Xiong,Shawn


 * Experience:** I debated for Cypress Woods on the TFA and TOC circuits. I got 4 career bids and doubles and octos of TFA respectively my junior and senior year ahd taught at VBI in summer of 2014 . I used to coach Katy Taylor and Mayde Creek.


 * Short Version**: Do whatever you want. I'm fine with any argument as long as I can understand it-I mean it. Don't be rude in CX.


 * Theory/Topicality:** These are fine, weigh between standards and reference specific abuse to make the decision easier. On reasonability, you need to justify both why reasonability is good and why we ought to default to your specific brightline in order for me to assume reasonability. I don't mind the use of theory or T strategically, but like any other argument, the more reasonable the interp, the more compelling it will be.


 * Kritiks:** These are fine, for denser literature, slow down and explain the argument. Don't rely on taglines and prewritten extensions- explain the argument and how the argument interacts.


 * Framework Debate:** These can be some of the most creative debates, but also equally if not more confusing than some dense K literature. Make sure to explain your arguments in layman's terms and especially how they interact with opponent's framework warrants.


 * LARP:** Yep, fine.


 * Cross-Examination:** Answer questions and don't delay your responses in sketchy ways ie speaking super slowly, pretending you don't understand a simple question for a silly reason. Don't be intentionally unhelpful or pretend you don't know what a "spike" is, if you don't feel like you are obligated to answer a question explain why to your opponent.

I'm fine with spreading, but slow down for taglines and card authors, I don't care how fast you go through card warrants. If you don't want me to miss anything, I'd suggest adding me to the email chain, but I won't penalize you or anything if you don't want to. I'll yell clear however many times it takes.
 * Speed:**


 * Speaks:** Being very technically efficient, good weighing, and unique arguments will go a long way towards getting great speaks. A 30 is not impossible and is an indication I either really enjoyed the round or believe you are good enough to get to at least semis of the tournament. If you are debating a novice or someone who virtually has zero experience that you can beat in one minute, you probably won't get below a 29 unless you go for a very unnecessary strategy, e.g. disclosure theory, 4 theory shells in the 1NR in which case your speaks will suffer. My average will likely be a 28.5.