Xiang,+Andrew

Andrew Xiang (xiang.andrew@gmail.com for email chains)

Reagan HS '16, Dartmouth '20. I am currently a freshman policy debater at Dartmouth. I also coach a few high school policy debate teams on the side.

*I will approach every round I judge with the same level of attention, dedication, and respect as I'd want from my judges.

*I think debate should always be about the debaters, and therefore you should do what you wish to do and what you think you are best at--debate should be fun as well as educational and I want to hear whatever you want me to hear. This is my way of saying "read what you want"; I think there is something important to be gained from any "area" of debate you wish to do. As a 2N I have gone for everything from Ks to process CPs and both defended/not defended a plan as a 2A; I will have familiarity with what you read.

**Thoughts on debate args:**

Kritiks Do what you have to do get your point across. As with everything else, just warrant/explain your arguments. I have a broad kritikal background, but make sure to explain your arguments. Win your framework/impact framing and you should have no problem. I prefer line by line to large OVs, but sometimes complex kritiks require larger levels of explanation and I understand the need for longer overview type explanation.

Kritik AFFs You do you--feel free to do what you wish to get your point across. (as with above). I will say that I am more likely to enjoy a kritikal aff based within good topic research rather than the greatest K hits of the last 10 years. As for T-USFG: as a 2A I usually didn't defend a plan and as a 2N I almost exclusively went for topicality vs planless affs. I am very familiar with both sides of this debate and think there are great debates to be had here. I don't think T is inherently violent but there is other offense to be garnered vs T

Topicality While I probably default to competing interpretations, I think there are a lot of good arguments for reasonability. Caselists for your interp never hurt. I think that predictable limits is probably the best neg standard on topicality and generally more persuasive than ground but there also a lot of good ground args to be made (among other standards/impacts) and I will leave that up to your judgement.

Disads These are awesome-- high level impact work/comparison is good and I think quality > quantity for ev absent any other context (sometimes this is an uphill battle with args like politics)

<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;">I prefer cps that are textually and functionally competitive, but I understand the strategic value of conditions/consult/etc. Theory ev regarding the CP never hurts

<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 need to flow, I probably can not flow the entirety of a theory debate where the args are read at the speed of a piece of evidence. I am biased in favor of conditionality (obviously subject to debate). Unlikely to vote on cheap shot claims.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Other things:** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I'll say clear if you're unclear and after repeatedly doing it, it's probably a sign that you should slow down. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Be kind and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Have fun and have a great year!