Park,+Young

Me - I debated for Clovis North High School from 2012-2016 and coached by Deven Cooper and Max Bugrov. I now debate for Cal. Debate: I generally view debate as a game but not to say that it couldn't be argued otherwise. That being said, I try to stay as neutral as I can and let the debaters frame the round for themselves and debate it out. I think that debate should be competitive, educational, and engaging in all regards. I dislike debaters who spoil the fun of the game for others and are super pretentious in round. Just because you're a top seed doesn't mean I won't vote you down against other debaters. Topicality: Do it - The more you articulate how your impacts affect the game or what the affirmatives/negative ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest, I don't really care, but I will say that when teams do this, explanations get very very repetitve and damaging both in speaker points and ethos. For the aff, make sure you have a counter-defiition... please. Last thing I'll say is that I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa... as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other, then that can be a very big framing issue for me. Theory/Framework: - Love it - give me offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I firmly believe that TVA's are absolutely necessary to gain a large advantage over your opponents for obvious reasons. I like both theoretical and substantive framework so as long as you impact out your arguments, I will roll with it. I was very policy before my critical years, so don't be afraid to run these arguments in front of me. Disads: Yes - I believe any argument can be made into disad. Impact framing and case turns are very impotant to get my ballot - please don't read a billion cards, I like thorough link scenarios and external impacts explained to me in the block. I am even more excited when I see specific link cards, especially if you flesh out the warrants for me. Counterplans: Sure - Do read solveny cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the counterplan solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card, but I would really appreciate one and have net benefits or even external disads on the counterplan are even cooler to me in my opinion. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the counterplan and pick out solvency deficits from the counter plan text. Kritiks: I dig it - I ran kritiks almost all of my high school senior year and my time in debating for Cal. I have ran alot of critical race theory arguments both in high school and college, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. I also dig high theory - but please - choose 2-3 concepts and stick with them. I don't want to sit in the room with a bunch of buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. I also like it when kritiks are context specific to the aff and for high theory teams, if you give me empirical examples on top of link-specific scenarios to the aff, I will be extremely happy. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Lacan, Deleuze, Wilderson, Bifo, Baudrillard, Moten, Farley, Hartman, Puar, etc. Performance: Done it and loved it - whether its part of your argument or part of your scheme to troll with the other team, I am completely okay with it. Give me reasons why your performace/method is good and having external net-benefits or impacts based off of your method are also very key. Case: Be my guest - I think disads on case and solvency deficits are perfect - they lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. General Notes: - Ask permission to take video footage of the round - Don't clip cards - I don't believe in-round solvency discourse bullsht, just win that ur method is good - I like smart, petty cross-ex moments - I hate extra, hyperagressive teams