Last changed on
Mon April 22, 2024 at 10:04 AM PDT
Email: vuquang.debate@gmail.com
I prefer email chain but SpeechDrop is fine. Please send your files as word docx if possible!
Yerba Buena 2021 - present; 2a/1n for most of my varsity career. I read almost exclusively Ks and K AFFs ever since I learned about them so interpret that as you wish. I have debated policy on both the local UDL circuit and national circuit.
I prefer you to call me judge.
If you have a cat/debate/cat debate (!?!?) sticker for me, I would be forever grateful!!!
Quick notes before the rounds:
Novice please don't be scare! I am here to help you grow.
I'm open to all type of arguments but please makes sure that you clearly explain it well. I will not vote on something I do not understand. I can understand most arguments but if you're reading a really complex K, please break it down for me.
Judge instruction is a must for me. The first 15-30 second of the 2nr/2ar should be a round overview that tell me what I should vote on. I will try to make my decision in the least judge intervention-y way possible. So please make the debate as easy as you can for me and I will reward you with better speaker points.
I'm notoriously bad at keeping time for other people. I will try my best to time you but please time yourself/your prep too.
Spreading is fine but if you're spreading through your taglines don't expect me to catch everything.
Tech > Truth mostly. I consider any conceded argument 100% true. Good truth can gain you ground but it can't outweigh technical skills in my opinion. I will judge purely base on technical skills and will not consider stylistic choices/presentation in my rfd. I will reward good speakers with some speaker points but who won or lose the round will be purely on how good your technical skills are. I believe that judging base on style is invite way too much judge interventions. I also believe that voting on concepts like perceptual dominance and how "presidentially" someone speak is deeply base on sexist assumptions which I refuse to perpetuate.
Topicality:
Not really far from the beaten path here. I think some T args can be a bit petty but I will vote on it if you out tech your opponent. Both team should be comparative about what their interp look like compare to their opponents'. This include giving me a clear case list of what is allow under both interp and explaining why your interp is better.
AFF need to answer NEG standards/impacts line by line or else I find it really hard to vote for you. Same thing goes for the NEG - you need to impact out your T and answer any AFF offense. Both teams should be treating the T standards like DAs.
Please slow down on the T analytics. T is a very analytic heavy argument so slowing down would help me catch all the warrants that I need.
I default competing interp but I'm open to defaulting on reasonability if AFF can win that they are a core topic AFFs.
Disadvantages:
Again not far from the beaten path here. Have a clear link/internal link and a strong impact and you should win the round pretty easily. This mean that impact calculus is a must in these debate. I think one of the best thing that aff team can do is to read good impact defense/internal link takedown in order to minimize the risk of the impact. The stronger the impact debate is the more likely I will vote for you.
If your running a politic disad, the uniqueness evi need to be up to date. If your uniqueness evi is a couple months old, I will start being skeptical.
Counterplan:
I have limited experience with counterplan but I will try my best to evaluate the round to my best ability. I really like a strategical counterplan with a good net benefit. Don't just throw out 5 counterplans and hope for the best.
I'm not really experience with counterplan theory but I am willing to vote for it as long as it's well developed.
Kritiks:
This is the arguments I have the most experience with. I'm fine with essentially any Ks as long as you execute it well. I love framework Ks and extra points if you have an alt that also tie in nicely with it. The more specific the links the better but good contextualization and analytical argument can definitely convince me to vote on a generic link. I also really like a good root cause debate and definitely think that aff team should never ignore it. If the neg win that the K is the root cause of the case, the K can quickly become a terminal solvency deficit to the aff. The aff should also never underestimate the ontology debate against identity Ks. I will be very quick to wash away the aff framework, link turn, and perm if the neg win ontology. In my opinion, alt fail is a good defensive argument for the aff but it not enough to win you the round alone. I will rarely reduce the risk of the alt solvency to 0 so if the neg win the link and sustainability/root cause debate, I will vote neg to try-or-die the K. This being said, the more risk of the alt failing, the more likely I will comfortable to vote aff on the perm or case outweigh.
I am familiar with the lit base of cap, set col, imperialism, model minority, and buddhism. Don't expect me to do any work for you if you're running these though. Your K explanation should still be sound and well-developed!
I am not familiar with high theory, pomo, fem theory, and queer theory so please treat me like a flay judge in these rounds.
**note on set col: I LOVE SET COL but please at least have the basic understanding of the lit. If the debate and your warrants come down to differing variety of "state bad" claims, I will have a lower threshold for aff link turn and perm. Several things that is important to understand to avoid this: ontology (e.g. Indigenous relationship to land, homemaking, what is land, etc.) and settler moves to innocence (there's 6; you should know the basic distinction between them), incommensurability, and decolonization.
K AFFs:
I love K AFFs! I really don't think that fairness is a terminal impact but an internal link to education/advocacy skills. That being said, I will reluctantly vote for it if the aff really fumble the argument. I think the aff need to push more on education being a terminal impact and the more neg team need to go for clash as an impact. TVA > SSD in my opinion but I'm willing to vote on SSD as long as you can out tech your opinion. Debate do shape subjectivity.
I love a good KvK debate but both team need to be really comparative with their methods/theories. I don't really buy that the aff doesn't get perm in a method v method debate. Organizations and activist groups combine methods all the time. This just mean that the perm need to be warranted out differently. Explain to me what the perm look like and specifically how the two methods can be combine.
Neg need to go for more presumption push. While I do believe that the education of K affs do spill over outside of the round, I think that the spill over end here. I think that K affs should be read in debate but I am very open to argument about how they don't spill out to anything.
Theory:
I have been in 0 theory debate in my life. Thus I have no real predisposed opinions on different types of theory args. I will vote on whoever won the flow in these type of debate. This mean that your theory args need to be well developed and explained. If you can't point to instances of in round abuse, I will find it hard to vote for you on theory.
Condo is probably good but I think teams should build their interp around how many condo args does the neg get.
Speaker points:
This is probably where I deviate from your normal local circuit judge. I believe that 95% of your speaker points should be base on how well you executed your strategy and the other 5% should be base on your how well you speak/style. This mean that if you are effectively front-lining your defense and proliferating your offense, you will be rewarded with high speaker points. I will rarely go below 27 speaker points unless you said something really problematic.
30 - Perfect. You should be qualifying for the TOC.
29.5-29.9 - Almost there! You're a couple of tournaments away from being the top.
29-29.4 - Really good speech! You did your thing and executed it well.
28-28.9 - Nicely done. The debate was clean and well organize with some small strategical mistakes.
27-27.9 - Need some work. Either the flow was messy or there were a few big strategical mistakes.
<27 - you know what you did...
Other formats:
I have little to no experience in any other formats or any idea of what is to be expected. This mean that you will have to keep time for me. I will judge these round as if they are policy rounds unless instructed otherwise.
Misc:
I was mainly trained by Robert Burns, Najma Ali, and Addis Arciniega. Please refer to any of these paradigms if needed! Also partnered with Ryan Nguyen for most of my career.