Lio,+Stephanie

Hi, I debated for four years at The Harker School and currently judge for the DC Urban Debate League and occasionally/seasonally for Harker. I will let you tell me how to judge the round, but I'm naturally more predisposed to certain kinds of arguments:

I think policy debate is good. I like when affs defend a topical plan text throughout the round. Evidence, flowing, speed are great. Dancing, poetry, rap generally make me uncomfortable.

I like CP/DA/case debates. If you've got a well-developed case turn, tricky PIC, etc. and make sense of your strategy in context of the debate, you'll do well. The more plan-specific the CP is strategically, the better. I lean toward voting neg on ANY risk of the disad (or whatever), so put your offense first. As for K's, I'm less likely to find your K sketchy/lazy if you read an affirmative-specific link, have an alt text, and explain the role of the ballot for me. I enjoy cross-ex of K's when affs effectively point out how ridiculous/abusive the K story is. (Remember to impact your framework.)

Topicality: To be perfectly honest, I don't love T debates, but I believe in competing interpretations, with good impact comparison like any other disad.

Theory: I think reject the argument and not the team is usually sufficient. However, if you can articulate a specific abuse story and slow down reasonably, I could be persuaded to vote on it. PICS, conditionality, most agent CPs are probably good. States, conditions, delay are probably bad. I have a higher tolerance for consult counterplans if you can produce solvency evidence specific to the actor being consulted AND the plan.

Knowing and using evidence well does wonderful things for your credibility. I will not hesitate to read cards, so reconsider power-tagging cards with shady warrants.

I appreciate debaters who are scrupulous about not stealing prep time, sharing and returning evidence, and demonstrating good sportsmanship. Be strategic and aggressive with CX, but please don't be a jerk - debate is an intellectually-demanding activity as is. I will devastate your speaker points if you're clearly abusing your opponents or your own partner (and especially if you're losing substantially anyway). If you speak clearly and debate smart - and look like you're having fun - I will likely reward your ethos with generous speaker points.

Have fun and good luck!