Zhang,+Jerry

I debated LD for Montville for 4 years (with some PF and congress mixed in), and have competed at some circuit tournaments. I now study at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

I prefer traditional LD debate (value structures, no plans or CPs) that actually are resolutional. Shy away from progressive concepts like K's and plans. Do not use theory unless it is actually necessary. Disads are fine as long as they link back to a some value structure in the end. I am pretty tabula rasa and will believe anything you tell me unless your opponent says otherwise. I will do minimal work for you in terms of linking arguments or interpreting evidence. I will not accept extensions in the 2AR that is not mentioned in a previous rebuttal. Most importantly, blippy arguments mean nothing to me. Elaborate on your arguments and **weigh** them. This applies to the strategy of spiking out of everything on the top of your case as well, so don't expect them to hold against solid arguments.

Use cross-ex to your advantage. Anything you say in cx is binding, and I appreciate courtesy when talking to your opponent. Treating your opponent with respect while still beating them gets you speaks.
 * CX**

In terms of speed, I can keep up with moderate speed as long as you enunciate properly, and will yell clear twice before deducting speaks. Rule of thumb, if your opponent can't understand you without being passed pages while you read, chances are I didn't ether (and I'm not going to have you pass me pages).
 * Speed**

I assign these solely on how well you speak, so you can get a low point win. This can be fast or slow, but the clearer you are the higher the score.
 * Speaks**

<26 - you did something illegal 26-27 - below the average of the tournament 28 - average 29 - above average 30 - i'd bet you're getting a speaker award