Kong,+Alex

Westminster Schools 2016 UChicago 2020

Put me on the email chain: alexkong7@gmail.com I don't understand why people sit down for cross-ex. Stand up

The only thing people care about: If you read a planless aff, I will try my absolute best to be objective. A good T-USFG throwdown is my favorite type of debate to watch and think about. I spent / still spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about aff impact turns and answers to T, because I find them very interesting (if only because I find thinking about how to defeat them even more interesting). I find that negative teams often let aff teams get away with way more than they should, and mishandle their impact turns. I also think that judges are too lenient on "high theory" teams in terms of explanation. If I can't explain to the other team what it means to "transparently prove that transparency is bad," then I'm not voting for you. And even if I knew what that meant in the abstract, absent sufficient explanation in the round, i.e. enough to provide a basic understanding to someone with no familiarity with the concept before the round, I'm still not voting for you. I also think that the vast majority of high theory impact turns are self-contradictory and apply to the aff just as much. If intelligibility is bad, why are you making the argument in a forum wherein you make intelligible arguments with the intent of getting the judge to understand them and reward you with the ballot? I have yet to see any team adequately explain in round why the distinction between form and content matters in terms of a T debate. Why doesn't your productivity on the level of form (speaking in English, making coherent (relatively) arguments, and trying to win the ballot) contradict and disprove your thesis that productivity is bad? I get that you're being unproductive on the level of content, but why is that enough? I'm genuinely looking forward to understanding.

The beautiful thing about debate is that the only thing I cast a judgement on at the end of the round is the strength of the arguments that the debaters have presented. What this means is that any argument that's presented, no matter how incredulous of a reaction it provokes in any reasonable person, has the same opportunity to be considered true as any other argument within the confines of the round, provided you argue for it well. Accordingly, I will do my absolute best to evaluate the round objectively, meaning solely on the basis of how well you argue; but I'd obviously be lying if I said I didn't have any biases whatsoever. Any ideological preferences that I have, however, shouldn't deter you from reading any particular type of argument, but it might change the way you want to explain it so that it's communicated to me in the clearest and most effective way -- that was just a long way of saying tech over truth.

That's not an excuse, however, to run bad arguments. Arguments should be considered "bad" when the threshold for defeating them or proving them wrong is so low, due to their internal inconsistencies or logical incoherence, that they can be quickly and easily dismissed by competent argumentation. The key part of that sentence is "competent argumentation." It shouldn't be difficult to beat time cube, but if you fail to make the necessary arguments, then you'll lose. Tech over truth means that if a team fails to point out why a stupid argument is stupid, then the stupid argument wins -- the corollary to this is that it should be exceptionally easy to point out why the stupid argument is stupid, and thus beat it.

Most 1AC advantages and offcase positions are absolute trash, and can be taken apart with a few smart analytical arguments. I have a special hatred for terrible affs, and am very conducive to analytical presses that point out logical holes and inconsistencies in the internal link chain. I feel like I probably value these analytical arguments more than other people, so use that to your advantage. This also means that I'm probably more willing to vote neg on presumption if you effectively demolish the case.

All of the generic maxims that apply to every judge also apply to me: Arguments must contain warrants. Explain things. Being slow and clear is infinitely better than being fast and unclear (but being fast and clear is the best). Comparative arguments win debates. Cheating means you lose. Be aggressive, but don't be mean. If you steal prep I'll hate you.

Cards are important, so you should have good cards. But in round spin and comparison of evidence are vastly more important, and I'll give way more weight to those arguments. I'll only call for cards if both teams are in disagreement over what the card says or how good it is. Evidence comparison wins debates, and will boost your speaker points.

Cross-ex is a speech, and very important. Done well, it's my favorite part of debate to watch, and I really appreciate a good one.

Everything that follows this sentence is far less important than everything that's above it.

Ks -- I like them a lot, as long as they're contextualized to the aff and explained well. There's nothing I hate more than a K speech that sounds like it could be given the exact same way in every debate. There are few things I like more than a well done Security K with specific links and smart turns case arguments.

When I find myself voting aff in K debates, it's usually because the negative has either failed to provide enough impact calculus, and/or failed to implicate the aff's offense. Why does structural violence matter more than the risk of extinction? The reason doesn't have to be an ethics first or value to life type argument; in fact, I think a straight up probability comes first argument is far more persuasive. Along the same lines, you're going to want a substantial amount of case defense and root cause or turns case arguments in order to mitigate the aff's offense.

DAs --

Yes, please.

CPs --

Multiplank advantage CPs that solve the entirety of the aff are sweet, and I don't think they need a solvency advocate that advocates for the whole counterplan in one card. If your aff is really so bad that a cobbled-together advantage CP can solve it to the point that you're reduced to complaining about how unfair it is, you need to cut a better aff.

I don't have this strange hatred that some people seem to nurture for CPs like consult that result in the possibility of doing the whole aff. The aff should absolutely make and extend theory and competition arguments, but I'll evaluate them the same way that I evaluate every other part of the flow -- I don't have any strong feelings about it either way.

T --

I default to competing interpretations. Impact calculus is super important. Explain why fairness / education / whatever should be prioritized. Should we care about protecting the competitive integrity of the game, or should we care about the education we gain, and why? Caselists are also very important.

Theory --

Unless the neg drops it or reads like 6 condo, it's difficult for me to imagine myself ever voting for conditionality bad.

I default to rejecting the argument not the team if it's a stupid blip like "severance perms are voting issue." For example, if the neg kicks the CP with the severance perm and forgets to say "reject the argument not the team" and the aff gets up and is like "THEY DROPPED SEVERANCE PERMS ARE A VOTING ISSUE," I will laugh at you and trash your speaks.

Slow down when reading theory blocks.