Lin,+Alice

I competed in parli in high school and am now in my fourth year of NPDA college parli (stylistically similar to high school policy) at UC Berkeley. I have judged LD and sometimes policy sporadically the past three years, but have not judged this year yet.

I will not necessarily be familiar with the topic literature and the authors of philosophical arguments, so adjust accordingly. You should reference a card by the tagline or specific content you want me to look at, not just the author.

Please read any texts or interps more slowly and repeat them to allow for typing time (theory interps, plan texts, alt texts)

LD LIVING WAGE TOPIC SPECIFIC: I'm an econ major and am quite familiar with the economic literature on minimum wage, having just wrote a fairly long term paper on the subject. Specifically knowledgeable on the effects on small businesses and the effects of the tipped minimum wage. Possible related areas of economics that I am also familiar with include income inequality, unionization, taxes, and anti-poverty (welfare) programs. I am comfortable evaluating the econometric (methodological) basis of evidence if it is brought up in round. Correct and nuanced knowledge of economics will earn you extra speaks. Misusing terms of art will result in my confusion and possibly annoyance.

THEORY/KRITIKS: Be sure to explain the function of the argument clearly if it is specific to the format of LD/policy (e.g. I am not familiar with the implications of speech times, CX, in-round prep, norms regarding evidence/disclosure, etc.). I have a higher threshold on RVIs, though I will vote on it if it is dropped or severely undercovered. I default competing interpretations unless argued otherwise. Please repeat interps and counter-interps.

KRITIKS: On critical arguments, if you are reading a more unusual kritik, go slower and be clear. For LD, please explain how your framework interacts with the AFF framework. Don't assume that I have read the literature for the critical argument. I am more familiar with critical literature about gender, race, and postcolonial theory.

DECISION CALCULUS: Unless told otherwise, I will assume that the V/C prioritizes certain arguments over others, but does not necessarily exclude any arguments. I am most familiar with evaluating under util/net benefits, so you should do extra work if you're running another framework to explain the implication of framework arguments on the specific arguments in the round. Please explain to me how to evaluate side-constraints, duties, etc. if you would like me to exclude specific arguments.

Ethical debates will be more difficult for me to evaluate. I am less familiar with the literature and how to resolve this level of the debate, so explain the function of arguments explicitly. The most straightforward round for me to evaluate will be when the AFF runs a plan text and the NEG defends the squo / a competitive policy option / a kritik. I am comfortable with K affs, though the more it deviates from a straight-up case, the more explanation I'll need. I don't have much experience with performative debate, but am open to it. All that said, you should probably still just do what you do best rather than running a strat you're unfamiliar with to adapt to my preferences.

SPEED:　I can understand up to moderate-fast speed, but you should slow down when reading more complex theorists or when making more intricate arguments. I probably can't flow comfortably top speed in LD right now and it is a good idea to build up to high speeds because I will miss framework arguments or other arguments you make at the top if you start out at max speed. A general benchmark is that I probably cannot understand top speed in the 1AC/1NC when reading off cards, but I can on analytics / in later speeches.

I will say slow or clear if I can’t understand you up to 2 times, and stop flowing if it continues. Clear does not mean slow down, but slow down if you can't be clearer at your current speed. I will say slow if you are too fast for me. Signpost and be structured. If it’s not on my flow, I won’t vote on it.

SPEAKS: Usually I give between 27-29. I like smart arguments.