Zhang,+Kathie

Kritiks are non-unique disads.
 * Kritiks**

I only vote for non-unique disads.
 * Disads**

Debated policy at Phoenix Country Day School (AZ) four years. Second year judging, and I'm not a stellar flow, so clarity > speed, especially on tags. I don't like being forced to think—the more impact calculus/overviews, the better. //When the pen stops moving, I've stopped flowing; if it's not on the flow, it doesn't exist.//

My favorite arguments as a 2N were cap, consult/process CPs, and plan flaw. Our team had an expando for A-spec. I don't know if that gives you any idea of how I am as a judge. In terms of kritiks, I'm fairly familiar with security/fem, too, but anything beyond that will require very clear explanation. Don't expect me to know what the K jargon you use all the time means because I probably don't hear you debate all the time nor am I versed in Lacanian/Heideggerian/Foucaultian/ thought. T/theory has to be debated, not just extended, with proven (in-round) abuse.
 * Negative**

Note: I'll vote on "cheap-shot" arguments if dropped, because I think anything with a voter (and hopefully some standards) should be answered no matter how absurd. [Addendum: that being said, the word "voter" does not automatically make any argument a voter.]

I really dislike critical affirmatives (despite the fact my partner ran one in high school. Yay, Badiou.) But as long as you explain them well, deal with framework, and don't be //too// shady about no-linking out of everything they throw at you, you should probably be fine. I find that a lot of off-case debates lose the aff towards the end of the debate, but you spend eight minutes reading the aff. Leverage it.
 * Affirmative**

Prep theft bothers me. Excess tech prep bothers me (it should only take you about 2 seconds to drag and drop/save your speech on a flash drive, not 40.) Overt aggressiveness bothers me. Be tough, but play nice, or your speaker points will suffer. Also, mark your cards (it's easy to "forget" when debating paperless, but I absolutely do not tolerate card-clipping.)
 * Technicalities**

I don't give in-depth RFDs to people who look like they don't care. If you aren't taking notes/paying attention/asking questions at the end of the round, don't expect me to be detailed in my explanation of your loss/win. If you disagree with my decision, ask yourself first what more you could have done to win my ballot before going off on a tirade as to why I should have looked to X argument.

On evidence comparison: if I've resorted to this, something's either wrong or you all are such stellar debaters there's no other way for me to make my decision. It's usually not an issue of the latter. More likely there have been some shadow-extensions, and I have to read the evidence myself to see if there are warrants. Know that I'm a lazy judge, so I would prefer not to intervene in such a way.

E-mail me at kathie[dot]zhang[at]asu[dot]edu if you have any questions. I can e-mail you my flow/notes if you'd like.

2012-2013 edits are in grey.