Chong,+Jack

High School: Lakeland Distrct Debate Team Years Having Judged: 7 Debating Experience: 5 Years (Policy) High School Rounds: 250+

Long story short, do you. I'll vote for anything as long as you can articulate, argue and win it. Of course I have things I like and don't like, but at the end of the day win whatever your argument is and my ballot will reflect that. Feel free to ignore anything contrary to that below.

Philosophies that influence mine which may interest you: Bauschard, Stefan Jason Russell Manuel, Brian

I don't judge often nowadays, so I won't pretend to have strict philosophies. However, I will provide generally my default philosophy unless argued and presented as otherwise in a debate:

Link debate - I've lost many debates that I was clearly winning because I had a natural tendency to not do enough work on the link and too much work on the impact. Don't be dumb like me, make sure you win a good risk of the link. At the very least, don't forget to articulate it and talk about it. //Edit: It has become apparent to me that people take this to seriously and only do link debates in the speeches. Please don't forget to talk about your impact work, I will not do the work for you.//

Last rebuttals - I shouldn't have to say this, but PLEASE tell me why you won something and walk me through it, don't assume I'll do the work for you...

Topicality/Theory - Hate it, do people win on it? Yes. Will I vote on it if you win? Yes. But you need interpretations and impacts. Be careful about going for theory just because they dropped most of it, there's so much intervention I usually have to do that it might not be worth your while, but don't let that deter you if you feel like you can decisively win it.

Framework - As a debater I thought framework was dumb. Heavily influenced as a policy debater, I realized it was more fun beating K teams at their own game eventually in the 1AR/2NR and disregarded framework entirely unless I had no choice. But to each their own. Furthermore, my default inclination here is winning the framework debate gets you the world you want to operate in, but very rarely wins you the debate unless it was impacted that way. Be sure you are very confident that you can convince me to give you the ballot if you go for framework alone.

Kritiks - I was strictly policy/framework when I began debating, I started leaning heavily towards running more K args with policy alternatives towards the end. I understand both so run what you want.

K Alts - I prefer kritik alts to be either "Turns Case" or a PIC/CP. This is how I got the best of both worlds when I debated and won many many many rounds with this. I am not a fan of abstract crazy alternatives and would rather the alt be articulated as stated before instead of just "Reject the Aff."

PICs - Love them as a debater. I think they are really fun to run. Is it abusive? Probably, but I think the AFF should be able to win whatever the other team is PICing out of is important.

Counterplans - Net benefits please.

Feel free to ask me questions on anything that's not clear or is not mentioned here. Good luck!