Nguyen,+Tanya

Policy debater for 4 years at Roswell High School Haven't debated/judged since (except for a parli debate once, ugh), meaning that I'm a bit rusty and not too familiar with the resolution, so keep this in mind, but I still have a solid grasp of policy debate essentials. I tend toward the policymaker paradigm, so tell me why the plan is better/worse than the status quo. But I try not to be biased against Ks or theory if you give me ballot significance. Tell me WHY it's a prima facie issue and WHY something outweighs. I love impact calculus (give me probability, give me timeframe, give me magnitude, but make it COMPARATIVE. And solvency still matters) and hate timesucks. I would like to see clash, so actually make your args specifically answer the other team's args. Don't be lazy; instead of throwing cards at each other, take time to identify your opponents' logic gaps--'cause there are a lot of them in policy debate. Basically, I have some preferences just based on what I was like/what I encountered when I was a policy debater, but do what you want to do and tell me how to vote. Nothing here is set in stone; I'll vote for you if you're more convincing, even if I don't personally like your args.

Performance and K affs: I've never judged one of these, so I probably have a higher threshold for them, but more power to you if you're confident enough to run it. Topicality: It's a voting issue, but it's really not my favorite. Running 6 Ts (which happened to me once) will make me really skeptical. Disads: They're great. Establish a strong and clear link; I don't care about uniqueness as much. But get my attention with impact! Turns are awesome (straight impact turns were my jam). Ks: Ideally should have an alt. Make sure you know what you're saying; don't run Heidegger without actually understanding biopower. Ks are less interesting to me in general unless you can prove why they're specifically related to the aff's plan. And throwing out a bunch of cards doesn't always work even if the aff has only analytics to counter if they develop them well. Counterplans: PICs are annoying, and I never liked agent CPs too much (especially if the aff never even specified an agent), but I will definitely vote for a solid CP. Theory: Stay away from running theory unless abuse is actually happening, e.g., don't run discourse just to run discourse. I have found theory interesting, but make it so!

I don't like intervention, so don't assume I'll vote for you just because the other team dropped something important. It's on you to point out that they dropped it and tell me why that's a key argument. Same for extending or kicking out. Spreading is fine, but please always be clear and signpost--help me help you on the flow. Slow down on important stuff; it's your fault if you don't adjust your speed. Tag teaming is also fine, but we take turns on CX for a reason. If you tell me CX is binding, I'll buy it. Be civil; you don't have to say "ma'am" to me (please don't), but I will knock speaks for arrogance and unpleasantness to me or the other team. Shake hands with your opponents! Have fun! Make me miss policy debating!