Chang,+Robert


 * Background:** I competed in LD on the national circuit for Mission San Jose High School from 2000-2003.


 * Arguments/Theory:** I am open to all types of argumentation. However, if you choose to deviate from traditional LD forms of argumentation, then you must explain clearly why you are doing so, and why it is a sufficient reason for me to vote for you. I am not biased for or against any types of arguments, but overly complex/deeply philosophical arguments need to be clearly explained, because if I am confused about what your argument is, then it will be difficult for me to vote for you. In general, though, theory and policy-style arguments (K's, CP's, off-case, etc.) are all fine, as long as they are clearly explained.


 * Spreading:** I try to intervene as little as possible, and to base my decision entirely on the flow in front of me. That being said, I am unlikely to put any weight to completely warrantless arguments (e.g. from blip-spreading), even if they are "dropped and extended." Quality __always__ trumps quantity when it comes to argumentation, and well-developed/well-defended arguments will resonate more strongly with me. Warranting your arguments with evidence, whether analytical or empirical, will help you (and me) tremendously. Of course, if you can pull off the rare combination of quality AND quantity, then more power to you (I have no inherent bias against making a large number of arguments).


 * Speed**: Speed is generally not a problem for me. Unfortunately, an increase in speed generally results in a decrease in clarity, which //is// a problem. If I can't understand what you are saying, then I can't flow it. So if you are going to go fast, __be clear__ (especially with author names) and signpost. I consider myself a fairly proficient flower, but policy-level speed can be a problem. If it looks like I'm struggling to keep up, you should probably slow down.


 * Speaker points:** My overall philosophy is that speaker points should be reserved for how effective of an orator the debater is, irrespective of the quality of their argumentation (I think I may be in the minority here). So in general, when assigning speaker points, I care mostly about your clarity (this includes volume and voice inflection), eye contact, and general persuasiveness. There are two other very simple rules that you should follow, which may potentially affect your speaker points:
 * 1) Respect your opponent and the judge. This is a pretty low bar to clear. Just don't be mean/condescending/rude. I would also be glad to discuss my decision with you and to hear your input, but a prolonged argument about my decision is not going to sit well with me.
 * 2) Respect the activity. Keep in mind that at its core, debate is an educational activity, and that the primary goal is not to win at all costs, but to learn. Not to be too sappy, of course - I was a very competitive debater, and winning was very important to me, so I get it. But making overly abusive arguments or implementing overly abusive strategies that are clearly designed simply to achieve a technical victory is not good, especially if it destroys the educational value of the activity. So please play nice, or your speaker points will certainly suffer (and in very extreme cases, I may even intervene and drop you). Another great way to lose speaker points is to bring up new arguments in the NR/2AR.


 * Two simple steps to win my ballot:** This is probably the most important thing for you to read (I put it at the bottom as a reward for making it this far). There are two things you can do that will greatly increase your chances of winning the round:
 * 1) Resolve the value criterion debate. I need a criterion with which to judge the round. Debaters frequently gloss over the V/VC debate, but it is a critical aspect of the debate, especially for a judge. Without a clear standard by which I can judge the round, I will be forced to intervene and make up my own criteria, and you don't want that.
 * 2) Weigh your arguments. A lot of arguments will be flying around in a typical debate round. You will (probably) win some and you will (probably) lose some. Tell me which ones are the most important, and why (link it to the V/VC). Then tell me why they matter more than the ones your opponent is going to use. Voting issues, though not strictly necessary, are always appreciated.