Ho,+Vivian


 * Vivian Ho**

I debated for Marcus High School in Dallas, TX and taught at the Mean Green Workshops and the National Debate Forum this summer.

I see debate as a dispute to determine whether the resolution is true or not true, although the extent of the affirmative and negative burdens is determined by the nature of the resolution itself. Therefore, if neither debaters extend anything offensive, I’ll default negate because the resolution has yet to be proven true, although it is not proactively false. This will only occur given the absence of any default analysis by the debaters—if an affirmative sufficiently extends an reason for AFF presumption, I’ll use their interpretation rather than my own.

I will use whatever evaluative mechanism is best warranted at the end of the round, although the ideal mechanism would establish burdens and explain how they can be met in relation to the proving the resolution true or not true. This can be a criterion, multiple criteria, burdens, or whatever—it doesn’t matter to me, as long as you can explain how it functions and why it’s preferable to your opponent’s standard. I’m going to intuitively prefer substantive standard justifications over theory-based ones, but if the substance v. theory debate occurs, I expect both sides to warrant their positions.

Oh yeah, one more thing: I will disregard warrantless in any shape or form, regardless of whether they're extended cleanly. This also includes args supported by fabricated cards--although if you do get caught fabricating evidence in front of me, I will destroy your speaks and most likely drop you.

Now that the big picture has been cleared up, here are my views on some of the other issues that debaters often ask about:

__Speed__: I can flow pretty quickly, but my accuracy is dependent on your clarity. I’m uneasy with yelling ‘clear,’ so if I do it, it’ll only be once per debater, per round. After that, you’ll need to be making enough eye contact with me to know if I’m not flowing. However, even if you are clear, going extremely fast is going to detract from my ability to understand you as much as I would if you were slower—I’ll probably understand the explicit rhetoric, but I wouldn’t recommend reading extremely nuanced framework at blazingly high speeds, especially if you plan on using it heavily.

__Theory__: I am not a fan of theory. To me, if an ‘abusive’ argument is substantively untrue, then you should engage it as such, rather than resorting to abuse—and if it’s true, I’m hesitant to punish a debater for offering a valid argument. That said, the time will probably come where I will have to vote on theory, and I’ll do it if you can cogently warrant and extend your standard for abuse, why your opponent is being abusive and why theory matters. I have a higher threshold for most theory arguments because many function as 'game-winners' that ask me to disregard the rest of the substantive debate, so if you’re hitting a theory argument you should put out any responses you can. If you plan on running theory in front of me, know that I’ll judge theory like any other argument (based on the strength of the warrant), so all my inherent skepticism means is that you’ll be expected to provide very strong and sensible warrants, since I’m not compelled by the generic theory blips that merely assume that fairness and education matter. Additionally, since I think theory’s only defensible merit would lie in its ability to check egregiously unfair tactics, I will NOT entertain theory as a form of strategy, and if you make it seem like you’re running it as a time-suck or a blip, the chances of my voting on it will drastically reduce, along with your speaker points.

__Critical Arguments/K’s__: I’m not well read on any critical authors, but I don’t have any biases against such positions. Just know that if you plan on running any sort of dense philosophy, you’ll be expected to explain it cogently in round, both to me and your opponent. Be especially clear about how the impacts of these arguments would necessitate an affirmation or negation—oftentimes such cases are ambiguous about burdens and cause confusion in round.

__Prestandard arguments__: I’m skeptical of how ‘prestandard’ most arguments are. Usually, these arguments just appeal to an implicit standard, that may or may not be a prerequisite to your opponent’s standard. I will disregard such arguments unless I hear an explicit reason why they are prestandard, and I’ll appreciate it if you can point out how your opponent’s prestandard arguments are mislabeled. If you can truly justify your prestandard argument, run it, but I won’t vote off of a blip prestandard spike. Since these arguments, if won, would force me to disregard the rest of the flow, I won’t vote for a prestandard argument unless I feel like the warrant is very clear, which will require a good amount of time investment in the constructives and late rebuttals.

__Speaker Points:__ My median is 27, going up or down depending on sophistication of strategy, quality of argumentation, and fluency. I don’t care if you sit down and read off your laptop, what matters to me is that you’re making substantive arguments in a clear way.

As a postscript, this is my first time writing a paradigm, so it’s my bad if this comes off as way too long or short. Feel free to ask any questions before round, or after round. I won’t delay flights for discussion time but will gladly talk to you anytime during the tournament, as long as you’re nice about it.