Xiao,+Willy

Xiao, Willy 02/11//2016 Debated 1 year at Northview High School Debated 3 years at Westminster as a 2N Debated 1 semester at Harvard my Freshman Year

I am Class of 2016, so I haven't debated (or coached) in over 3 years now.

Most of my 2NR's in high school ended with DA/CP or DA/Case strategies. My judging philosophy is most influenced by the following people:

David Heidt Calum Matheson Jarrod Atchison

I will list how I view some issues below. You can still read whatever you find compelling and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly.

Performance/Critical Affs:

Probably not the best judge for you. I went for framework most of the time here.

Counterplans:

Little bit aff biased on counterplan competition – so consult, conditions, offsets, agent, some pics etc., are probably not competitive.

Need a solvency advocate. What that means is up to the debaters, but probably a card that actually advocates the CP is needed, e.g. one that says “should.” A card that simply describes the CP most likely doesn’t meet that burden, although it might.

Presumption goes towards the affirmative if a counterplan has been presented. Essentially this means the aff doesn’t have to win a risk of offense as long as they prove with 100% certainty there’s no benefit in voting for the counterplan v. the perm or the plan.

I am not sure yet where I stand on multiple conditional worlds – one is certainly okay, one cp and one kritik is almost certainly okay, I’m not positive where I stand after that and can be persuaded to vote for condo bad beyond 2. If judge kick is not explicitly argued, I will not kick the CP for the 2nr.

Critiques:

I may or may not understand the kritik, so be sure to explain it well.

I am probably aff biased on the question of framework – neg should have to defend an advocacy and it can be argued that the advocacy should have an agent. Of course, if the neg wins that the kritik turns the case and has independent offense outside of the “advocacy” then that probably means I can vote neg.