Wang,+Samuel

I debated policy in Wisconsin, won state my senior year, and got to the top fifty of NFL's in 2014. I did everything from K to performance to policy, so I have experience to everything.

I approach debate with an offense defense framework, unless otherwise asked. I evaluate debate on a framework level first, then address the important issues in the debate (obviously). I believe debate should have good clash, and should address important questions. The three most important things I believe should be in a debate are content, organization, and charisma in that order. Clarity and clash is critical.

My opinions on arguments

DA: Doesn't even need to be asked

CP: Needs to have a net benefit, solvency is an adequate net benefit unless challenged. Conditional CP's, international fiat CP's, etc aren't abusive unless the claim for abuse is made. At that level I have a small personal bias on these are abusive, but it won't make enough of a difference to change my opinion on the theory debate.

K's: I debated the K alot in high school and I don't have any problem with buying the K as an argument. However, things that are necessary for a K debate for me: Clarity, I need to know what the kritik is. Using sophisticated terminology makes you look like a badass, but if I don't know what it is, I'm not voting on it. Authors I've debated/touched upon their work in reading: Foucalt, Nietzsche, Heidigger. I can handle some of the crazier stuff provided its done contextually to the debate and the plan. Performance is fine too as long as it is clarified.

T: The most important standards eventually when it comes to T are fairness and education, always relate it back to that.

Debate is about education and having fun. Don't forget to enjoy yourself.