Note: if you have questions you’d like us to ask, please let us know here, and we’ll ask them during the next set of tourney interviews!

Finalist Interviews

Daniel Lin (Princeton DL), Finalist

Question: You fought through some tough opponents to push your way to finals. What was your experience like? How did the tournament go? What did you expect?
Daniel Lin: I mainly expected this tournament to be pretty lay, so I did a lot of work on my speaking. Luckily I had all around good judges for my rounds. The tournament went really fast for me. As you said, the competition was pretty tough so I found myself in unfamiliar territory in a lot of rounds. However the tournament was overall pretty enjoyable.

Q: What kind of unfamiliar territory were you in? What were the uncommon positions you dealt with?
DL: Some unexpected positions included non-T affs and creative neg kritiks that I did not prep. There was also a good amount of small plans which forced me to deviate from my usual honest substance debate ways to a more theoretical approach to engagement.

Q: You say honest substance debate is your usual approach. What was your favorite position you read on this topic? (Or what did you want to read the most?)
DL: My favorite positions are generally util or K affs. However I pretty much went for theory in most of my rounds including all of my out-rounds. I don’t know why but something about Scarsdale makes debaters want to be more abusive.

Q: There’s typically a lot of back and forth over what constitutes a legit strat, whether theory can be a strategic option, etc. Where do you draw the line on a-what a fair strategy is, and b-when theory can be run?
DL: Personally, I think theory can be run whenever depending on the panel. However I think we can all make an effort to engage more substantively. Generally a fair strategy consists of reciprocal burdens. E.g., straight reffing a util aff.

Q: This question comes from our community, and seems connected: What do you think about the rise of neg debaters using purely generics instead of “topic” prep? 
DL: I think its necessary to some extent because of resource disparities between different sized programs and people from different financial backgrounds. I also think that this trend provides a better time trade off for debate and other activities. But with that said, I generally enjoy topic debates so it would be nice if there were more of them.

Q: That segways well into my next question. Do you feel particularly passionate about any issues within the debate community that you’d like to discuss?
DL: I think one issue in debate is toxicity in the community. While I know tons of nice people in the community, I think the competitive nature of the activity can often times bring out the more sour aspects of us. Therefore I think we can all make an effort to be more compassionate.

Q: And are there any shout-outs or thank-yous you’d like to make?
DL: I would first like to give a shout out to Sam Azbel for coaching me for the past few weeks. A lot of the drills and advice he gave me as well as his onsite help really paid off. I would also like to give a shout out to my teammate Nick Eikelberner and Devansh for being awesome mentors throughout my career. They have supported me for the last three years and I really appreciate them. I also want to give a shout out to Elizabeth Zhang for taking over my judging obligations and opening up time for me to prep instead. Also I would like to give a shout out to my partner in crime Daniel Shahab Diaz. Over the years we have done tons of prep and drills together and I know he is going to be a threat on the circuit. I would also like to give a shout out to the rest of the Princeton team and Mrs. Brige for making the tournament possible. And to Kevin Li for being a quality dude.

Question: You entered elims 6-0 as top seed and top speaker, and championed the tournament undefeated. How’d it feel? What was the experience like? Did you expect to do so well going in?
Lindsey Perlman: I had a great experience at Scarsdale. The people are very kind, and I’ve always enjoyed the experience of a smaller tournament. Because it was so small, I did have higher expectations going into the tournament than I usually do.

Q: What were the common positions this weekend?
LP: Most of the positions I heard were either variations of util stacked ACs on the aff or generic disads.

Q: Let’s talk about speaking style. Your speaker points averaged to 29.85 this weekend. How?!
LP: Before I give a final speech, I always make sure to have in mind a very clear and persuasive overview of how the round breaks down. This overview will always emphasize how some mistake my opponent made has costed them the round. When delivering my final speech, I always make an effort to appear very certain and organized, since it leaves a better lasting impression in the judge’s mind.

Q: Do you have any suggestions for how a debater might improve their speaks?
LP: Being able to recognize the bigger picture is key. This means not just being able to articulate arguments, but also being able to explain how those arguments function in the context of the entire round. The skill of understanding the broader strategic implications of arguments is crucial. It will lead to better responses and strategic decisions in round, and thus higher speaks. A way to practice this is to either discuss strategies in the abstract (outside of a round-context), to reflect on bad strategic decisions you’ve made in past rounds, or to redo final speeches of past rounds with a strong overview that will make judges want to vote for you.

Q: We have a community question: What do you think about the rise of neg debaters using purely generics instead of “topic” prep?
LP: Unfortunately, due to the wording of this topic and most topics, generic prep seems like a necessity. There is no possible way for negative debaters to prep out an infinite number of plan ACs, so generics are a last resort. However, I have always enjoyed being able to research the complexities of each individual topic. In certain instances where lazy debaters are using generics to avoid topic prep, a key level of education is taken away from the activity.

Q: Do you have any shout-outs or special comments?
LP: Shout-out to Diganta for asking what the order of cross-ex was, Dino for messaging me unicorn gifs, Zoe for being a secret LARPer who loves disads, Sazbel for having good taste in food, Devon for being an acorn, Cancro for believing util is trutil, the Stuy novice who mimicked a lawmaker in their 1AR, Ananta for being the best tabber, and Chris for just being a great coach.

Thanks to Lindsey and Daniel for sharing their perspectives! If you want your questions answered, be sure to let us know here!