the most aff-biased I'll get is weigh the aff's impacts first; I will not deny the neg their impacts in most instances. Neg, you MUST know what you're talking about. The same reasons why I do not like aff's using realism incorrectly are the same reasons why I do not like K's that don't make sense or that get explained incorrectly.
 * Kritiks**

This is my favorite part of debate, but you should make sure your evidence quality is high enough. Make sure your case answers are diverse.
 * Case-Debates**

Before I start this, I'll say that I tend to think that the conditions CP's are legit. Consult's tricky because some CP's apply to some affs better than others. That means, for you Consult NATO debaters out there, that I do not see NATO caring about the plan unless you produce evidence on it.Again, specifics are a lot more persuasive than generics. Aff, spend time explaining perms and why you get them. The same reasons why I like case debates are why I dislike generic CP's and like specific CP's.
 * Counterplans**

Meta-level (like reasonability vs.competing interpretations) arguments are VERY important on topicality in my opinion and necessary if you want to ensure that you get my ballot on topicality, you must win them. Same goes for theory.
 * Topicality**


 * A couple of pet peaves:**
 * Cocky Concessions**: Do not make them. You're not more persuasive by saying "ASPEC is stupid. I'm not going to answer this and you shouldn't be the judge to vote on it." Yes, I know ASPEC is stupid. No, you shouldn't try to look cool by putting no substance on the flow.


 * Relying on judges to draw connections for you**: You are debating, not me.