Huang,+Alice

Hi ya'll. I am a former policy debater from Washington state. I did debate for 4 years throughout high school, and have been judging in my spare time ever since then. I'm currently a student at UC Berkeley majoring in economics/business administration. I really like eating spicy ramen and chocolate covered strawberries.

I want to say that I am Tabs, but my experience has made me realize that no one is actually Tabs. Every judge has his/her own preferences, and every judge has a slightly different way of evaluating rounds. I have listed a few of my specific preferences below.
 * Policy Paradigm:**

I have been both a K debater and a traditional policy debater. However, throughout my debate career, I tended to go for the K, the Cap K in particular, more often than not.

T- I default to evaluating based on reasonability if no frame of evaluation is presented. However, if one team argues for competing interpretations, the other team must explain why reasonability would be a better way to evaluate the round. Blippy Ts aren't enough to win a round in front of me. In general, there must be proven abuse and an extremely well fleshed out T argument that is specific to the affirmative case.

Theory- I most likely will not vote for a team on just theory alone unless there has been proven abuse. Also, if you're trying to win on theory, please go all out on theory in your last speech.

Ks- If you're running a K, please know what you are talking about. You must be able to explain the K without having to look at your cards, and you must contextualize your K according to the affirmative. I love Ks, but I hate Ks that are terribly run.

CP- I absolutely despise conditions CPs. They are plan-plus and usually just become a muddled mess. Advantage CPs with specific net benefits are great. Agent CPs are fine as long they are warranted.

DAs- Do your thing. Know all parts of a DA. That is all. I love a well carved out politics DA.

I have limited experience with LD debate, so I may not be familiar with all the technicalities that are unique to LD. I believe that your value should be articulated very clearly and that you frame your criterion in a way that shows me exactly how it relates to your value. Since I am a policy debater, I am most comfortable evaluating debate TOC LD style. I weigh impacts under the agreed upon frame of evaluation (utilitarianism, moral relativism, etc...).
 * LD Paradigm (For Berkeley Tournament):**

Speed is fine. Speak however fast you like, just be clear.