Diao,+James

Updated: 09/20/2014

I graduated from Clements High School (TX) in 2014, after debating LD for 4 years. I've competed at TFA State (TX) and NFL Nationals, but most of my experience is local. This is my first time judging VLD, so my philosophy will probably be refined better down the road.

Overview: Make the decision calculus clear and well-warranted, and I'll vote for most anything. Feel free to sit, but standing helps you project more, and that might help with your speaks. I really don't like voting off presumption, so I'll just lower my standards for extensions and warrants until I have an argument to work with. I'll try to be as tab as possible, except with really annoying strategies like dumping blippy prestandards, in which case I'll substantially lower my standards for what counts as a fleshed out response. I like to give verbal RFDs and answer questions, but if a tournament is behind schedule, it'll be really short.

Speed: I'm not great at flowing speed, so spread at your own risk. If speed makes you unclear or sound really unpleasant, I'll probably dock your speaks. I'll shout clear, but only once.

Extensions: I won't extend any of your arguments for you, unless it would make me vote off presumption. Repeating the tagline is not enough - you need to reiterate the warrant, the impact, and the argument's implications in the round.

Speaks: It's hard to say because I haven't judged enough yet, but I think I'll average around a 28. Things that help: fluency, perceptual dominance, a sense of humor, no rudeness, strategic time allocation, and maybe some others.
 * At the Yale Invitational, I was asked to give 30s to what I'd expect to be the very best speeches in the tournament. Working down from there, a 29 is what I'd consider to be the typical speaking ability in mid-late outrounds, and a 28 is what I'd consider to be typical for those who break. For locals, I'll add 1 to the above, unless you're already a 30.

Kritiks: I'm familiar with many of the most common ones, but I'll need some thorough explanation on some of the denser or more obsure critical literature. I won't vote for what I don't understand, so it's important to be crystal clear: don't obfuscate your position on purpose. I tend to consider most kritiks as a disad + cp. Things that usually sour an otherwise good kritik: underdeveloped or uncompetitive alternatives, and really tenuous, generic links. Weighing is really important - be more explicit than reading random a "racism worse than anything" impact. I'm very receptive to arguments about nonuniqueness (like side-switch debate) and performative perms (like apologizing), when applicable. Skep is okay.

Theory: I have a pretty high standard for reading and extending theory. In-round abuse is much more important to me than potential abuse. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and RVIs okay, but it's easy to change my mind.

Topicality: These arguments are fun. I tend to think of them as very analogous with theory, so read the above.

Plans/Counterplans: I default to the position that it's the burden of the aff to justify defending a specific implementation of the resolution, rather than defending it on balance. Parametrics are the same way. Counterplans are presumed to be fine, as long as they're competitive. Go really slowly on the plan/cp text, because I want to flow that close to word-for-word. I also default to the position that a perm is a test of competition.

Good luck, have fun, make good choices.