Yao,+Norman

Name: Norman Yao Affiliation: Ridge High School

I debated for Ridge High School for four years and graduated in 2005. I cleared at a variety of tournaments ranging from local to circuit and debated at the TOC, NFL, and NCFL. Since then, I've coached for CRLS for two years and have tried to judge occasionally to keep up with the changes in LD.


 * Theory:** Although I was not a particularly progressive debater, I valued theory as a strategic tool and often used it when the opportunity arose. That being said, I am not fond of theory that is run incorrectly - ie, a priori voting issues should have a clear justification of why they precede the values debate, and T violations should come with a clear link story, interpretation, and subsequent voting issues. Especially if run well, a theory debate can be extremely engaging (and make the round very clear) and I've often been known to award perfect speaks in these cases.

Generally, the easiest way to win a debate is at the criterion level with clear weighing. Weighing is the fundamental task that the debaters ought to focus on throughout the round. However, effective weighing requires a clear decision calculus and this happens after the debaters either agree on a standard or offer clear argumentation there. This is one of the most strategic ways to approach a round and allows for impact preclusion due to criterion linking.

As all judges, I'm a sucker for warranted, thought-provoking and unique argumentation that is well explained. Evidence and cards are great but without internal warranting it still remains a claim. In my opinion, (although under-used as such) a well-directed CX can be offensive and does not have to remain simply a forum for clarification.


 * Style:** I have yet to see a round that has gone to fast for me to flow, so I think that speed is OK. However, I will yell "clear" if the rapidity begins to obscure the meaning and clear enunciation of the arguments. I understand that speeches like the 1AR will inherently need to include some fast paced talking, but I also think that smart debating can often overcome a substantial amount of generic "spread" offense from the 1NR. Finally, use jargon correctly, for example, a "turn" implies that you are deriving offense from the opponents argumentation - explain why. Take some time to crystallize at the end of your final speech. I don't think its important to summarize the argumentation, but explain to me how I should evaluate the round top-down. Thinking about crystallization can also help debaters understand where the key issues are and how to outweigh on an impact level at the criterion.

If you have any other specific questions, don't hesitate to ask me. I'll always try to give a RFD immediately following the round.