Yang,William

Name: William Yang Stuyvesant Class of 2016 Contact Info: xwilliamy@gmail.com

I'm a junior at Stuyvesant High School. I have debated for a year; this is my second year partaking in the activity. I have attended the Georgetown Debate Seminar, but recently I've found myself dabbling into critical literature, most notably psychoanalysis and critical race theory. I've only barely scratched the tip of the iceberg, however; while I understand the motifs behind such kritiks, I still have difficulty applying and articulating them in debates.

1. Debate is a forum for the discussion of controversial issues, not a respite for convoluted speed-reading. If you need to slow down to articulate your arguments, do so. Don't sacrifice speed for clarity or quality! (Something that I, unfortunately, fall prey to often as well.)
 * Stuff that You Probably Care About**

2. Cross-examination, in my opinion, plays a major role in policy debate. If you can discredit your opponent's arguments here, not only have you helped your later speeches, but you've also proved that you deserve higher speaker points as well.

3. Prep is prep. Flashing is not prep. I understand how terrifying flashing cards can be.

4. Be wary when addressing people as "you guys". Never read "*form of dehumanization or oppression* is good".

5. Line-by-line is awesome. Clash is awesome. Debate is awesome. Fight it out, don't just read cards.


 * How to Win**

1. Reading kritikal links or turns on case is great. It's abusive? Prove it.

2. Don't be afraid to bank on theory/topicality. All arguments are to be treated equally!

3. Kritiks: I love kritiks, but, to be honest, my knowledge of kritiks isn't that extensive. If you want to run one, articulate it well.

4. CP: I don't care how abusive you are. If you can prove your CP is competitive and there are net benefits to it, then it's something to be voted on.

5. DA: Just don't read PTX DA. Actually, you can, but I'll laugh at you.

6. I want impact calculus, not impact descriptions.

7. If you tell me I should give more weight to cards vs analytical arguments, I'll laugh unless you explain why. The evidence you've cut are also analytical arguments, the main difference being that someone published them. That, however, doesn't discredit the arguments of a debater, especially if he/she has better reasons than you regarding why his/her analytical arguments are better.

8. "Pineapples don't have sleeves." If you can use this sentence well in your speech (impact calc, case turn, impact turn, link turn eg: "not passing plan means that pineapples will be forced to have sleeves. This is bad because pineapples traditionally don't wear sleeves; by imposing sleeves on to pineapples, we essentially negate all value pineapples have in this world, thereby subjecting pineapples to oppression", as long as you let me know after the round, you'll get better speaker points.

9. Performance Affs: Please have at least decent solvency arguments.