Nguyen,+Tony

Background: I debated LD for Chandler High School (AZ) for 4 years and now debate Parli at Yale.

Short version: Be clear. I will try not to intervene and want you to do the work (extend, weigh, explain argument interaction, provide a coherent and convincing ballot story). I will be happy if you have nuanced analysis that is specific and contextual. I will not be happy with strategies that avoid clash, e.g. generic Ks and “frivolous” theory. Don’t be mean, have a sense of humor, and have fun!

Presentation: The faster you go, the more likely that nuances will get lost. Y ou probably can go slower if you're strategic. Don't be rude; on the other hand, being clever and funny can be effective.

Speaks: I norm speaks based on 28.5 = breaking at the tournament based on that performance. If you run arguments that are highly reprehensible, your speaks will reflect that.

General Debate:
 * 1) Warrants
 * Empirical claims should be backed up with evidence from authors qualified in their fields. Conversely, solid analytics are preferable to carded but unwarranted assertions.
 * Well-warranted arguments that are defended are generally better than poorly developed dropped arguments.
 * 1) You don’t need to say “extend” or use jargon if you think it impedes communication. Just be organized, communicate argument interaction, and compare evidence. Have full cites and quals (and methodology, if possible) for academic integrity.
 * 2) Be responsive and weigh because I doubt you access the entire impact.
 * 3) I will call for evidence if content is disputed, but am reluctant to call for analytic blocks.

Theoretical Issues:
 * 1) I default to competing interps, but this does not imply RVIs or drop the debater.
 * 2) I believe Neg skew exists in LD, but that won’t win a theory debate.
 * 3) I don’t think there are rounds in which I should vote on presumption. Weigh instead of avoiding clash.
 * 4) I probably will not vote on disclosure theory unless the tournament mandates disclosure, your opponent has run the case before, and you have disclosed.

Also, impact-justified standards used to exclude other impacts don’t make much sense to me.