ok let's settle this down. i do agree that charlie is fairly annoying, and by fairly i mean extremely. however, charlie tang isn't the worst debater in the world. pretty much every person on our policy team makes fun of him, but the truth is most of them won't be able to beat him. as for sems, after every round i always think of what we could possibly lose on. and in that round i was thinking that the perm may beat us. under my opinion, perms aren't advocacies and never really are. they are just test of competitions. other people may see it differently like john gray. john is probably the coolest judge that i know and he dropped us which made me question the if we actually won. as far as i know, we were definitely beating him on consult nato and there wasn't enough specific analysis on the perm in the 1AR/2AR to win him that round. just saying the biopolitics is the root cause of case harms or impacts in general probably won't win someone a round. however, john gray bought it which means i'm probably wrong. charlie did make semifinals at state, which is not too bad. but yes, he is very annoying and should be made fun of
PS: i still think it's funny that he didn't pay his dues for state.