Chong,+Michelle

Lexington High School ‘16 University of Chicago ‘20 Edited: September 2016 michong3@gmail.com I would love to answer your questions!


 * Tournaments attended: ** Glenbrooks, New Trier, NDI


 * OVERVIEW **
 * My role as a judge is to decide between two courses of action; these can be policies, affirmations, or anything else, but you must explain why it is an action.
 * Tech over truth. There is value in being organized and being thorough. Refuting a ridiculous argument is not rocket science.
 * Presumption goes towards the least change.
 * I judged 10-15 debates on the topic at the NDI this summer so I am not an expert on the technicalities and lingo of the topic.
 * I will drop your points if you do not flow the 2NR or 2AR (it is permissible if you are preparing for those speeches).
 * I have no poker face.

It should go without saying that many of my preferences can and will be overridden by the specific course of a debate.
 * SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS **


 * DAs/Impact Turns **
 * I **love** these. There can be **zero** risk of an advantage so do **not** forget to address the case. If there can be zero risk of a DA, there can also be zero risk of an adv.
 * Disads and advs with logical inconsistencies or atrocious evidence quality **can and should** be beaten with analytics. Unfortunately, I often find myself voting neg because the 1AC is simply worse than whatever offcase the neg extends. When preparing, you should assess your argument on a truth level and on an evidentiary level.
 * Disads have uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts—all of which require evidence.
 * Impact turns are great. These are my favorite debates because they are evidence-centered and require detailed work in evidence analysis and comparison.


 * Counterplans **
 * As a former 2N, I tend to default neg on CP theory. I think counterplans should have solvency advocates. It is up to you, the aff or neg, to define solvency advocate. My default is that an uncontested 1AC solvency advocate determines the threshold for future solvency advocates.
 * Please explain what the counterplan does and how that solves the aff. I am always interested in framing ideas that go beyond “necessary vs sufficient”.
 * I will not judge-kick the CP unless you explain why that is a good idea


 * Kritiks **
 * I am familiar with authors in the vein of D and G, IR theory, capitalism and questions of race and identity.
 * If I don’t understand you, I will not vote for you. Please contextualize the kritik to the aff and avoid jargon.
 * I find kritik debates difficult to judge when I don’t understand how proving/disproving a certain theoretical component of the kritik changes the way I evaluate the aff.
 * Structural violence as an umbrella term is not an impact. Be diligent and explain the situations and peoples your author describes.


 * Topicality **
 * I find strong, well-researched definitions persuasive. You should demonstrate an understanding of the topic literature and the terms its authors choose to use.
 * Articulate specific impacts and internal links (wow, like a disad?). I know it’s tough to draw a line between nebulous and specific theory impacts so specificity and examples are your best friends here. What type of knowledge does their interpretation exclude and **why** is that knowledge important? Why should I prefer research skills over advocacy skills and how do you access research skills **better** than the other team?
 * For affs, winning reasonability means winning that your interpretation is good enough for the topic. You **cannot** reasonably meet an interpretation. Please double-check that you meet your own interpretation.


 * Non-Traditional (Non-Plan Text) Affirmatives **
 * I have spent a lot of time as a TA and a mentor and I believe resolutely in the educational value of debate. Arguments about improving the way we debate are more persuasive to me than arguments about why we should demolish debate.
 * These advocacies should be related to the resolution in some way.
 * I think framework can be a specific indict of a non-topical advocacy and my default is to believe that debating the resolution has specific and significant merits.
 * I often vote aff on FW debates because the neg lacks specific impacts and impact comparison with the aff. I read both an exports aff and a faciality aff my senior year--I have been on both sides of the clash of civilizations debate.


 * Theory **
 * I will default to rejected the argument, not the team unless the theoretical issue is conditionality.
 * I have no problem with an unlimited number of conditional advocacies as long as you can justify each one. E.g. Reading an advantage CP and a process CP is good because we need to test the internal links and the mechanism of the plan.
 * Treat this like you would a CP, DA. (What net benefit does your interpretation access that the other team’s doesn’t? Do you have an internal link to your impact?)
 * I will be grumpy if there is no LBL in these debates and I am left to sort out huge paragraph extensions by myself.
 * Conditionality means I can kick the CP/Alt for you unless otherwise specified in the debate

Clipping is defined as representing that you have read 3 or more words of evidence than you actually read. Evidence must be both verbally and physically marked during your speech. It is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points for the offender. A false accusation is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points for both debaters from the accusing team. In the event of an accusation, I will inform both teams of the possible consequences. The accusing team will have one opportunity to withdraw their allegation. If the accusation is not withdrawn, I will then decide, to the best of my ability, whether intentional clipping occurred, using all available resources (video recordings, audio recordings, speech documents). It is the burden of the accuser to provide these resources.
 * Clipping **