Matthew Zhu ParadigmLast changed 1/7 4:14P EDT
firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains.
Arguments have to pass the sniff test.
I am a very good judge for the con on topicality. I think it’s very important that affirmatives prove inherency for topicality.
Other than that, I tend to place less importance on evidence quality and more on how healthy they are for the topic.
I like a good disad, but its very important that you prove solvency for your harms.
I’m okay with the mainstream politics disad mainly since they’re a valuable functional limit, but I have less patience for fringe politics disads.
Please refrain from reading Xi DAs in front of me, as they will lower my social credit score. Affs, if the neg reads a Xi Good DA, you may only answer the link. I will not hesitate to leave the room and report you to the CCP if necessary.
Counterplan inherency is not as important as many think, but it can be relevant especially if you choose to “kick” the counterplan.
I am less okay with negative cheating than most, but this requires an aff team that is equally committed to procedurally constraining the negation. “Cplans must have solvency advocates that match the aff” seems like a reasonable interp.
I am admittedly not a great judge for K affs. Impact turning, or having a very well thoughtout counterinterp that can ensure some clash is probably the best strategy if you’re aff.
On the neg, the two neg ballots I am most likely to deliver are “plan does something bad that prevents alt solving something important” or “subject formation most important and plan makes us bad people”. If you’re trying to go for something that could not call into either of these, you should invest time in outlining how I should decide the debate, and what offense is and isn’t relevant.