Lai,+William

I debated for 3 years (2013-2016) in LD at Rosemount High School in MN. I am currently studying at the University of Oxford and do BP debate. Update December 2017: I've been doing very little debate in the past year because of internships and internship applications, so I might be rusty.
 * Background:**

I debated on both local and national circuits, but since I only went to high school for 3 years, I never really attended tournaments outside of the Midwest other than nationals. That said, I'm completely fine with both circuit and traditional styles, and I don't really have a preference towards either.
 * Overview:**

I would like to say I'm good with speed, but being out of the activity has probably slightly diminished my ability to flow it. I'll say clear as needed, but the only thing I really need debaters to slow down for is tags, author names, theory interpretations, CP/Alt texts, and other things where exact wording matters to the argument.
 * Speed:**

My coach in high school (Cort Sylvester) was originally a policy coach, so I debated policy arguments and positions quite often. I enjoy a good counterplan or disad debates, especially ones with lots of weighing. However, I would also say that I'm less likely to buy really questionable impact scenarios, and the threshold for answering such scenarios is pretty low for me. Also, on resolutions that don't specify a unique actor, I'm likely going to be more receptive to theory or T regarding really narrow or specific plans.
 * Policy Arguments:**

I ran my fair share of critical positions when I debated (mostly existentialist, scientific, and cap arguments). That being said, if your Kritik does something that isn't really concrete or specific, you need to really explain how to conceptualize it in way relevant to the round. I prefer to hear Ks with alternatives that actually do something concrete or specific. I'll still evaluate other Ks, but my threshold for answering vague or "do nothing" alts is pretty low. Also, Ks aren't a free pass to ignore your opponent's impacts, especially if your opponent links in. I'm skeptical of some Ks that use the message purely as a method to win, since I feel that might corrupt the K itself. I'm all for experimenting with ideas, but I'm also receptive to responses about performative contradictions. Finally, clearly explain your Ks since I'm not too familiar with all of the lit out there, even if I ran critical arguments.
 * Kritiks:**

I wasn't a big fan of theory when I debated, and I'm still hesitant towards it. However, I still understand its importance both to check abuse and as a strategic tool. I just don't appreciate when theory is used as a strategy to cop-out of debating substance. As such, I default to reasonability, dropping the argument, and no RVIs. I evaluate T before theory, and I'm extremely unlikely to ever give an RVI on T. Unless specified otherwise, counterplans and Ks are dispositional to me, but I really don't have much of a problem with conditionality. That being said, running multiple contradicting conditional positions in front of me does put you at risk. I really don't like people shifting their advocacies later in the round to make their problems go away. Overall, just act in good faith....
 * Theory:**

I disclose unless if the tournament specifically forbids me from it. I only disclose speaks if both debaters want me too. I'm still trying to find the best balance for my speaker point assignment, but in general, right now 27.5 is my idea of average.
 * Disclosure:**


 * Other:**
 * I presume NEG by default.
 * I really don't like skep for the purpose of presumption. My threshold to answering such arguments will be very low.
 * I also dislike contingent advocacies. I'll evaluate them, but I'll allow new responses to contingent advocacies, and my threshold for answers will be low.
 * If you run blippy arguments or spikes, you better slow down a ton for them. This is not only because I dislike them, but also because I can't and won't flow them. I will also accept equally shallow argument to respond to spikes, so be careful about running them for the time advantage.
 * I would much prefer if you debated the topic. I''ll listen to other stuff, but I won't be a big fan of it.

If you have any other questions, just ask me. I'll be happy to answer.