Last updated for NSDA Nationals

I am an LD coach at Apple Valley. I am formerly a grad assistant at the University of Wyoming, head coach of Team Wyoming, an assistant LD coach with Harker, and the Director of LD Debate at Victory Briefs. My background is mostly in LD with some PF and policy experience.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

NSDA22: LD

This topic is confusing, debate it how you will. 

I will NOT hesitate drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person---this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. 

1. Please time yourselves. Using a phone is fine.
2. Yes, off-time roadmaps are good.
3. Offense (why you win) is superior to defense (why you don't lose). I'm much more interested in the former; don't spend so much time on the latter.
4. The criterion/framework is not a voting issue. If you say it is, I'll make a big sad face :(.
5. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in debate. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence.
6. I prefer voting issues to be given as they arise on the flow, not in a discrete section at the end of rebuttal speeches.
7. You do not need to ask me to use your prep time (although I will keep track of time myself).
8. You can read my longer LD paradigm at the bottom for a more detailed view at my decision-making process.
9. You MUST follow the NSDA Evidence Rules (High School Manual here, shorter version here). I care deeply about evidentiary ethics in an academic event and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent allowed by the rules up to, and including, voting against you.
10. I hate evasion. Direct clash with your opponent's central points is preferred.
11. I will keep a rigorous flow, time all speeches, and not hesitate to enforce those time limits. 

Good luck!

---

NSDA22: Big Questions

I will keep a rigorous flow, time all speeches, and not hesitate to enforce those time limits. I prefer if you keep your own time however. Off time roadmaps are preferred. 

The more you focus on core, literature based arguments, the happier I will be. Please do not turn this event into one-on-one policy. I will heavily penalize anyone who attempts to spread or rely on excessive debate jargon up to and including a loss. I want to reward debaters who demonstrate that they have engaged with the serious academic literature on this topic (of which there is much) as opposed to those who sprinted towards surface-level takes or the most implausible "big stick" impact they can find. 

I coach on this topic and have done research on it; feel free to assume a decent level of engagement with the relevant literature but err on the side of thoroughly warranting arguments as this is still a persuasive speaking activity and you ought to be assuming that a layperson is adjudicating the round. I will do my best to minimize intervention based on such prior knowledge. 

I do not believe that the NEG has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. 

Not that it should ultimately matter, but I do not hold strong religious beliefs; however, I strongly dislike arguments that imply anything offensive about a group or person because of their (lack of) religious beliefs. 

---

College Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that---I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together---even better.

None of these biases are locked in- in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

LD

I've judged over 1000 LD and policy rounds from novice locals to (e)TOC elims. I am not particularly partial to a style in which you debate the topic, e.g. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., but I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the question of the debate start a few steps behind for me.

Ideological stances that might influence prefs:

1. Fairness and logic are good---args to the contrary are self-defeating.
2. The aff should defend the topic; the neg should disprove the aff---I've voted against framework/for Ks a decent amount too but it's just a tougher route to take in front of me.
3. Some tricks are fine, most stretch the definition of what counts as an argument---anything that relies almost entirely on your opponent dropping it probably isn't even worth making in front of me.
4. I think Nebel T is true, but tech > truth. I have grown tired of adjudicating Nebel T rounds. I will give you extra speaks if you either (A) don't read Nebel T against a plan or (B) read 1 off Nebel T against a plan. If you think Nebel T is true, defend it. Short 1NC T shells are near impossible to judge because so much of the debate is late-breaking. I'd rather you went all in or just didn't read it in the first place.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good; most other counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
6. I'm inclined to think that everything other than conditionality and T should be a reason to reject the arg. Most other theoretical objections aren't particularly persuasive to me.
7. I'm generally against sandbagging both in the 1NC and 1AR. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1AR make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean. How much "new-ness" is allowed in the 2NR or 2AR is obviously contextual but the default is that it's determined by how new your opponent was.
8. Ev ethics are important---I'll default to the NSDA Evidence Guide.
9. I'd prefer not to read your cards---I'd rather you explain them to me.

None of these biases are locked in---in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy. I'm not sure I have strong opinions about much else. Like most other judges, I like evidence quality, impact calculus, and strategic choices. Like most other judges, I dislike cheating, unclarity, and impropriety.

---

HS Policy

1. Give judge instruction. Tell me how to evaluate the debate.
2. Do argument comparison.
3. Email chains are good.
4. Fast debate is good debate.

I know almost nothing about the water topic.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.