Fu,+Victor

(updated November 30, 2017)

Clements '16, UT Austin '20 Conflicts: Clements

General: I debated for four years in LD and PF on the Houston circuit, and I now judge on the Austin circuit. I can probably handle what you throw at me (denser arguments should just be explained clearly). My overarching philosophy as a judge is to __analyze the arguments and weighing presented by both sides__.

If you need more information than that, read further or ask before round!

Speaks: I’m fairly generous with speaks. Don’t be terrible, be thorough, be strategic, be clear - that’s how you get high speaks on my ballot. As a general scale, I go with: great/excellent/few issues (29.5-30), good/some issues (28-29), less than 28 is pretty uncommon, usually means there were significant issues I took with your debating. Feel free to ask what you get after round, and we can discuss more then.

Speed: I can handle speed, with sufficient volume and clarity. Slow on tags and authors! If you speed past author names, don’t expect me to know what you’re extending or referencing later on. I will yell clear unless you explicitly tell me you don’t want me to do so; otherwise, I’ll just stop flowing and stare at you blankly.
 * LD:**

Plans/Counterplans/Disads: Go ahead! I think these policy/util type cases are typically easy to follow/understand and to evaluate (that is -- these cases are usually straightforward enough so that debaters can focus more on substantial engagement and weighing). If your advocacy includes a lot of specific vocab, jargon, or acronyms, please explain before you start spreading through foreign literature at the speed of light. Unique advocacies are a big plus over recycled/ubiquitous plans/CPs; thorough knowledge on the topic area is important (read up, don't just cut the same three cards everyone else has).

Theory/T: Not my favorite kinds of arguments. Of course if there's clear abuse in the round, run theory. I’ll still vote off of it; that said, I’ll probably lean more towards any rational counter-interp if a potentially enriching debate is polluted by theory (read: make your best attempt at engaging on substance before resorting to theory). I don't necessarily have hard "defaults", but I have a preference for counter-interpretations and aff RVI's on 1NC theory. I also have a bit of disdain for people who spread through multiple, short/choppy bullet points of scripted theory arguments. I'd much rather prefer (to believe and to vote on) fleshed-out, substantial, logical arguments on why abuse is/n't happening and the implications of that abuse. Lastly, theory/T is an argument like any other. Weighing is important.

Kritiks: I’ve always liked Ks, but I’ve always hated poorly run Ks (please have an alt). Know what you’re talking about (AKA be strategic and understand how your K functions in the debate, vs the other levels of arguments -- often times, Ks are poorly run because people don't really recognize how their case functions differently against other stock/traditional args). If it’s especially dense, explain it. If you can’t explain it well, I won’t evaluate it. I truly believe that a substantive engagement on the K level can be both entertaining and meaningful. I'm most familiar/comfortable with race/identity/gender/queer Ks, but would love to learn about and vote on any others!

Framework: Have some framework through which I can evaluate arguments in the round. I tend to evaluate the framework debate first and use the winning framework to evaluate offense in the round. I'm most familiar with util or structural violence frameworks, less familiar with denser philosophical or deont frameworks (AKA explain more if you run these).

Speed: (same as above for LD)
 * PF:**

Framework: I guarantee you that 99% of frameworks in PF are insignificant and boil down to “cost-benefit analysis”. Don’t waste the time unless your framework actually draws some significant delineation on offense in the round. That said, if there is a substantial/meaningful framework debate, I will evaluate the framework first and then use that winning framework to evaluate the offense in the round.

//General aside on non-traditional case/advocacy types: I suggest you also read through my LD paradigm above to gain more insight on my opinions on those types of arguments.//

Plans/Counterplans: I'm fine with them. I think they're a logical consequence of debating the resolution, as most "progressive" off-cases are. That also means that you should have the logical components of your plan/counterplan and be able to explain them sufficiently. That being said, I find hyper-specific advocacies, specifically intended to be dodgy offense, to be a bit dubious.

Other: The core of debating is weighing arguments and impacts. The earlier you weigh (preferably summary), the better. If your partner drops/forgets to extend an argument, I probably won't evaluate it. A sad conclusion I’ve drawn after transitioning to PF is that most teams don’t know how to weigh, the metaphorical “two ships passing in the night”. If you don’t weigh, you only have yourself to blame for a loss or “wrong” decision (repeat: the core of debating is weighing). Also, I find crossfire is rarely utilized in a meaningful way. Make the best use of our time. If important concessions are made in cross, you should explain the implications in some rebuttal.

Also: There's an annoying trend of paraphrasing in PF. I believe this is highly prone to misrepresenting evidence (with little to no check on abuse), so in my opinion, this is functionally equivalent to clipping/miscutting cards. I give much much less credence to evidence if it's pointed out that it's paraphrased.

Speed: (same as above for LD)
 * CX:**

Other: My background is more LD-oriented, but I’ve begun judging more policy. I understand how arguments function but may need brief explanations on the deeper intricacies of the topic, especially if you’re running something more obscure. There’s also something about the culture of policy where some debaters find rudeness normal or funny - it’s not. Read through my LD paradigm for my approximate stance on certain issues. Let me know if you have more questions before round, since I understand my CX paradigm is not as specific or established yet.