Max Wang Paradigm

Last changed 4/19 12:51P EDT

St. Mark’s '19

Put me on the email chain: mwang6361@gmail.com

I'd rather not read evidence to reconstruct a ballot that doesn't reflect the debating on the flow

If I can't explain what I'm voting for, I won't vote for it

Clarity>everything else.

An argument consists of a claim and warrant - arguments that become complete later (or blippy 1nc shells/aff advantages that become developed later) are new arguments that merit new answers

Below are some debate things I generally think are true. My biases and preferences become less relevant the more you out execute your opponents.

Debating Planless Affs

I go for topicality in 99% of these debates. You can go for other stuff too. I will very, very heavily lean neg on perm/competition questions.

I start with the presumption that the ballot doesn't do anything besides determine a winner and loser

Fairness is obviously an impact.

Debate is a game and breaking it would be quite bad. Reading a planless aff makes debate really easy for one side. The aff would be better served going for impact turns than trying to take a "reasonability" approach. To be clear, that means saying debating the resolution is bad for XYZ reason, not that unfairness is good.

Topicality v affs that read a plan

I like these debates when they are grounded in evidence with intent to define. A more limited topic isn't always the best thing ever. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

Disads

Great. Turns case is helpful. Zero risk is definitely a thing. Analytic presses can defeat most politics disads.

Counterplans

Counterplans that have a specific solvency advocate (or one that's as good as/better than the aff's) can bypass theory questions pretty easily.

PICs out of the plan are good, states is usually fine, and most other stuff (consult, delay, word pics, and miscellaneous process stuff) is probably bad.

I will not kick the counterplan for you unless I'm told to do so explicitly

Ks

Specificity is great. I'm pretty familiar with most of the popular literature (cap, security, afropessimism). The more you talk about the 1ac (and preferably the plan), the better. Links should prove the plan is bad, not that the plan is imperfect.

The threshold for winning a sweeping ontological or pessimist theory is high on the side that advances the argument (both as a reason to reject the aff/law and as a reason to reject the topic)

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Novice Round Up 5/4/2019 CX Finals Crossings Christian BN Liberal Arts and Science MW Neg Neg on a 3-0
Novice Round Up 5/4/2019 CX R6 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart PF Liberal Arts and Science CH Neg Neg on a 2-0
Novice Round Up 5/4/2019 CX R5 Jesuit CM Harker BV Aff Aff on a 2-0
Novice Round Up 5/4/2019 CX R3 Dallas Highland Park WL Harker AJ Aff
Novice Round Up 5/4/2019 CX R2 Woodward HH Crossings Christian DH Aff Aff on a 2-0
DUDA HS March 2 Tournament 3/2/2019 JVCX RD3 Garza ECHS AH W.T. White CP Neg
Plano West Wolf Classic 10/19/2018 NCX R4 Coppell 9th SS Highland Park WR Aff
Plano West Wolf Classic 10/19/2018 NCX R3 Coppell 9th GS Greenhill AV Neg
Plano West Wolf Classic 10/19/2018 NCX R2 Coppell HP Coppell 9th BA Aff
Plano West Wolf Classic 10/19/2018 NCX R1 Coppell 9th SO Jesuit CP MJ Neg
Novice Round Up 4/27/2018 CX R3 Liberal Arts and Science FM Georgetown Day BS Neg Neg on a 2-0
Novice Round Up 4/27/2018 CX R2 Crossings Christian KK Harker SM Aff Aff on a 2-0
Novice Round Up 4/27/2018 CX R1 Harker PB Jesuit CP BW Neg
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/2/2018 NCX R2 Greenhill LB Hebron DG Neg
Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational 2/2/2018 NCX R1 Highland Park (Dallas) TT Coppell AK Neg