Chao,+Isaac

=**Last updated for Harvard 2018**=

I debated LD for Timothy Christian School in Central New Jersey for four years on both the local and national circuit. I graduated from Rice University in 2014 and am currently a high school teacher in Houston, Texas at Heights High School. In addition to teaching, I coach a policy debate program at Heights that competes predominately through the Houston Urban Debate League with a smattering of tournaments on the Texas Forensic Association circuit. As a result, I judge (a mix of LD and policy) and coach regularly.

I would prefer to be added to the email chain; additionally, specific inquiries can be directed here: isaacchao8@gmail.com

I find that when I tell LD debaters I coach policy they use that as an excuse to break out whatever policy backfile they've been itching to read. I would much rather you do what you're good at since this will make for a higher quality round; despite the differences in format, I find that good arguments cross event boundaries in debate, no matter what terminology we use to label them.

My ideas on debate are heavily influenced by Kris Wright via the TDC Teacher's Institute and I am largely in agreement with his philosophy, although I'm not sold on truth-testing and evaluate the round through a comparing worlds paradigm.

//See the very bottom for my policy-specific paradigm.//

__**General**__
 * I don't think tabula rosa is possible, but I try to be as objective as possible in considering different positions. **I dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence.** It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining why you win which layers and why those layers come first.
 * I would prefer that weighing be done as often and as early as possible - as a rule of thumb you should weigh as soon as you have access to both impacts. For instance, disadvantages should be weighed against advantages in the 1NC and the offense of a counterinterp to T should be weighed in the 1AR. I will be leery of buying new weighing in a 2NR or 2AR collapse.
 * Document compilation is prep. Flashing and emailing are not but that excludes any time that is spent adding or formatting evidence in a document (which counts towards your prep time, to be clear).
 * You may have flex prep if you want it.
 * Signpost please; I like debaters to be explicit about where to flow things and I appreciate pen time.
 * I'll presume AFF if there's no offense in round - NEG debaters have an advantage so if both debaters are even at the end than the AFF did the better debating. However, it is unlikely that I will try to justify a ballot in this way. While I believe that terminal defense exists, I generally err towards voting off risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.

__**Extensions**__ I prefer debaters to make clean extensions, with the following caveats:
 * I'll give the AFF leeway on extensions in the 1AR because of time constraints.
 * I expect thorough extensions in the 2NR.
 * I have a low threshold for extensions of warrants. I appreciate debaters leveraging warrants from extensions to implicate other arguments on the flow and you should be spending most of your time discussing the impact of your argument in relation to other arguments on the flow.

__**Framework**__
 * Paradigmatically, I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they impact to a framework, whether or not that framework is syllogistically warranted in round (although it is of course preferable if it is). My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
 * You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your topic literature; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
 * Additionally, if your framework is complex, an overview of how it functions (i.e. how it sifts between legitimate and illegitimate offense) would be helpful.

__**Kritiks**__
 * I appreciate kritiks and other critical arguments; read them if you'd like. **I've read almost none of the literature, however, so explain well.**
 * I do find that **debaters are often reading critical positions absent a sufficient normative framework; please articulate one.** Otherwise, I am receptive to responses that label oppression impacts as floating offense and which call on me to evaluate offense to a framework first.
 * I am increasingly convinced that Role of the Ballot arguments (or generic oppression frameworks), as they are commonly read, are just impact-justified frameworks that don't adequately fulfill the central function of differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate offense. Although I am more than willing to assume that all ethical frameworks ought to condemn oppression and dehumanization, the question most of these frameworks don't answer is the strength of the link of those arguments back the standard. Just defaulting to a utilitarian metric doesn't resolve the impact-justified issue either, nor is it consistent with much of the critical literature these arguments are drawn on. Many of my thoughts on this issue are influenced by/consistent with what you can find in this article: []
 * I would prefer that the affirmative is at least tangentially related to the resolution. In my experience, most topics have space for critical, topical arguments and this is what I'd prefer to hear if you're a critical debater, although I won't hack against non-T AFFs. I am persuaded by the value of topical switch-side debate, however, so if non-T AFFs are your thing I may not be the best judge for you.

__**Speed**__
 * Speed is generally fine, particularly if I'm on the email chain. If I had to quantify my threshold for speed I'd say that it's probably between an 8.5 or 9 out of 10, although that varies depending on the type of argument being read.
 * **Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors.** I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments.
 * I'll yell "clear" or "slow" **once** but that means I already missed something. Beyond the one time I call it, you should watch to see if I'm flowing. I tend to be an expressive judge so if I don't know where to flow something or don't like/understand your argument I'll look at my flows confusedly, grimace, or put my hands up.

__**Theory**__
 * I default to competing interpretations and will assume that the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I'll evaluate shells via reasonability if you ask me to but I'd prefer some sort of explicit brightline for determining what constitutes a reasonable vs. unreasonable practice rather than drawing upon my intuitions for debate.
 * I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI).
 * I am not willing to assume that a won shell justifying that your opponent is untopical or unfair is sufficient to warrant voting against them. If you're reading theory you should be articulating an explicit implication to the shell, contextualized to the abuse story.
 * I am not willing to assume that meta-theory comes before theory.
 * **Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience tend to be challenging to follow** because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. **You should clearly label and slow down for parts of the shell** - the interp in particular - to hedge against the possibility that I miss something.
 * Theory debates are one of those places where my biases about certain practices have the greatest impact on how I adjudicate. **I would not recommend reading either disclosure theory or brackets bad theory in front of me** because while I will (grudgingly) vote off either, it will not be difficult to convince me to reject either shell. I believe that disclosure disproportionately disadvantages under-resourced debaters and that brackets are acceptable in educational spaces (assuming the card is not miscut).

__**Speaker Points**__ For speaks, I generally won't give below a 26; lower means I think you did something offensive. A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. If you make me laugh I will be more inclined to give you higher speaks.

As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be a jerk or rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're clearly substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way. As a former competitor from a school with very limited technical infrastructure, most of what I know about debate I had to pick up myself absent formal instruction. This makes me very sympathetic to debaters from small schools or traditional programs who might not be familiar with the technical jargon of the activity but who, nevertheless, make good arguments. It behooves you, if you've had access to more privileged instruction, to debate in a way that keeps the round understandable for someone without the same resources.

At the end of the day, have fun and learn new things. I appreciate well-developed, clever, and interesting positions and will reward those with speaks.

__**If Judging Policy**__
 * Please keep in mind that although I exclusively coach policy now, the entirety of my competitive experience and the bulk of my training, judging and thinking on debate has been funneled through the lens of LD. The previous three pages is my attempt to flesh out what that looks like.
 * Document compilation & flashing/emailing are prep. You are competing in a partner event with 8 minutes of prep time; figure it out. Policy rounds are long enough already anyway, at any rate.
 * I prefer Closed CX since I find that, particularly for less-experienced debaters, Open CX just becomes an exercise where the dominant partner asks and answers most of the questions. Both debaters should be responsible for pulling their own weight and demonstrating mastery of their position(s); Closed CX is a good way of forcing that to happen.
 * I presume NEG in policy because I believe that the affirmative has a proactive burden to justify deviations from the status quo.