Wang,+David

Hello, I’m David Wang and I debated 4 years for Scarsdale High School and my proudest moment in debate was being deemed a “debate nihilist”. Arguments I will not vote for:
 * Short Version **: I couldn’t quite flow as a debater and I haven’t been in debate for about 8 months, so I probably can’t flow top speed. Read whatever you want I pretty much read everything in debate except analytic philosophy so I’m open to pretty much anything. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.
 * 1) 1. Blatantly Offensive Ones (skep/permissibility are fine)
 * 2) 2. Brackets Bad (you will get a loss 1)
 * 3) 3. TBD – I think I am fine with most arguments in debate but then again who knows what awfulness was created during camp this year.

If you have any questions you can talk to me before the round/message me on fb/e-mail me at nihilum12345@gmail.com
 * Long Version: **
 * Speed**: I never really flowed I will give you a ton of leeway on speed/clarity if a) you flash me your cases and b) You slow down on tag-lines/subpoints (who flows warrants anyways). I believe that you should make your case accessible to the other debater if you plan on going fast.
 * Logical Comprehension:** While most judges have an absurd expectation of actually understanding the arguments in debate, and refusing to vote on arguments they don’t understand, I feel that doing so restricts the creativity and potential of debaters. As a result, I will be willing to vote for arguments where I understand the claim and the implication but not the warrant unless the other debater points out that the arguments is incoherent. Tread carefully here, because if it’s so confusing that I don’t understand the implication I can’t really do anything with the argument even if it’s conceded/won.
 * Extensions** – If you’re extending generic stuff like impact cards or util fw warrants just extend the tag line and author name, if an entire advantage/disadvantage is conceded completely I am fine with just saying something like ‘extend the econ DA”. Extend specific cards if you will be using them for weighing/impact calc.
 * Framework Debate** – In the absence of a clearly won framework or in the case where both debaters concede framework indicts I will default to skep (because let’s be real here skep is true), skep triggers permissibility, and permissibility negates. These are just my defaults I am definitely willing to vote on things like skep triggers presumption and presumption affirms, etc.
 * Tricky Debate**: If it’s conceded and cleanly extended I’ll vote on it. If both sides decide to have a tricky round I have no qualms about voting on presumption or flipping a coin if it just devolves into both debaters just saying their argument comes first.
 * Theory Debate:** I default competing interps, drop the debater on T and theory, and no RVI.
 * K Debate:** I read a little bit but not nearly enough to actually know all the arguments so you should explain them, especially if it complicated/dense. I default to the text of the Role of the Ballot to evaluate offense. I am fine with non-topical affs, although I would prefer not voting on straight-up micropol.
 * K vs Theory:** I was on both sides of this debate in my career, and if both sides just read their dumps without engaging then don’t be surprised if the decision/speaks aren’t what you wanted them to. A bit of interaction goes a long way in these types of debates, especially on the inevitable extension of arguments that “preclude”.
 * CX**: You mean flex prep? jk do whatever you want during flex prep whether it’s trying to get concessions, theory violations, or just stalling and trolling.
 * Academic Integrity:** I think Academic Integrity claims have often become a cop out of actually answering arguments. I am totally fine with straw-manned/miscut philosophical arguments. If you miscut empirical evidence I will give you 20 speaks and disregard every card you read during the round.
 * Speaker Points**: Speaker Points will be based on technical skill and how much I enjoyed the round. Bringing me food/drinks makes me enjoy rounds more. Also if you can beat me in Hearthstone I’ll give you 0.5 speaks higher.
 * Misc:** If one debater extends 10 blippy arguments against one well-warranted argument, I really don’t know who I’d vote for. I guess it depends if the debater extending the 10 blippy arguments interacts with the well-warranted argument and vice versa. Oh and debaters should have advocacy texts.