Kang,Dillon

hDillon Kang Dillon Kang

I debated 4 years at Edmond North High School and also debated one year at the University of Oklahoma.

I feel as if most people have more questions regarding the kritikal aspects of debate so I'll address that first. Prior to that, i'd like to make a disclaimer that I don't have a preference for a certain style of debate over another, but that being said, as a debater of five years, and especially debating at the University of Oklahoma, I do have more experience with the K over any other arguments. I believe that the most important offense that the negative needs to win is the alternative, but one thing I have a problem with many K debaters is the lack of understanding of what their alternative really is. Don't throw lingo words out there such as "oh, our Johnston alt wants us to withdraw from the ideology of capital" rather explain to me what/how you withdraw from that ideology of capital and what the world would look like post alt. I am a pretty heavy offense/defense debater and really do value in the negative making claims such as alt solves case, root cause args, etc. Also another random sidenote is that I do strongly believe that the perm should always have some sort of net benefit, otherwise i always find it hard to pull the trigger. That isn't to say that i won't vote on a conceded permutation however, in a really close/clashing debate, I expect to have reasons as to why the perm/or the alt is net beneficial and a reason to vote on it. Another random pet peeve of mine, and this isn't exclusively specific to K's, but in a heavily impact turn debate round on the K, I expect each team to explain warrants and actually debate the warrants. These debates get dumb when the Aff argues that neg concedes our Smith 10 impact turn and the neg comes back and says, "oh no, we answered that with our White 10 card" and then in the end, i have to actually call up cards and try to do work for one team.

Just a overview of things, I like debates to be very specific. I find it disturbing that current debate practices are held where people try to get away with extremely generic links. So be specific; I love PICs and specific heavy links.

Another pet peeve of mine is the theory debates. I usually have a VERY low threshold for pulling the trigger for any theory abuse arguments. Unless the violation is VERY clear or if the argument goes conceded, I probably will be very hesitant to vote for some theory arg. I generally think the neg should have a lot of flexibility to run whatever arguments they want because in the end, I feel as if Aff infinite prep should end up balancing/reciprocating that. Any specific questions besides all of this will be answered prior to rounds if you have any.