Zheng,+Allen


 * General**

I debated for four years at Palo Alto High School and graduated in 2013. I did mostly national circuit debate, but occasionally attended local tournaments.

Speed is almost never an issue, clarity is an issue fairly often. I don’t mind you going fast as long as you enunciate clearly and slow down for tags, author names, and analytics. I won’t call cards after the round unless it was my fault that I missed them or if there’s a dispute about what exactly the card says. I’ll yell “clear” if I have to, but I’ll get really annoyed if you don’t slow down/get clearer.

I’ll try to be as open-minded as possible, but I don’t believe it’s possible to be completely tab, so this is going to be a summary of my views of debate, that will probably influence both my decision and the speaks I give you.

When judging the first thing I look to is pre-fiat considerations like theory and pre-fiat K’s. If nobody wins on that level, I evaluate the framework debate, and then try to see who has offense linking to the relevant framework. More on that later, though.


 * Framework**

In general, framework is a way to determine what is important. I think topics are deliberately vague about what “ought” and “moral” means, which gives debaters room for framework debates.

I see framework is an issue of preferences rather than absolutes. For example, let’s say I’m winning framework A over framework B, and I have one unit of offense linking back to framework A, but my opponent has a hundred units of offense linking back to framework B. I don’t think I’d necessarily win the round, and I’m open to arguments about why that is important. Of course, framework debate //is// important, but it isn't everything.


 * Theory**

Absent other argumentation, I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs for theory, and that topicality is a reason to reject the advocacy (i.e. the AC) and that it comes before other theory.

Fairness and education are both important. Weighing voters has its merits, but weighing doesn’t change the fact that both are intrinsically important. In other words, if one debater is winning education by a lot but the other is barely winning fairness, fairness>education weighing isn’t a reason to prefer the second debater.

I enjoy evaluating good theory debates, but that means explaining layering and explaining argument interaction. There’s nothing more annoying than a five-point dump on either side with no explanation.


 * K’s**

Overall, K’s are fine, but be sure to explain the warrants and implications clearly. There aren’t many things more annoying than a K debater hiding behind obtuse rhetoric just to confused their opponent, especially if the K magically becomes clear in the 2NR or the 2AR.


 * Speaks**

I’ve noticed that speak inflation is becoming more and more of a thing recently, and while I think the “old school” system of actually averaging a 27 is probably better for debate, I won’t be unfair to debaters who get me by going against the norm. I’ll probably end up averaging a 28-28.5 for debaters who are decent and 29-29.5 for debaters who are really impressive. I won’t go below a 26 unless you are racist, sexist, offensive, or the like.

Things that will get better speaks in front of me are: -Big picture overviews -Explaining argument interaction and layering -Layering. This is really important. -Being strategic, smart, all that jazz -Being funny -Smiling. Seriously. Smiling makes people seem more likeable and in the end speaks are arbitrary so you might as well make the round more pleasant.

Things that will get you worse speaks: -Being rude, offensive, etc. -Being unclear and not fixing it when I say “clear” -Dumps on frameworks, theory, arguments, etc. without explanation of argument interaction -Being mean (spreading unnecessarily, running unnecessary theory) to inexperienced debaters


 * Things that annoy me**

I’ll vote on these, but I’m very receptive to responses to them and will probably lower your speaks, especially if they’re poorly executed.

-Tons and tons of spikes and preemptive arguments.

-CX checks, in the form of an automatic I-meet unless the interp/violation is cleared in CX, especially when coupled with I meet is an RVI

-On that point, I really don’t like I meet is an RVI

-Trying to win off defense

-Trigger arguments

-Extinction comes first arguments

-Stupid theory. There’s a difference between strategic theory and stupid theory, and if you have to ask which is which, just don’t run it.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round about stuff I didn’t cover, too. Good luck!