Wang,+Emily

I debated four years in high school at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (2007-2011) and sometimes help judge. If the older wikis still exist, my old arguments may be around if you wanna see the way I used to debate. I haven't judged for a while.

I am a tabula rasa judge, so I try to be as open minded as possible about all arguments.

EVIDENCE COMPARISON: if you have a crappy card, but you do great spin on it and it comes down to that at the end of the round, I am more likely to default to what the card says rather than your amazing spin.

TOPICALITY: I generally err towards competing intepretations.

DISADS: Fine with disads. I am not great with politics disads because I rarely ran it in high school. If it gets highly technical, I will have a hard time understanding that debate. There is such a thing as a 100% no link.

COUNTERPLANS: I love abusive counterplans - PICs, advantage CPs, and multi plank CPs are great. I am biased //against// delay counterplans. I prefer counterplans with substance to them.

KRITIKS: I really love kritiks. I will listen to any sort of kritik. I haven't read every kritik or immersed myself in all kritikal literature, so you should explain all your jargon to me. I am, however, incredibly biased //against// the cap K. If the aff gives me an easy out against the cap K, I am very likely to just default aff. KRITIKAL AFFS: love them. I have no biases against them.

SPEAKING: I will penalize rudeness, though it will not lose the round.

If you have anymore questions feel free to ask me at the beginning of the round. These are just my preliminary thoughts about debate. Additionally, if necessary you can look to Yao Yao Chen's judging philosophy since he was my coach and I generally subscribe to similar views.