Yuan,+Neal

I debated LD at College Prep from 2006-2010 and had a fair share of National Circuit debating experiences. I haven't done a ton of judging and haven't been active in the debate community since high school. However, I am probably still more "debate experienced" than your lay judges and will do an alright job of following your arguments. (I prefer if you don't spread b/c i can't guarantee that I'll be able to follow you well. I wasn't ever very good w/ speed).

I see one of the primary values of this activity coming from teaching debaters how to construct and communicate logical and persuasive arguments in a way that is appropriate to the target audience. What this means for debaters is that I prefer you to present arguments that you might actually use to persuade a person in REAL life (aka a non-debate person). Of course, debate has offered us a number of tools to help express our arguments within the confines of the time limits of a debate round (E.g. debate-specific language, a V/VC structure to help us evaluate impacts, the ability to hear arguments at a faster pace than normal, etc) and I encourage you to use those tools when appropriate to your judge's understanding of them. However, in the end, I value warranted arguments and want you to convince me WHY an argument is reasonably true. I will most likely not vote for a blip or for an argument just because some person you've quoted in your card has said it. Please have internally warranted cards or explain the warrant behind the card. As with all judges, I would also like you to contextualize your impacts and weigh your arguments within the context of the V/VC debate.

I CAN be ok with weird stuff (E.g. kritik, narrative, theory) as long as use persuasive/topical arguments and tell me in the end why this form of argumentation is something I should vote on.

Speaks: What can help: smart argumentation both in your case and rebuttals, a polished delivery What can hurt: arrogance, rudeness, cheap shots, poor logic or hard to follow