Mei,+Lan

==**Debate History** ==

I debated for Centennial High School with Capitol Debate and am currently a freshman. I was the 1A-2N.

==**Judging Philosophy** ==


Be assertive and clear. Do not be arrogant or aggressive. Don't clip cards, don't steal prep. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing, so always make the tags and cites clear. It's been a couple years since I debated, so it's possible I may ask you to slow down at some points. I default to offense-defense and will vote on 1% risk of DA, unless given a good reason not to.

I am fine with CPs, DAs, Ks, but whatever it is you're going for, clearly explain your links/impacts, esp. in the last speech. If you're aff, always remember to extend your case through. Additionally, for Ks, I may not be familiar with the particular K in a round, so keep in mind that you need to explain it well and explain the alt. I have never judged a performance round before. If the round ends up being a performance debate, I need to know what your arguments are and you need to engage in the debate unless you tell me specific reasons you won't. For theory/FW, I will hold you to higher standards for articulating your arguments. The more ridiculous the arg, the less time the aff/neg needs to spend answering it to convince me. If there's actual in-round abuse, then I'm much more likely to vote for theory. I like T in general; just make sure it's not a ridiculous argument and you fully develop your arguments. Tell me whether to evaluate through competing interps/reasonability. I default to reasonability if I'm not told anything.

I think having good evidence is //extremely// important and something many people seem to ignore for some reason. If your one line politics card has warrants, then that's fine, but those warrants are key. I will read ev but only the parts read in the debate unless told to do otherwise. I will consider the rest of the ev for the purposes of speaker points, but not for the actual outcome of the debate. It frustrates me to no end that teams can win on atrocious ev, but after some thought, I decided this was the best way to minimize judge intervention while still rewarding teams for good research. This means you definitely must and should flag cards for me to read so I can see how out of context/unqualified/stupid it is. Even if you don't have any cards, call out the other team on their BS. Analytics will be evaluated as cards taking quals into account. Smart analytic > 15 one-liners without warrants On a similar note, extend AND explain dropped args. Don't just say "They dropped this" and move on.

Overall, I like smart arguments and smart debaters. If you want me to vote on something, make sure I know that you want me to vote on it. Any other specific questions you can ask really quick before the round starts.