Wang,+Michael

I'm an APDA debater for Princeton University, and debated LD and Policy in high school.


 * General:** Most of my experience comes from a traditional circuit rather than the national circuit, and I have had very little interaction with high school debate recently. As a result, you 1) will need to slow down for me and 2) will need to explain //all// of your arguments clearly to me. As a general rule, I like arguments which are somewhat unique to the topic/round rather than completely recycled year-to-year (which I may give lower speaks for).


 * Framework:** I'm pretty fond of philosophy/framework arguments, but you will need to give me high-quality topic-specific analysis of how you win under your framework.


 * Kritiks:** Be warned that I don't have a great knowledge of critical theory. I'm //highly// skeptical of non-topical affirmative advocacies.


 * Theory / T:** I default to competing interps / drop the argument / no RVIs. Again, you will need to explain your arguments clearly. I don't consider running frivolous theory -- and this extends to tricks -- a good strategy, but it's up to you to take that risk.


 * Speaks:** I will give speaks based upon how articulate your speaking skills were (enunciation, inflection, clarity) as well as how well your arguments interacted with your opponent's and your own. This means that if you refuse to engage with your opponent's arguments, I will give lower speaks.


 * Misc:**
 * I don't evaluate out-of-round arguments (ex. disclosure theory)
 * I consider myself relatively conservative when it comes to evaluating what is a "legitimate" argument
 * I will intervene against arguments I consider blatantly offensive