Purk,+Clara

This is my fourth year debating at USC. I also debated for four years at West High School. I have judged ~30 rounds on the 13-14 HS topic.

Notes about paperless: I stop the timer for prep once you have the flash drive in your computer, ie don't waste time looking for your flash drive. I won't take prep while you save the speech doc.

General notes/ argumentative preferences: I can be persuaded by anything, but, like all judges, I will be happier to listen to some arguments more than others. I prefer a specific DA that actually turns the case to a politics debate. I like advantage CPs more than generic process CPs that aren't about the aff. I like Ks about the topic that talks about the aff more than high theory Ks. I like affs in the direction of the resolution. I think smart analysis is just as good as a card.

I like it when people talk about the following: 1- probability of the disad 2- likelihood of the aff solving 3- feasibility of the alt 4- link differentials between the plan and the CP or the perm and the alt or the aff and the squo and why it may/may not matter 5- refuting broad claims that Ks make with specific examples that disprove the K's theory

Other thoughts:

CP theory- I don't think affs go for theory enough. 2Ns barely answer aff theory arguments anymore and lots of CPs are not good for debate. Framework- My default framework is to let the aff weigh the impacts and let the neg get their K. If you want to say the aff doesn't get the impacts or the neg doesn't get their K, you need to be spending a lot of time here and be impacting your arguments for why your framework is best for debate. Non-traditional affs- I think you should be somehow in the direction of the topic. Sometimes I find arguments embedded in a performance difficult to flow, but I try to write down the general gist of the argument to the best of my abilities. At the same time, I think debate is a communicative and persuasive activity and it is your responsibility to communicate to me. If you are negative versus one of these teams, I am persuaded by "T-be about the topic" more than "FW-read a plan with the USFG." If you go for the former, I am persuaded by a "topical version of the aff" argument, but if there isn't a topical version of the aff I don't think you need to try and prove there is.

Other side notes: I've realized that sometimes I am easy to read. If I like an argument you are making I will generally nod my head along with your speech. If I am confused or don't agree with/believe an arg you're making, I'll probably make a weird face. Also, please don't refer to me as "the judge." My name is Clara. Jokes are appreciated, especially if they are funny and about UCLA, Lane Kiffin, or people on USC's debate team. Just don't overdo it.

Fight on

Updated February 1, 2014