Liu,+Samuel


 * Millburn High School '14 **
 * Harvard University '18 ** (Philosophy and Physics)


 * Conflicts ** : Millburn High School (Millburn, NJ)

Updated for Harvard Tournament 2018


 * SHORT VERSION OF MY PARADIGM: **

1) I did LD for four years in Millburn, but  I have done very little debate-related thinking in __four years__, so I am not up to speed in evaluating theory, skep triggers, etc. I also __will not__ be able to understand your __spreading__. I will not evaluate anything I do not understand. You are, of course, more than welcome to do whatever you want, but whether that is a strategic choice in front of me given my current knowledge is your decision.

2) I would like to hear a slow, non-jargon filled, substantively rich and intellectually stimulating debate that engages the topic—while as debaters, we often disparage such type of "traditional" debate, ultimately, debate is a "game" (albeit with stakes that are likely important to you) and the skills that transfer to outside said game are those of good speaking skills and an ability to distill complicated arguments filled with terminology into simply terms. I also have some flexibility in interpreting the rules (yes it's arbitrary, but what other standard would you go by?). Thus I see the evaluative mechanism as a combination of logic and marketing (there's a reason why it's called speaker points). Think of it like a job interview. If you try cheapshots, that reflects badly on you.

3) I am studying philosophy, so feel free to leverage that as needed, but know that A) I am not fluent in a lot of post-modern critical theory and B) I will dock points if you attempt to use a philosopher in a way that blatantly does not match their content.

**LONG VERSION:**

__Speed:__ I used to be able to handle it while I was in high school, but know that I haven't flowed in over three years. If I don't understand you, I won't evaluate your argument. I'll say "clear" or "speed" a few times, but if you're too ignorant to figure out that I've lost you after that, don't expect your arguments to show up on my flow.

__Theory:__ I vaguely remember what theory is but I __do not__ remember how it is structured, evaluated, or run. If you do run it, please explain everything and don't assume that I'll know what "competing interps" means.

__Kritiks:__ This is probably a bad idea for you to run. Not only do I not remember what these are, but I also do not have a good grasp on the scholars form which these types of cases draw their cards. Full disclosure: I do not like post-modern theory. That being said, I will try to evaluate everything as fairly and as best as I can.

__Policy Arguments:__ I actually like disads and util debating if done well. If you're running a plan or CP, be clear in distinguishing sections of the structure because I will not know how the structure works unless you explain it to me. However, very sketchy links to large impacts won't fly even if your opponent drops them. As I am a student of science, I will automatically assume the null hypothesis for any type of util disad: that is it won't happen unless you showed there is a significant probability that it will. (Feel free to use statistical or mathematical arguments too. Just make sure you know what you're talking about.)

__Philosophy/Framework:__ I really like this- it was part of the reason why I chose LD. As I stated above, be clear, and be smart. Also don't misrepresent theories. I am familiar with a lot of the canonical theories , so if you tell me something that's blatantly false about Rawls's Veil of Ignorance or read quotes out of context, I will weep uncontrollably. And then nuke your speaks. Moreover, attempts to mis-represent your opponent's argument may kill your speaker points (one thing that I wish I learned more of in debate is how to be charitable to the opposing side and will use my limited discretion as a judge to attempt to effect some change)

__General Concerns __: 1) On balance, I like substantive debate better than other stuff- unless there is an explicit reason not to engage substance, and it's done well. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">2) No matter how good you are, how good you think you are, and how good others think you are, the basic skills classically taught in "debate 101 for novices" remain extremely important. I'm talking about weighing, crystallization, evidence comparison, etc. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">3) I do think persuasion and elements of rhetoric are classy, but I will not evaluate the substance of arguments based on who used rhetorical strategies more artfully. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">4) Be respectful and convivial in your debate. But you don't have to be uptight or formal. Debate is fun. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">5) I love humor, and it will be rewarded. I am also generally a laid-back person when it comes to rounds, so I don't care about things like dress or standing or laptops or other tidbits I personally find silly (that being said psychological research does say that even rational/laid back people are influenced by first impressions and attire, so...). <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,"lucida grande",tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">6) Please be on time. I value your time, and both your opponent and I show up to rounds on time, so don't make us wait for more than 10 minutes. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">7) I enjoy intellectually stimulating things that are fascinating and compelling. I dislike stupid things that are pointless (but may entertain say a push-up contest if both debaters agree - otherwise I'll dock speaker points for wasting your opponent's time). <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">8) I disclose unless forbidden by the tournament <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">9) Don't be unethical (true story: a debater smashed another's laptop to prevent the opponent from reading her case and then paid said opponent for the laptop on the spot...) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">10) After the round, feel free to ask questions to clarify parts of my RFD or about life/college in general (I actually wish I had done this when I was debating <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,"lucida grande",tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">).

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,&#39;lucida grande&#39;,tahoma,verdana,arial,sans-serif;">Any specific questions about my paradigm can be addressed to me prior to the round.