Fang,+Justin

Justin Fang Debated for 4 years at Loyola High School Los Angeles Currently a freshman debater at Georgetown I was a 2A for most of my high school, currently a 2N. I've judged about 30 some rounds on the high school topic this year during the GDI camp tournament. I have a basic grasp of the core affs this year including some of the more critical literature.

Real Philosophy:

General thoughts: Debate is a communications activity - persuasion is very important in that it influences how I both consciously and, to a larger extent, subconsciously evaluate arguments. How you present an argument including ethos should not be discarded just because you're spreading.

Topicality - I wasn't a big T debater. I think you should make an effort to slow down on T debates as it's highly technical and harder to flow at high/unclear speeds. Efforts to accommodate will be rewarded with higher speaker points. That being said, I am more than willing to vote on topicality especially if the aff blatantly non-topical. If it's in the 2NR, I expect well warranted impacting of different standards. Reasonability is fine, but you'll have to a better __#|job__ than "they conceded reasonability, if we're reasonably topical vote aff."

Theory - please slow down. Fast theory debates are unpleasant, and I will not hold the other team accountable for arguments that I don't have on my flow. Short 5 second theory shells in the 2AC have their utility. If you expect it to be a viable option in the 2NR/2AR, make sure it's well-warranted and clear. Short tags are appreciated. I'm more than willing to vote on conditionality. I went for conditionality more than most people. Process/consult/conditions counterplans are probably bad, though poor aff debating will not get you my ballot.

DA/CP - DAs and CPs are fine. I prefer a good case-specific counterplan + DA debate. I will not kick the counterplan for you if not asked to. Absent that, a counterplan means presumption flips aff. I'm loathe to vote on Consult NATO or very generic counterplans. When in doubt: more specific = better. Also, politics is fine. I love politics.

Kritiks - also fine. I enjoy critical literature, and I find it intriguing at an intellectual level. I'm most familiar with your big K's like Cap or Security, but I'm down to vote on whatever. Caveat: please explain your argument. I'm not well-versed in your random psychoanalytic literature or hyperrealitysimulationdeathcult kritik. Try not to use ten letter words to say what can be said in a simple tag. I will appreciate that very much. I'm slow. Explanation is good. The aff gets to weigh the 1AC. I'm ok with voting for kritik "trick shots" like vtl, root cause...etc.

Critical affs - I prefer an aff that defends __#|fiat__ or at least some kind of advocacy statement. I'm probably not the best judge for your clash of civ debates, or if you want to talk about some random thing that has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is good. I enjoy it. We should talk about it. However, I have experienced some great K debates as well as bad ones. If you throw a bunch of songs at me and sit down...I won't know what to do. If you can function your arguments in a way that tells me how to vote, I am willing to vote for you. Explanation is good. Impacting your arguments is good.

Misc. - stupid arguments like Time Cube can be beat with analytics alone. A simple "this is stupid" may be sufficient for me to not evaluate a really dumb argument. That being said, I will vote on anything that is well warranted. Debate is a game as well as a site to test competing ideas. Rights Malthus/Genocide good may be morally atrocious in real life...but if that's your thing, I'm fine voting for it in a debate though you should probably re-evaluate your life if you actually believe in it. My ballot is not an endorsement of a particular political strategy. The only role of the ballot is to determine who did the better debating. This does not preclude framework arguments. You can still make claims about which things I should focus on as a policymaker or whatever else.
 * Zero risk is definitely possible - "try-or-die" in the 2AR will not be a winner against well-warranted internal link/impact defense work in the 2NR
 * Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer.
 * If you really want to do research during the round, I don't really care...probably has a negative effect on you.
 * I will say "Clear" 3 times. After that, I'll stop flowing.
 * I flow cross-x
 * Card clipping or falsifying evidence is inexcusable - you'll get a 0 and an auto-loss.
 * I don't know why util good responds to ethics affs - utilitarianism is a form of ethic, so the argument "util comes before ethics" makes 0 sense.

BE NICE. DON'T BE MEAN. There's 0 reason you need to be mean. Nice debaters who make the debate a pleasant environment will be rewarded. Mean debaters who make things uncomfortable or hostile will be punished without impunity. Have fun. Enjoy your debate.

JFang was here :D

Philosophy according to Arsht: Hello everyone, my name is Justin Fang. When you’re debating in front of me, you should use your fangs to achieve victory. I want you to get in their tooth and claw. Use your two-person wolf pack to take down your prey. As your judge, I will attempt to be the best one-man wolf pack adjudicator.

In the 2NR and 2AR, don’t lose the scent. I think lacking a poor sense of tracking is the fastest way to go hungry. In the thick rough and tumble of the chase. As far as theory and clash of civ debates are concerned, there are no codes of conduct in the wild. What goes is what you can justify.

Speaker points: The loudest howl doesn’t get the catch. I’m looking for someone who has the __#|clarity__ of vision to work together with their partner to box a deer or rabbit into a tough corner. 30 – White Fang 29.5 – pierce the skirtsteak/lone wolf 29 – pack-leader 28.5 – supporting pack member 28 – wolf pup 27.5 – free-loader 27 – vegetarian 26.5 – abandoned by the pack