Wong,+Melissa


 * Name** Melissa Wong
 * Affiliation** Senior at Lexington High School

Have fun. Do what you like. Be happy and I’ll be happy. I am really lazy and will try and take the least interventionist way out. (There's more on that under the impact calculus and framing section if you want.) I have a terrible poker face, so look at me if you want to know how I’m reacting. If I stop flowing, you should probably change something. Don’t steal prep (prep stops when the jump drive leaves the computer). Don’t be mean. Don’t cheat. Don’t clip cards. (See the bottom clipping section for more details.) Good luck! Go fight win!
 * Overview**

Some parts of this wiki are stolen from Sara Sanchez because I agree with them wholeheartedly/am too lazy to type them out myself. Some parts of this wiki are also stolen from Katie Fraser more because we talked about our wikis a lot and therefore agree on wording/nuance. Also, she stole some of my stuff without crediting me, so it's ok.
 * Credits**

What follows is just a list of prior biases I might have. This is not to say I will never go against anything I’ve written here, this is more of a warning.
 * Specific Stuff**

“Impact calculus and comparison is your friend. I cannot stress this enough. I'm routinely surprised by the number of quality rounds I judge where each team is weighing their impacts but no one is weighing their impacts vis a vis the other team. It is not enough to explain your scenario for solving/avoiding war, explain to me why that matters in the context of the other team's genocide impact.
 * Impact Calculus and Framing**

I would like you to be the driving questions of impact calculus and framing. I prefer to be reading your evidence through the lens you have set up in round. You should be telling me what your evidence says and why it matters. This means I probably give a little more weight to spin than some judges, you should be calling out bad ev that is being mischaracterized if you want me to read it. Obviously, I have (and will) read evidence on questions that have not adequately been fleshed out in round when it’s necessary, but now you are held accountable for my understanding of the card, which may, or may not, have been on the flow. So please, weigh those issues for me, and we’ll all be happy.” -Sara Sanchez

Apparently I hack for the K. If that means I think a lot of K arguments are true and decently compelling, sure, I hack. (I guess, compared to the rest of Lex, that counts as hacking.) HOWEVER, if you’re running Virillio, HTriv, overly generic Ks, Ks with five minute long prewritten overviews, Ks whose links are only links of omission, and Ks that assert jargon as arguments instead of using jargon to make arguments, you will get lower speaks and will be less likely to get my ballot than if you do lots of analysis specific to the aff and actually answer the line by line. On the aff, the same thing applies – spitting generic “reject the K” frameworks and perms are not going to get you as far as specific answers would. That being said, I’m not a ton into the literature, so if I don’t understand your K by the 2NR, I won’t read your evidence to figure it out. One caveat – if you’re a big race team, I’m probably not the judge for you. I don’t have anything against the arguments themselves necessarily, just the way they’re run today.
 * Kritiks**

Apparently my threshold for theory is lower than most. This is probably because I’m lazy. More specifically, my threshold for the standards debate is probably lower than average, BUT my threshold for the voters debate is higher than that. Obviously, the exception to that is conditionality. Implication – you should not theory dump in front of me unless absolutely necessary – I’ll hate it and your speaker points will reflect that. I'm going to say that one more time so it really sinks in. It is relatively easy to get me to vote on theory, BUT I WILL HATE YOU FOR IT. If you want me to vote for you on theory, you have to clearly articulate an internal link chain and impact your arguments well – just saying theory is a voter for fairness and education isn’t enough. If you don’t want me to vote against you on theory, don’t leave any outs – answer every argument on the line by line.
 * Theory**

I will default to reasonability unless the debate tells me to do otherwise. That being said, it will be very difficult for me to vote for you unless you have an interpretation. Because of Ken Strange reasons, I tend to like limits claims better than other standards, especially generic breadth over depth/breadth over depth, but that can change if you debate it well. The stuff in the theory section applies here – If you want me to vote for you, articulate an internal link chain and impact your arguments well – just saying topicality is a voter for fairness and education isn’t enough. (Minor caveat – if it’s dropped, I’ll be more ok with a skimpier T debate, but it would be nice if you could still impact it a little. "If the aff drops T and you don’t extend your standards, you have also functionally dropped T too and I ignore it." -Katie Fraser)
 * Topicality**

"Presumption goes to the least change from the status quo – that means the aff doesn’t have to win a net benefit to the permutation if there actually is zero risk of a net benefit The block doesn’t get new Ks, CPs, DAs, or Impact turns (an exception is [to answer new] 2ac impacts). I have voted on them but it makes me very, very sad …don’t do it. That being said, obviously evidence can and should be read up through the 1ar, and possibly in the 2nr if it is in response to new 1ar cards. Conditionality means I can kick the CP/K alt for you unless otherwise specified in the debate." -Katie Fraser
 * Random**

I was a 2A that turned 2N…whatever that means. (I guess it means I totally get 2AR terrorism because the 1AR is hard and 2AR terrorism is fun, but I also get how hard it is to give a 2NR.)

“I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the subpoints of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. ... If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round. ...
 * Clipping**

Clipping: I am disturbed that the number of clipping incidents seems to be on the rise and that there appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes clipping. Card clipping, is failing to read sections of the card without marking audibly during the speech and on the speech doc (or on paper, if you are not paperless). It can be definitively determined by recording the speech and playing it back with the speech doc. It is an ethical violation and if proven will result in zero speaker points for the debater(s) who have clipped cards and the loss. If an accusation occurs I will stop the round, ask for proof, and make a determination about the accusation at that point in the round. That decision will determine who wins the round. … I reserve the right to adjust the policy according to circumstances (i.e. accidental clipping in a novice round is different than clipping in a senior varsity debate).” -Sara Sanchez

Note about clipping – this is Woodward. You should know better. If it is clear that this is your first tournament ever, I might be lenient, but really you all should know better.