Lim,+Sarah

Northwestern '18 Interlake '14


 * Stanford 2016 Update:** Well-executed jokes about computer science, Zach Rosenthal, Debnil Sur, and Adam Pease shall be richly rewarded.

I debated 3 years for Interlake HS and briefly for Northwestern. While I judged and coached quite actively on the oceans topic, I am now largely removed from the activity. I was a lab leader at the 2015 Northwestern camp, but I don't know how the topic has evolved since then. I'm also a CS major, so tech over truth except for truth about tech -- I think AI/superintelligence scenarios, anything related to the Turing test, etc. are p silly.
 * Background:**

__** Don't be an asshole!!!!!!!!!!! **__, respect your opponents and the game, and **read whatever** arguments you can execute most effectively. Debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and I appreciate intelligent debating far more than I value any particular argument set. Throughout my short career I've researched, gone for, and voted for pretty much every category of arg, and I will evaluate the round according to the presented frameworks. 1
 * Meta:**

I care more about **evidence quality** than most judges. You must substantiate your core claims with good ev. I think HS debate has an ev quality crisis, and I'll reward good research. You can have the spin of a GOP-senator-turned-used-car-salesman, but if your 1AC internal link evidence is a speculative Blogger post from 2007 with every sixth word highlighted, womp.

I'm pretty **protective of the 2NR** in general, but especially in K debates where 2AR extrapolation can get egregious. If the 1AR doesn't extend a warrant, the 2AR doesn't get to spend a minute elaborating on the claim.

Should affirm a contestable claim germane to (and in the direction of) the resolution. Critical affs can be some of my favorites to judge, provided there's a **resolutional advocacy and room for clash**; what constitutes "contestable" is obviously up for debate, and I can definitely be persuaded that good preparation lends itself to better debates. Saying you are a // prerequisite // to the topic does not mean you // are // topical. Affs without plantexts get permutations by default, so please have this debate.
 * Affs/FW/etc.:**

Form vs content is tricky. To me, //some// things could be plausibly categorized as one or the other (e.g. spreading, performative medium == form; agenda DA, afropessimism K == content). However, I think the two are largely co-constitutive, so I've always found it difficult to draw a hard division. This matters mostly for framework and T debates, but I didn't know where else to put it.

One or two well-explained permutations > spamming random perms.

**Aff conditionality bothers me** -- be consistent and clear about the 1AC; the neg should exploit the aff's failures to do so.

I think these should be **opportunity costs**. The direction of the **link probably controls uniqueness**. Basic probability theory can meaningfully decrease the risk of a terminal impact, particularly with multiple questionable internal links.
 * Disadvantages:**


 * Counterplans:**
 * Solvency deficits must be impacted and quantified**. It will be difficult to convince me that a CP that does the entirety of the plan's mandate is competitive; "immediacy" and "certainty" are not necessarily mandates of the plan simply because you have an interpretation of "should" that says so. I will judge kick if you tell me to do so in the 2NR.

It's a voting issue and outweighs conditionality. I am strongly persuaded by education arguments and believe **the literature base/real-world manifestation of surveillance policy should drive the contours of the topic**.
 * Topicality vs policy affs:**

I reject the argument and not the team, unless it’s conditionality and/or you can prove why the negative violation affected the rest of the debate. Conditionality is probably good, although **internal contradictions are probably bad** and should be impacted accordingly.
 * Theory:**

Done right, this is my favorite debate to adjudicate. You should absolutely not feel compelled to adapt on this basis. I would rather hear a great policy debate than a "meh" K round, and I have a **relatively high threshold for execution and explanation** of critical arguments, particularly alternatives.
 * Kritiks:**

1) To quote Patrick Kennedy's philosophy, "I am interested in learning some things, but **I am not interested in [|deciphering incoherent nonsense]**. I am not a nihilist, and I think 'things' are generally better than 'not things.' Ontology critiques are very interesting, for example, when articulated effectively. If you want to read the script of Dude, Where's My Car and claim it was an ontological critique, I don't think you want me to judge you. I guess you could win, but I think I hate you."

2) Interested as I might be in alternative forms of knowledge production, you must **win //why// those forms of knowledge production are good** within a particular context. I will not vote "just because" something is nebulously "disruptive," nor will I vote because of //who// someone is, or anything that has occurred outside of the debate.

3) With identity-based positions, self-awareness is crucial: **debaters should be cognizant of their social location as it relates to their arguments**. Know the distinction between commodification and deploying a structural criticism.

4) **Affect matters for speaker points**. I am not terribly enamored with poststructuralist criticisms of identity as levied by non-marginalized individuals, and can be pretty persuaded by "view from nowhere" as a response. However, this is really dependent on execution -- yeah, Continental white d00dthoughts can easily come across as affectively displeasing, but the theories themselves are almost never intrinsically offensive. It is completely possible to read these arguments without sounding like Trumpdrillard, and we won't have a problem.

//The aforementioned caveats are designed to kick in for 85% of K debates. If you're good at what you do, don't overthink it. The highest points I have ever given were for the death K, so who even knows.//

Unless you have a substantive critique of "flow-gocentrism," **line by line is super important.** Likewise for clarity.
 * Stylistic:**
 * Confident, kind, and assertive knowledgeability** is far more compelling to me than sassy or smug affect. Perhaps most importantly, __all debate is a performance__. Whether you're delivering a narrative about your own experiences or defending hegemony, be aware of your performative style, its impacts, and its relation to your argument content.

Micro- and macro-aggressions will not be tolerated.

In closing: **if you work hard, I will work hard for you**. Arbitrary divides between "policy" and "K" debates, reductionist and derisive labels like "project teams," and unneeded hostility only serve to fracture what can be a truly great community full of fallible individuals doing their best. There are some remarkable folks in debate; please make it the kind of place that keeps those people coming back.

1 With that said, many judges are secretly human, and have likes and dislikes. Here are mine, with the caveat that __your educational experience should supersede my inane whims__: - Such as the Security K - Critical affs with creative, specific plans, material impacts, and nuanced alternative framing arguments - Super technical K debaters - Smart / nice folks || - "White boy Wilderson" and variations thereof (see "Kritiks") - Poststructuralist K's of identity deployed disrespectfully/without nuance (also a grey area; see "Kritiks") || - Derive ethos from being mean/cocky/snarky - Attribute a statistically-significant portion of your wins to the argument that death is good (distinct from "fear of death bad") - See a structural violence 1AC and reach for the Nietzsche expandos with glee ||
 * Footnotes:**
 * **I like:** || **I'm "eh" about:** || **Pref me lower if you:** ||
 * - Arguments grounded in social pyschological theory/behavioral science