Tang,+Kui

I debated from 2006-2010 for Iowa City West HS. I was coached by Cyndy Woodhouse, and in my senior year, by Ernie Rose. I debated on the national circuit my last two years and qualified to the TOC. I currently attend Columbia University.


 * I was a fairly conventional debater**; I stuck mostly to topic-related arguments, both philosophical and policy-esque, and theory. I did not delve deeply into critical literature or discursive arguments, or into the details of policy debate theory. To crib Jon Cruz's, "I prefer substantive debate [….] I particularly like arguments centered around clear positions."

Having said this, **I will listen to whatever framework of debate you choose to advance**, and will evaluate the round using whichever framework is won. I will only vote for arguments I understand, so it is your burden to explain clearly. An argument as an inherently subjective appeal; your job is to persuade me that what you say is correct. The weirder the stuff you run, the more you risk my not understanding--or just plain not buying--your argument. That being said, unusual arguments do interest me will win you extra speaker points if articulated convincingly.


 * I will not vote for arguments I find morally repugnant**, e.g. that genocide is good or that racism is fine or that rape is justified. Seriously, just use your common sense. If you are unsure, ask before the round. Regarding moral skepticism, if your opponent shows that your theory can produce conclusions similar to the above, that may be ground for rejecting your position.


 * Speed is okay**, but **I don't enjoy incredibly fast rounds** and if I can't follow you I won't flow. I'll yell clear if it's **really** bad, but you should try to watch my face to ensure you're confusing or losing me (What!? Eye contact?!). If you have arguments that take re-reading and head-scratching to understand, you obviously should read those very, very slowly.

I ran theory toward the end of my career; **I will vote for theory only if you demonstrate actual** (not potential) **abuse**. I dislike gratuitous theory solely as a strategic tool. I try to have no preconceived notion of how to evaluate specific theory arguments, so run whatever strategy you think works best to convince me you're right.


 * The MOST IMPORTANT THING you can do is WEIGH and give VOTING ANALYSIS**. You must analyze how your winning certain key arguments leads to your winning the round, taking into account your opponent's ink. **Given that you have won certain arguments, how does this mean you therefore win the round?** There is no algorithm to look at a flow and determine who wins; I expect a coherent and persuasive link story.