Wu,+James

First thing's first, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round. I'd be more than happy to clarify.

**About me:** I debated for 4 years at Washburn Rural High School in Kansas (Transportation Infrastructure-Surveillance) and am currently a student at Columbia University and assistant at Bronx Science. I have been a 2N my entire debate career. Most of my 2NRs have been Topicality, the politics DA, a CP + DA, and the Security K. That said, I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC's logic - For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? __Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the negative on the case in favor of generic impact defense.__

**Disclaimer:** I think debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round very seriously – and I think you should, too. You should respect your opponents and each other. You should do whatever makes you comfortable and have fun. Put me on the email chain: wujames0209 [at] gmail [dot] com.

**5 minutes before the debate SparkNotes**: Mostly does policy style debate, speed is fine, very pro-topical affs/topicality, competing interpretations> reasonability, yes zero risk but offense is good, fine for k's that prove the plan is a bad idea, meh for k's that do not, framing issues are important, buzzwords are bad, CLAIM WARRANT IMPACT, death is bad, leans neg on theory, tough (but far from impossible) sell on conditionality bad, very up in the air on international fiat/50 state fiat.

**I like:** -Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means -Debaters who are funny/having fun -Well thought out strategies

**Do not like:** -Reading arguments you don't really understand -Topicality = genocide -General rudeness -Prep stealers (if you do, your speaker points will reflect that)

**Argument Evaluation:** -My default view is that debate is a game. I suppose that this view can change given the context of debates, but unless otherwise instructed, I will view debate as such. -An argument requires a claim, warrant, and impact. With that in mind, “perm do both” is not an argument. “Perm do both, shields the link because X” is. Negs should say this <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Dropped/conceded arguments are "true" but are not automatically "relevant." You still have to win an impact <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-At the margins, evidence > spin <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-If you read death good, I will vote for the other team. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Role of the ballot arguments are stupid and I won't vote on them. Just make a substantive impact framing argument.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Framework vs non-traditional affs:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-I prefer teams that read one and only one topical plan. That's not to say that I won't vote for teams who don't, but I have a very strong bias towards the need for a stable, predictable advocacy. If you tend to read an aff that is "in the direction of the topic" I would really prefer that you focus your answers around counter-interpreting words in the resolution and winning why those interpretations are better for debate. I will find it much easier to vote for an expansive and unconventional view of the topic than to disregard the topic entirely. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-"There's no topical version of the aff" sounds like a negative argument to me.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Topicality:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I have a pretty strong bias towards competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-If you go for reasonability, tell me what that means. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-More teams should go for T. Extra-T is definitely a thing and should be called out when appropriate. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-I think the best impacts to T are competitive equity and process-based education from deliberating with a well-prepared opponent. Both of those impacts are about the existence of a predictable topic as opposed to the merits of any particular topic. Topics are intentionally imperfect to allow room for both sides to have reasonable arguments. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Any model of debate in which the neg has to beat the case to win their T argument seems illogical to me, since the premise of the neg T argument is that they can't be prepared to beat the case.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Disadvantages:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Love them. DA and case is my favorite strategy as a debater. Impact calc should be the first thing I hear in the block overviews of the DA. Zero risk (negligible risk) is a thing. I don't think I would vote on a politics theory argument even if it was dropped. Don't bank on those arguments (also don't drop them please). 2NR should do impact calc and make turns case arguments.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Counterplans:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Specific, comparative solvency advocates probably make any counterplan legit. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-I will not kick the counterplan for the neg unless explicitly told to in both the block and 2nr. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Competition and legitimacy are separate-- a cp can be deemed competitive and also cheating at the same time (for example, states cp). CP's that compete off the effects of the plan instead of the mandates of the plan probably don't compete. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-I will reward you for specific counterplans that are well-researched and prepared. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-If you go for CP theory, you will have to clearly explain and impact it out.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Kritiks:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-My biggest problems with k's are usually that the alternative doesn't do anything/solve anything, the links are triggered by the squo, and (most importantly) they don't say the plan is a bad idea. If you in some way address these problems, I'll be more sympathetic toward your kritik. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-I'm a bad judge to go for language k's/microaggression k's-- if the other team accidentally says "guys" or "dumb" or most other things that tend to become arguments, I am not likely to be persuaded to vote against them.Usually it is a question of points, but even then, microaggressions that aren't intentional, heinous, and reoccurring are tough for me to vote against. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-I do not want to judge high theory and philosophy. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Links of omission are not links. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Floating PIKs are bad. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the affirmative to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-A 2AC that impact turns cap/security/heidegger/etc is very strategic and usually underutilized in favor of just playing defense. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">-A 2AR that says the aff outweighs and the alt doesn’t solve is very persuasive to me, especially if combined with the permutation. That being said, I am sympathetic to new 1AR/2AR arguments if an argument in the 1NC or block is not developed.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I think this is a debate just like anything else. If you can persuade me using warranted analysis why something should or shouldn't be theoretically allowed in debate, I am likely to vote for you. It is important to use your interpretation of a theoretical argument to generate offense. Don't just read your blocks.