Park,+Jay

Jay Park Washington University in St. Louis'18 Conflict: Torrey Pines

**Background**: I debated for four years at Torrey Pines HS (CA), three of which were on the circuit.

*Most parts of my paradigm are similar to other past Torrey Pines debaters because they say exactly what I want to say.

**General**: I will evaluate any type of argument as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. Debate is your game, play it how you want. However, I should be able to coherently explain your arguments similar to how you articulated them in round. Feel free to execute whatever strategy is best suited for you, but you must be straight up about it. Easiest way for you to get my ballot is to crystallize the debate in order of a) framework debate and b) offense back to that framework.

**Speed**: I very rarely have trouble with speed, provided arguments are organized and labeled correctly. I have a tendency to not know where to flow arguments (or where you want me to flow them), as such I expect you to organize, number and signpost exceptionally well. **ALSO**, debaters reading advocacy texts (plan texts, cp texts, theory interps) NEED to slow down. These arguments need to be read at a slow, conversational speed since I expect that both me and your opponent should be able to have the same reading of the argument.

**Theory/Topicality**: You can run any kind of theory you want. As long as you are clear on your interp and violation (SLOW DOWN), I will understand it and evaluate it. I prefer theory debates with actual abuse in round rather than potential abuse but I'm open to both as long as you persuade me. I don't like the way that theory debate has currently progressed. Due to its analytical nature, theory debate should require debaters to invest more time in developing their arguments, but instead I've seen debaters spew more and more underdeveloped arguments. I'd rather you develop one or two quality answers than a 10-point blip spread. There's nothing I hate more than a messy theory debate, and I will not evaluate the round how you want me to if this happens. I will default to competing interps on theory and reasonability on topicality but I'm always open to change my viewpoint if you tell me why I should do so. I don't prefer one voter over the other but please don't make "fairness/education is NOT a voter". You should be making arguments comparing and weighing those two voters not excluding one. Both are very clear voters.

I don't understand them. Don't run it. I am not the right judge for this kind of debate.
 * Ks **:


 * Miscellaneous **:
 * I don't presume by default but feel free to make arguments for why I should presume either aff or neg.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 1.5;">Extensions are important and they should clearly explain a) claim b) warrant c) impact.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 1.5;">Weighing should be comparative.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 1.5;">When you cross apply, be clear on signpost.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 1.5;">I hate spike heavy cases.
 * <span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; line-height: 1.5;">I much more prefer you read offense back to AC rather than reading 5 pointless OFFs.

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Debate is fun. Enjoy it while you can during your round!

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif;">Feel free to ask me questions before the round. You can also email me at aleeschoolgrade@gmail.com or kevin2922@gmail.com