Cui,+Isaac

Last updated: 10/16/2016 I debated for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy in Austin, TX. I currently coach Polytechnic in Pasadena, CA.  Summary I am fine with just about anything as long as I can both understand the argument and its implications. I will attempt to assess the debate as objectively as possible based on the flow (though I certainly have some biases, which I've listed below). Speed is fine, but give me time to switch between flows and have clear transitions. To steal from Scott Harris, I will work "as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates."  General Stuff -Flash time isn't prep unless it's excessive -Open CX is fine -Please don't get super rude in CX -Include me in email chains (isaacqcui@gmail.com), but I will not read cards until after the debate. I will try to avoid reading cards unless the evidence is contested or I have no other way to evaluate the debate. -I trust both teams to keep track of prep and speech times, but am willing to time stuff if I am asked to - Mark your cards yourself. This is super important to me because I think the highlighting/warrants in evidence matter a lot if I need to turn to the evidence. -Be clear--I want to be able to understand the warrants in cards as well as the taglines. I will usually look at you funny if I have difficulty flowing, so be aware of that. - Don't steal prep -Aff teams should disclose the 1AC plan text+advantages and the neg should disclose past 2NRs before the round. You should also keep an actively updated wiki  Topicality I evaluate T debates much like I'd assess a CP+DA strategy; interps are competing options to solve for various DAs. This also means whoever can control the impact calculus--something often forgotten in T debates--will probably win my ballot. Case lists matter a lot to me, but I'm also persuaded that most case lists are too absurd (i.e., that functional limits check); rather than attempting to find the most absurd cases possible, I think it's more worth it to talk about what types of literature bases or types of affs that their interp allows/why that's bad. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I think "reasonability" is largely a buzzword that isn't explained enough. Is reasonability a question of the aff or their interp? Is it about how I evaluate offense? Depending on who you ask, they'll probably give you different answers. As a result, whatever preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations I have is largely meaningless. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Framework (versus a K aff) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I debate framework on both sides often, so I'm fairly middle of the road when assessing these debates. T-versions of the aff are very useful, but I mostly think of them as reasons for why the negative's framework can access the literature or education that the 1AC provides. Theoretical framework arguments that solely rely on things like the limits DA and fairness impacts will probably lose to a good aff team. For the most part, I think framework is most strategic as a countermethodology which relies on things like dialogue, institutional engagement, etc., to address the impacts of the 1AC. Make sure framework interacts with the aff (and vice versa--aff teams should leverage case as a DA to framework whenever possible). <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">After judging a few of these debates, I've found that the internal link matters. Usually framework 2NCs/2NRs are too impact heavy but not enough on the internal link level; I've found myself voting aff against framework multiple times because I didn't think the 2NR explained enough why there was such a limits explosion that their impacts were true, even if I thought their impacts outweighed. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Framework (on the aff versus a K) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">My default is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and for the neg to get an alt. I can be persuaded of an alternative framework that, for example, stresses representations over policies, but it will require a lot of time commitment on the neg. I don't see myself, however, voting on "neg doesn't get the K" because it's too unpredictable or whatever. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Nontraditional Affs <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I will evaluate things largely as I do with traditional affs. That being said, having clear explanations as to the advocacy, the role of the judge, and the role of the ballot will go far. I am fine with just about whatever you wish to do as long as you can justify it, though I don't think I will give a double win/double loss. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> K <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I'm fine with most Ks but please don't presume I know what you're talking about. If your A-strat is to read some esoteric post-modern French philosophy, be ready to explain the K in everyday layperson's language rather than in terms of "lines of flight" or "arboreality" or whatever. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I think the way the K usually wins in front of me, against a traditional policy aff, is to use the links to implicate the aff's solvency or to turn the aff's advantages. Though this may sound obvious, specificity matters a lot. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I think spin is especially important in K vs policy debates--should I view the alt as hippie nonsense or as a necessary reconceptualization of politics? Is the aff a method for green capitalism to control the superstructure of education, or is it a method of taking responsibility for and confronting the worst excesses of capitalism? For me, whoever can best control the answer to these questions will be able to frame much of the rest of the debate, which is especially important if the 2AR hopes to go for a permutation. (If the aff strat is simply impact turning, this matters less.) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Against K affs, make the alt interact with the aff. I tend to be skeptical of most root cause claims--that's not to say you shouldn't make them, but that you need to have more game against the aff than simply root cause. The most convincing strategy, in my opinion, is to explain why the alt's method is better able to solve the aff's impacts than the aff's method. When tackling the perm against a K aff, I need more than simply "this is a method debate, they don't get a perm." <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> CP <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">They're great. Please stress or slow down on parts of the CP text that are important since I want to have an idea of what it is in the 1NC. CPs that can result in the entirety of the aff are probably illegit, both on a theory level and a competition level. I think positional competition (http://site.theforensicsfiles.com/NJSD.2-1.Final.pdf) makes a lot of sense. Agent CPs that utilize an alternative actor than the USFG are also questionably legitimate. Multiplank CPs can also become questionable if each plank is conditional. I have other theory preferences below. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I will not kick the CP for you unless the 2NR explicitly tells me to. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> DA <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Also fine with them. Affs should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is vital. Turns case arguments are devastating, especially if you can make them earlier up the internal link chain. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Case <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Please debate the case. The aff should constantly leverage it and the neg should hedge back against it. Even against nontraditional affs, weakening their solvency is super useful for the neg. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Theory <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I will evaluate theory like any other argument--if you impact it out, I have no qualms about putting the ballot at stake on theory. I think multiple conditional worlds (especially 3 or more) probably aren't great for debate. I won't, however, vote on a one-liner in the middle of the 2NR saying that "severance perms are a voting issue"--I need clear warrants for rejecting the team. Please give pen time when reading theory and try to stray from simply reading blocks at each other. A good theory debate can be one of the most enjoyable debates to watch, and I will definitely reward you if you execute well. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Speaker Points <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">This is a rough scale of how I give speaks: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">29.5 - deserve to be one of the top speakers, very few issues in speeches <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">29 - minor issues in speeches, probably is in the top 10-15 speakers <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">28.5 - should break, but some issues <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">28.3 - average, probably deserve to go 3-3 <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">28 - some fairly sizeable issues <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">27.5 - dropped something really important <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">25 or lower - something problematic happened <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Arguments I Don't Like <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I will still try to evaluate these objectively, but I will probably drop your speaks for reading them: <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-Obvious time skews--everything in the 1NC should be a viable 2NR option (includes things like 1 card "gateway issue" Ks or silly T violations) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-Ashtar, TimeCube/etc. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc. good <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Random Notes <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">These are some self-observed trends from my judging that I thought could be useful -- after all, there's always a difference between how a judge considers their own judge philosophy and how they actually judge. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-After the 2AR, I start deciding by rereading both the 2NR and 2AR, then by either following the framing arguments that the debaters put forth, or -- in the absence of that kind of work -- I look for easy arguments to decide. Once I've decided a couple of arguments, I find ways to apply that to other aspects of the debate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-This means that I often decide close debates on one small but key issue -- for example, in one round I judged, the negative goes for a CP and elections DA, spending maybe 30 seconds on solvency extending a single argument. The 2AR similarly blows off the solvency argument, claiming that 1AC evidence answered it. This was one of the first arguments that I assessed since it seemed fairly straight-forward to read the evidence as per both teams' direction. I ended up deciding the debate on, essentially, this one argument -- that the aff doesn't solve -- even though it was a small aspect of both of the final speeches because it was a simple argument to decide with widespread implications for the rest of the debate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-I often feel qualms about voting on very techy arguments, but I usually end up deciding on the tech. An example: the 2NC and 2NR, going for T, make an argument that the aff doesn't meet their own interp based on a reading of the 2AC interp ev that isn't part of the aff's explanation of their interp; this is not directly answered in the 1AR or 2AR. The aff is ahead on every standard and they thoroughly explain their own interp and why they meet it. What they don't do, however, is push back on the neg's characterization of the 2AC interp ev. I end up voting neg because I don't think the aff meets their interp; even if they meet their own explanation of the interp, I felt that that explanation was less accurate to the ev, given the neg's analysis, and that the more "correct" explanation of what the 2AC ev described would exclude the 1AC. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">-The closer the rounds are, the more I read cards. Ideally, I like to vote on the flow, because I feel like the more time I spend reading evidence or thinking about the decision, the more likely I am to intervene. But if I can’t determine a round purely on the tech, I’m more likely to try to find the “truth” of the debate by reading all of the evidence. If you’re a team that routinely gets by by out-teching people rather than reading good evidence, you should highlight concessions and tell me how to evaluate things to avoid having me investigate into evidence itself. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> -Extending every part of an argument matters. For example, even if the link to the politics DA is dropped in the 1AR, a 2NR that doesn't extend the link has not made a complete argument. That being said, I'd be sympathetic to the 2NR saying "don't make me reinvent the wheel, the 1AR has conceded the link, [insert 10 second explanation of the link]." But I do think it's important that you actually formally extend the argument in some capacity. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email at isaacqcui@gmail.com