Hyun Sik Yang ParadigmLast changed 11/17 1:26P CDT
Debated for Walter Payton College Prep, 2014-2018
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: I have not debated nor researched the current high school topic - keep this in mind when you are explaining and contextualizing your arguments.
General Thoughts/Things You Should Probably Know:
2. Tech>Truth - In most cases. If you say something that is blatantly untrue or patently offensive, I probably won't vote on it. (However, if you can't defend that death is bad, you probably deserve to lose)
3. I was a policy 2a for the majority of my time in debate - this won't affect my decisions because I have no particular biases against critical arguments, but you should keep in mind that I may not have the background knowledge to understand specific arguments/tricks that are not thoroughly explained.
4. Cross ex is binding unless you tell me otherwise.
5. I honestly don't care what you read, just please do it well.
1. I think all affs need a solvency advocate that specifically mandates the action of the plan text. I'm not a stock issues hack so I'll still vote for affs that circumstantially solve their advantages, but expect to get crushed by neg teams who competently argue the solvency debate.
2. I have no particular biases toward or against big stick and soft left affirmatives.
3. I'm less likely to vote for affs that have convoluted internal link chains - I think this makes intuitive sense, but the more prerequisites something has to meet, the less likely it is to occur.
1. I think all competent affirmatives in this category need a "debate key" warrant - if you do not have one, I am very likely to be persuaded by framework teams that tell you to "go read a book" or "participate in a protest."
2. Performance is offense - if you read a poem or a narrative that's completely legit - just please do it well.
3. Evidence quality matters - I honestly don't understand why more neg teams don't contest this part of the debate - if you read these authors in the 1ac, you should be prepared to defend them.
4. Don't just drop jargon and expect me to understand it - please explain your claims and define important buzzwords - it would be unfortunate if I made the wrong decision because I misinterpreted your arguments.
5. Reading a K aff is probably cheating, but I don't think fairness in itself is a terminal impact unless you give me a reason to evaluate it as one.
6. Debate is obviously a game - however, I do not think that this is mutually exclusive with its potential as an activity which shapes our epistemology and subject formation.
1. All counterplans need solvency advocates - I might make exceptions against certain K affs, but this will be done on a case-by-case basis.
2. I lean aff on consult theory and textual vs functional competition - consult cps are probably abusive and bad for debate - functional competition is probably a better standard for debate because textual competition is arbitrary and rooted in semantics.
3. I'm fine with abusive process counterplans - I will probably be more sympathetic to the aff on theory in most of these rounds, but in the case of an undecided debate, i.e. when neither side has won their interpretation, I will comfortably default neg.
1. Good disads need aff-specific links - cards that describe the policy action of the plan are preferred, but I will also vote on generic links that have been contextualized to the affirmative.
2. I will evaluate a link turn without an extension of uniqueness as terminal impact defense for the affirmative - unless you tell me otherwise.
3. Politics fiat - I don't really flip either way on this issue, but neg teams should honestly just pin the timeframe and process of the plan's passage in 1ac cross ex to avoid having this debate.
4. I will not evaluate evidence quality unless I am told to do so - if neither side does explicit evidence comparison, I will default to warrants.
1. T violations are more convincing if the neg team can prove in-round abuse - I will still vote for potential abuse, but be prepared for an uphill battle.
2. I am very willing to pull the trigger on T unless the aff is clearly a core topic generic, or if the violation is artificially overlimiting - random definitions from obscure parts of the literature probably won't convince me.
3. Fairness in a vacuum is not an impact.
1. Ks should link more to the aff than the status quo - I will most likely not vote for a K that is not contextualized to the aff.
2. Epistemology alts are legit - however, you definitely need to win framework in order to garner alt solvency.
3. I don't have any particular biases in terms of the framework debate - if framework is a wash coming out of the 2ar, I will grant the aff the implementation of their case, and allow the neg to garner links based on epistemology/discourse.
4. I think Ks are the most strategic when their links are also case turns - if the links are not framed in this way, neg teams should probably engage with the aff on the case debate.
1. I have a high threshold for voting for conditionality - the neg should probably be allowed to have at least two conditional advocacies to garner substantive offense against the aff - however, if the neg reads 3+ conditional offs, I will have a much higher probability of voting aff on strat skew and perf con.
2. I will vote for "spec" violations and other arguments of that nature - I have an extremely high threshold for voting for these arguments, but I will attempt to fairly evaluate them.
3. Disclosure theory is a legit argument - I think open disclosure is key to having educational debates with substantive clash and effective discourse. (on a side note, if you don't disclose, you're probably a scumbag who deserves to lose)
4. RVIs are dumb - but they're so dumb that you probably deserve to lose if you can't properly answer them.
5. Counterplan-specific theory is discussed in the "CPs" section.