Wang,+Kevin


 * Note to All Debaters (especially those in PF): I think that there shouldn't be a restriction to running "CX style args" or Ks or T/Theory in any type of debate. Debate should probably be open to all potential sides of the argument. Especially now that PF topics are beginning to sound a little more "LD" like, I am completely fine (I'd actually promote it) if you ran weird/unconventional arguments in PF. That means T/Theory, Ks, Da, etc.**


 * Background:** I competed at Flower Mound High School for 4 years. I did every debate event through my career. I qualified for the state tournament in PF, extemp, and CX.


 * General Views on debate:** I just left the debate community so am familiar with many of the current norms. There isn't a type of debate that I particularly like or dislike as I feel a good util debate can be just as entertaining to listen to as a K heavy debate. I have no presuppositions as to what my role as a judge should be so feel free to read a role of the ballot. That in mind, don't be afraid to make arguments against a role of the ballot or provide a counter one.


 * Speed:** You can go fast **but** keep in mind my teammates made fun of me because I was awful at flowing. That doesn't mean I didn't hear what you said but just that probably didn't get the time to pen it down. If I'm flowing on my laptop then this shouldn't be a problem but if I'm flowing on paper try to slow down for tags. I'll say clear if you need me too.


 * T/Theory:** I loved Topicality/Theory as a debater so read them if you feel like there is abuse in the round, but if I think the shell was unnecessary you won't get great speaks.


 * Kritiks:** I love hearing authors like DnG and Foucault. That being said, I think many debaters are bad at running Ks so unless you are reading a generic cap K, think carefully about how well you know your arguments and how the K would function in the round before reading it because if it's done badly you will probably lose. I also want you to explain this type of literature carefully and thoroughly. I won't fill in any blanks you leave in the argument. (Because Kevin doesn't actually know DnG and just copied Jalaj's paradigm)


 * Da/Cp/ CX style args:** Go for it. All have a place debate

Yes you can sit down and debate.


 * Speaks:** I base speaks on the quality of argumentation in the round. As a debater I hated how hard it was to get 30 speaks, so if you debate really well you can bet you will get a 30. Still, speaks are relative. I don't know the criteria until I hear you debate. Be funny, be clear,use good vocabulary and make smart decisions and you are well on your way to a 30.


 * Things I don't like**
 * **Presumption:** I won't vote on presumption so don't bother running it. I assume there always a risk of offense in the round and there is no such thing as terminal defense.
 * **Not understanding your argument:** If you are going to read an argument, you have to know what it means and be able to explain it. This is especially true with dense philosophical arguments. I'm not going to do any work for you.
 * **Being racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, etc**


 * Last Few Notes:** As a debater I enjoyed running unconventional arguments or things that the generic debater wouldn't think of (like linking GMOs with Space). If you can have a believable story and articulate it well and link it to some unique impact, you will definitely get bonus points. If you have a unique/funny/out-of-the-ordinary case, I'm the judge to run it in front of.

I also demand that you WEIGH impacts and arguments in the round. Debate is, I think, pointless if you're not directly comparing and weighing conflicting arguments. If nobody weighs arguments in the round, I have no problem voting for whoever I thought spoke the best. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.