Jin,+Francis

Francis Jin Northwestern University

Overall, debaters should be polite and respectful, but most importantly enjoy what they are doing. I'm pretty much okay with most arguments, even seemingly ridiculous ones as I have heard my share, as long as they are justified in round intelligently.

Some specifics

Theory: For theoretical objections such as conditionality and most counterplan theory I tend to err neg, and for topicality I tend to err aff, but as long as debaters explain thoroughly the arguments you should be fine. Debaters should make sure to impact theoretical objections and tell me how I should evaluate the round, or else I'm usually not obligated to decide the round on a theory arg.

Counterplans: I don't have a problem with most counterplans, and I have read my share of some theoretically objectionable ones so I know the ins and outs. With that said, debaters need to make sure to impact well and explain how the two options interact.

Kritiks: I read my share of kritiks in high school as well so I won't be opposed to anything as long as it's explained well. As far as critical literature goes, I probably won't know every single term or reference; debaters should be sure to explain something if it isn't easily understood already.

With that said, I debated seriously for 4 years of high school, and have seen my share of arguments and rounds. As long as you impact why your harms are more significant, everything will be fine. I will not be automatically opposed to 99% of arguments, and I believe it's up to the debaters to explain those issues in round for me.