Lee,+Lydia

toc I did policy debate from 2009-2013 at Colleyville Heritage High School (Dallas area). **2010-2011**: ...substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey. **2011-2012**: ...substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere. **2012-2013**: ...substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.
 * 2009-2010**: ...substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.


 * Speed is fine, incoherence is not; however, it's been a while since I've done this. That said, I recommend easing into your preferred speed.
 * Run what you want so long as you can explain it coherently. I typically favor policy-oriented debates over kritikal ones simply because I'm not as familiar with the latter's literature. That does not, however, mean that I'll ignore them. Specifics can be found below.
 * If ever something blatantly offensive appears in front of me (racist or discriminatory speech, for example), the offender's speaks will not be pretty.
 * Please mark where you stop in your cards if you don't finish them. I will read evidence only as far as the person reading it got. Uncontested spin will be given extra weight.
 * Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer, barring tech issues.
 * Any claim of an ethics violation (clipping cards, fabricating evidence, etc.) will stop the round until the matter has been resolved. Should you make such an accusation, have proof. Failure to provide sufficient proof of cheating will not hurt anyone, but I ask that y'all not cry wolf on this because it wastes everyone's time. A confirmed instance of cheating will result in an automatic loss and as low speaks as I'm allowed to give for the offender(s).
 * If I call you out once on stealing prep and you continue anyway, the amount of prep you steal will be directly proportional to the amount of speaks you'll lose.
 * Be nice. Your opponents (and you partner, for that matter) are people too.

=Disads=
 * Impact calculus is your friend if and only if you explain why your analysis should be preferred over your opponent's. For example, repeatedly saying that your impact happens more quickly is not convincing unless you tell me why that time difference is important.

=Counterplans=
 * __Word PICs__ -- Not a fan because they usually aren't functionally competitive. The more specific these are to the plan or resolution, the better.
 * __Other (Non-Word) PICs__ -- Personal favorite, as they tend to produce interesting debates and demonstrate hard work.
 * __Consult__ -- Meh. Answers to permutations that aren't couched in theory are the best.
 * __Condition/QPQ__ -- Same as consult.
 * __Multi-plank__ -- Limit the number of solvency advocates you need; a separate solvency advocate for every piece of a 10-plank counterplan is not persuasive.
 * __Agent__ -- Unless the plan text specifies an agent, ask in cx who enacts the plan. Spec arguments to me are just a way of forcing the aff to defend a particular actor, not a reason why the negative should win.


 * Unless otherwise proven in the round, there is nothing inherently wrong with conditional advocacies (on the negative).
 * There //is//, however, something inherently wrong with conditional everything else. That's not to say you can't kick out of an argument by extending defense, but don't impact turn or double-turn yourself and say, "But it was conditional!"
 * If you run things any way other than conditionally or unconditionally, tell me what that means--the definition of words like "dispositional" tends to differ from team to team.

=Kritiks=
 * In high school, my partner and I dabbled with cap and some other IR-related kritiks, but anything other than that will likely require a decent amount of explanation before I fully understand the internal link story.
 * I am not a fan of alternatives that are effectively severance permutations. There are smarter, less slimy-sounding ways to solve the aff. Please use them.
 * **A small but important side-note**: You can run your reps and discourse kritiks conditionally, but extending it in the block along with something else that clearly prescribes to whatever it is you're criticizing gives the 1AR a fair amount of leeway in the way of permutations.

=Performance/Kritikal Affs=
 * Please note that this type of debate falls well beyond what I am accustomed to evaluating. Should I be in the back of the room and you choose to run one of these, please explain how you interact with or engage the topic. Losing a round does not mean that your message was not heard or appreciated.

=Topicality=
 * Topicality is not and will never be a reverse voting issue, though I will listen to the kritik of topicality as a means of evaluating impacts.
 * //__**Slow down**__//. The nature of T's analysis tends to be blippy, and few things suck more than having to tell a team, "Sorry, I just didn't hear it."
 * I generally default to competing interpretations and view reasonability as a way for the aff to give more weight to their defense (e.g. literature checks).

=Theory=
 * For the same reasons as with topicality, slow down // . //
 * I usually reject arguments and not teams unless the other team drops/seriously mishandles the argument.
 * In the interest of time, no team gets infinite prep.

Any questions can be directed to lydia DAHT lee AT berkeley DAHT edu