Nguyen,+Vincent


 * Background:** I debated for 3 years at I.H. Kempner High School, cleared at several national circuit tournaments my senior year in LD, and graduated in 2014. I currently attend Rice University.

TL;DR Make my job easy and likely your job will be pretty easy as well. Don’t be offensive and have fun!


 * General Overview:** My mechanism for adjudicating rounds is generally as such: I determine who’s winning the appropriate framework/weighing mechanism debate and then determine who’s winning weighed offense that’s being impacted back to that framework.
 * Argument interaction, weighing arguments, extensions, and impacting arguments back to a weighing mechanism are important to me, please do your best to do them. It’ll make the round easier for everyone, especially to someone who wants to discern a clear ballot story.
 * Speaking of a ballot story, I have a relatively high threshold for extensions so “claim, warrant, impact”, then impacting back to a framework is the way to go.
 * I look at role of the ballot arguments as just another weighing mechanism, but I expect you to be able to interact the justifications for your ROB with the opposing, theoretical justifications for different roles of the ballot. Role of the judge arguments make things easier to evaluate, I like them.


 * Speed:** I’m pretty good with speed although I’ve found that the less I’ve actually competed in the activity, the slower I’ve gotten at flowing. Just make sure you’re clear at all times and that you slow down for anything you think I need to catch: author names, tags of arguments, standards (theoretical or otherwise), interps, etc. If it seriously becomes an issue, I’ll yell clear at most 2 times and after that, I’ll flow only what I can hear, which probably means I’m not getting everything you want me to (best case scenario).


 * CPs/Plans/DA**: Cool with them. I’ve had a lot of fun judging/debating rounds in which both conceded util. Slow down on plan/CP texts and don’t be sketchy by shifting your advocacy.


 * T/Theory**:
 * I tend to default to competing interpretations/drop the argument but you can make arguments for why reasonability/drop the debater is true and if won, I’ll buy them given that you establish what a “reasonable” interp is. Overall however, I never did particularly enjoy the T/Theory debate but that won’t influence my decision.
 * RVI debates are silly but they’re probably necessary given how prolific theory is at this point. I err towards granting affs the RVI in most situations.
 * WEIGH/WEIGH/WEIGH. The last thing I want to do is sit there wondering why the standard you’re going for is more important than the one your opponent read when they did their job weighing and you didn't.
 * I don’t expect you to get up and read a full shell based on the spike you had in the first speech but please be ready to explain the theoretical/offensive implications of your argument when you make the extension in your next speech. Too many debaters get up extending some blip and expect me to do the work for them.


 * Kritiks:**
 * I like kritikal arguments (particularly Cap and Myth of the Model Minority), and they were my favorite to read when I still debated. However, that doesn't mean that I’m more likely to vote for you just because you get up and read a K. Be ready to be able to defend your K during CX without circular justifications as well as whether or not the K functions merely as a case turn or garners offense by impacting back to a ROB (or both). I expect K debaters to be articulate and be capable of explaining their K to a lay judge.
 * I like to think that I’m at least familiar with most philosophical/critical authors but if you truly know your argument/aren't misrepresenting the argument/are explaining your argument well, this shouldn't be a problem.
 * I like method debates because it forces K debaters to really know what they’re talking about.


 * Speaker Points:** I usually average at a 28.5 and change based on how easy you make the round easy to evaluate. CX is a great opportunity for you to demonstrate to me why you deserve to be rewarded higher speaks.
 * I give higher speaks for demonstrating clear knowledge of what’s being read, strategic decisions, and perceptual dominance/rhetorical skill.
 * I try not to give lower speaks to anyone but if I do, it’s because you a) read arguments against someone who clearly did not understand them, e.g. a disad against a novice, b) make the environment uncomfortable by not being respectful/cordial, or c) making it very clear that you don’t want to be there. Don’t waste your time and especially don’t waste mine.


 * General FAQs**
 * Skep is fine; just avoid reading against oppression frameworks please.
 * Presumption/Permissibility arguments are fine, make clear what the implications of you winning either are.
 * Please don’t make debate a hostile environment for anyone involved. Making deliberate statements that justify the marginalization of oppressed groups will risk an auto-down or at best, 0 speaker points. Be warned.