Jing,+Edward

Edward Jing Unionville High School '14 University of Pennsylvania '18 Conflicts: Unionville High School

I debated for Unionville High School in Pennsylvania from 2010-2014. My main event was LD, but I also participated in PF. I competed primarily in local and regional circuits, but also competed at several circuit tournaments. I currently volunteer as a coach, tournament director, and judge for public schools in the School District of Philadelphia through Penn for Youth Debate, a nonprofit student organization at the University of Pennsylvania.
 * Background:**

I was primarily a traditional LD debater in high school. I'm fine with speed, but you'll probably want to slow down to around 70% maximum speed, especially if it's the first round or two of the day. **SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS.** I'll vote for any argument that isn't explicitly racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. If you're running a CP/DA/K/etc. in LD, please provide a clear framework with which to evaluate the round. I'm impressed by smart, analytic arguments that suggest that you're a human being instead of a card-reading automaton. I do not default to assuming that cards are better arguments than analytic arguments. I will ultimately make my decision based on the flow, but if you want high speaks, I recommend focusing on your delivery as well. Crystallization is key. If you don't give me voters, you're leaving my decision in the round up to chance.
 * Overview:**

A well-articulated and clean abuse story is key if you want my vote. Many theory arguments can be answered quickly and easily with smart counter-interpretations and good weighing. It's up to you to decide whether or not you want to run it. **SLOW DOWN ON INTERPRETATIONS.** I default to thinking theory is a reason to drop the argument. You will need a *very* strong case to win my ballot on theory alone, so going all in on theory isn't advisable.
 * Theory/T:**

I'm much less literate in these. I know the stock Ks, but it's been awhile since I've actually heard/judged one. I prefer Ks that link into the resolution and that have the alt explained extremely well (or if there is no alt, why you have uniqueness). I have to understand the advocacy to vote for it. I don’t think that just by nature of someone reading a role of the ballot that it automatically precedes every layer of the debate. Like every other argument, comparison and a weighing metric is integral to my understanding of it’s function in the round.
 * K:**

If you're competing in PF, please follow NSDA rules. That means no counterplans, spreading, etc. My vote will depend on who I feel has better arguments, and speaks will depend on delivery. That being said, the two are not mutually exclusive, so your best bet is to focus on both.
 * PF: **