Li,+Janice

**Janice Li** **7+ years experience with college debate (2 as debater, 5+ as coach/judge)** I attended NYU and debate for the debate team formerly known as NY Coalition. After graduating, I regularly volunteered at tournaments to judge and coach for CUNY and NYU, including D8 regional finals and 2010 CEDA Nats. I recently moved out to California and began volunteering with BAUDL in December 2013. HAVE FUN, BE KIND, AND DEBATE ON!

For newer debaters and team coaches:
 * 1) I like all arguments and will listen to everything fairly. Tag team cross-ex is fine. Kritiks good. CP/disad debate also good. Non-topical affs are okay, performance okay.
 * 2) I'm fairly strict with debaters about the rules of debate, which can be tough for novices. I keep strict time, don't let people go overtime with their speeches, I don't respond in round if debaters try to speak to me, I don't like being touched or approached in a debate, I am not okay with any debater conceding before the end of the round and I am very not okay with debaters challenging my decision.
 * 3) I usually write a lot of notes/advice on the ballot. Feel free to find me afterwards if you don't understand or agree with something.

This will mostly refer to varsity level debate:
 * 1) Run what you want, but if the opposing team questions the validity of your argument/style/presentation, you MUST answer that back. Make sure to do the necessary work on framework and role of ballot to explain why you run what you run and why I should vote for you. Also, even if you win framework, you need to impact it out. Speaking of which, the impact story should be clear by the end of the 2AR/2NR (that is, what impacts do you have, how do they outweigh, and how do you uniquely access them?).
 * 2) Be clear. Do not mumble and do not speed-read incoherently. If the way you prefer to win rounds is merely by speaking fast, you probably shouldn't pref me because I probably won't be able to flow everything.
 * 3) I am flow-centric but have recently switched back to pen-and-paper flows. What I mean by "flow-centric" is that I make my decision based on my flow and how arguments interact with one another. If there is no clash or your speech is disorganized (no signposts, no cites, jumping from argument to argument, etc.), I am forced to intervene as judge and there is a good chance I will not view the debate the way you view it. This also means that overviews and the "paint a picture of the round" techniques help a lot if the debate gets messy.
 * 4) I care a lot about education, particularly in a way that challenges normative thinking. This also means I like analogies, metaphors, real-life examples, and general analytics as long as they make sense and draw connections rather than make assumptions. Also, expand and be specific; education doesn't mean the same thing nor is all education equal. What kind of education are you talking about? What kind of fairness?
 * 5) Speaker points: I like pop culture references and things that make me laugh. On the flip side, making me cringe on the cross-ex is not good. This means yelling, finger-pointing and unnecessary aggression.