Zhang,+Kevin

I debated for three years at the Harker School in San Jose, California on the national circuit. I’m now a freshman in college. I haven’t judged any rounds on the topic so far, so you need to explain some of the nuances to me. Don’t overuse buzzwords without explaining them.


 * 1. Topicality – Like I said, I don’t have a good idea of the topic for this year, so I will be hesitant to vote on T. I like competing interpretations. Don’t run T as simply a timesuck. Commit.
 * 2. CP / DA – I will vote on counterplans if you explain the net benefit clearly. Have a good solvency advocate and specific links/NB. Be clear on how your detailed arguments work in the big picture.
 * 3. Kritiks – I’m not too familiar with kritik literature, so you’ll have to be especially clear in your arguments. I’m not the biggest fan of the K, but I can appreciate them. I believe that you can argue both “policy” and “critical” frameworks in debate, but will default to a policy-maker mindset unless your framework tells me otherwise. Make your links clear and warranted, and explain what happens in the world of the alternative. I don’t know what “rethinking” or “rejecting” something means by default.
 * 4. Framework – Default to policy, but non-policy frameworks are not a problem if you explain your argument well. Get control of the framework of the debate.
 * 5. Theory – Show unique abuse.

Make arguments not assertions.