Liu,+Yao+Yao


 * Yaoyao Liu**
 * Pioneer High School 2010**
 * University of Michigan 2014**
 * Last Updated: April 2012**

Debate what you are best at. I will try to leave my biases at the door. Of course, since total objectivity is impossible…

Tech over truth – What is/isn’t on my flow determines the debate. I will not intrinsically reject certain arguments for their stupidity or falseness, but terrible arguments are easy to beat with smart analytics.

Impact calculus – it requires more than extending evidence at a breakneck pace and exclaiming “try or die!” Persuasive impact calculus includes but isn’t limited to: comparative explanations, discussion of framing issues, historical and/or literary examples, discussion of the links, “even if” statements, specific (application of) evidence, less speed and more emphasis, smart concessions. I give a lot of weight to impact defense explanation and would prefer that to a contrived “turns case” story. On the other hand, if you mishandle a turns case/turns the DA argument, you are likely to lose absent some serious argument disco.

Evidence – I find hyper-specific/innovative strategies impressive and fun to watch. However, as someone who debated for a small program in high school, I’m sympathetic if you have to make do with camp files and generic arguments. Good evidence is handy, but specific applications of generic evidence and demonstrating that you understand your evidence will win the debate. I will not read the cards that were incomprehensible in the round.

Risk – I have no qualms with assigning zero percent risk to arguments. That said, I don’t think that a dropped argument is automatically a true argument – it requires a reasonable amount of warranted explanation.

Critiques/Kritiks – while I’m not ideologically opposed critical arguments, I'm just skeptical when intensely theoretical psychoanalysis or 20-second blips from //Being and Time// are broadly leveraged against the 1ac. I remain technical when judging critiques, but I'm also capable of applying overviews if that's your thing. Admittedly, I'm don't read work by critical authors in debate unless they pertain to whatever's going on in my English classes, so please be precise with your explanations by integrating debate jargon.

Performance/Non-traditional debate – I don't usually judge these teams, though I have debated teams that run these arguments in college and think these arguments are persuasive when they are applied to the topic in innovative ways. Again, I'm not as well-read as I should be on these topics. I am sympathetic to framework arguments when these affs do not seem related to the resolution.

Topicality – I don’t see topicality as a cheap/lazy option and think that it can be a highly strategic argument, especially if supplemented with good evidence. Controlling the limits framing of these debates is important, as limits often determine things like ground and predictability. For whatever reason, my T flows are always the messiest, so please slow down and stay organized.

Theory – probably as a result of being a 2A, I lean aff on theory questions. Especially when there are more than 2 conditional options in the debate, neg blocks should be wary of blowing off theory. For other theory arguments, I will probably hold the line at rejecting the argument. Also, be as specific as possible – what ground was lost? What education was squandered and is that education unique to your interpretation? I will not be able to flow you if you read your blocks like you are reading the text of cards, unless you are an exceptionally slow speaker.

Counterplans – 2As are probably better off going for theory and creative perms against questionably legitimate CPs rather than for contrived solvency deficits. The quality of the neg solvency advocates for a these types of CPs typically determines the theory debate over them, especially when things boil down to a question of education.

Disadvantages – link uniqueness presses (i.e. thumpers, though I hate that term) paired with an internal link takeout are the cat's pajamas (e.g., thumpers and relations resilient on a relations DA).

Case – I will reward affs that boldly and cleverly leverage their cases against bad arguments impact-wise. I will reward negs for dismantling an aff case with strategies independent of their off-case positions, like impact turning or having a bunch of case-specific take-outs.

Paperless – if it gets shady, I'll stop the timer only when the flash drive has left the computer. I hate it when judges do that though, so don't make it come to that.

i'll probably vote for whoever makes the most breaking bad references, or puns