Nguyen,+Kathy

4 years policy debate at Roswell High School, Georgia (2A, 1N) now coach/judge for Debaters Rhode Island

When I was a debater, I preferred policy DAs (wasn't a huge fan of politics myself but I'll def vote on them and they can generate good clash) and CPs and impacts/(case) turns with specific scenarios, but Ks are obviously fine too (especially if they have viable alts), though if they're not standard and more obscure, I may not be very familiar with them. I usually like more concrete link args over vague uniqueness claims, but that's just in general.

T/Theory are cool, but I'm rusty on the advanced specifics. M ost convincing or at least interesting T violations are extra/effects or of course actually blatantly abusive ones plus solid standards (which you can neatly use in the theory debate) -- A/OSPEC rarely win unless just unanswered or dropped. Running more than one T is kind of lame. I have never voted on a RVI because I don't find them persuasive. I am by default okay with condo, perms as competition, and functional > textual exclusivity, and I am getting more into fiat debates for international/agent/consult vs. aff. I almost always grant aff at least 1% solvency threshold compared to status quo.

I'm not a story judge: emotional-appeal anecdotes without context don't really do anything for me. What wins my vote are elegant logic (including analytics and calc!) and strong offense/defense strategy fundamentals. Point out if you think it's important they dropped something; otherwise for me it goes away and doesn't factor into my decision. Overviews -- particularly "even if"s -- in the rebuttals are nice but not strictly necessary, especially in the 1AR.

I'm learning more about performance despite initial skepticism, but I'm not well versed, so please make sure to give me (and weigh) the role of the ballot and explain your methodology. Outside of debate I care rather a lot about critical theory discussion, especially on race, so I will probably hold you to higher standards for those types of arguments than for, say, econ (even though I studied that too). If your framework is about meaningful discourse, you need to know what you're talking about. Don't assume I will just buy your buzzwords without warrants.

Obviously, higher speaks for clean reverse pyramid debate flows -- giving and following roadmaps, signposts, consistent labeling, etc. -- well-timed speeches, efficiently used prep and blocks, intelligently split neg blocks, well-executed kicking out with relevant concessions, creative cross applications, real extensions, etc.

Reasonable spreading is all right as long as you are clear/organized so I can follow you. Lower speaks for extreme, high-pitched speed yelling with weird breathing -- you know what I'm talking about.

No racist/(cis)sexist language.

Being mean (calling the other team stupid, being snide during CX) just makes you look bad and will also hurt your speaks.

Lower speaks for unequal partnership and abusing open CX.

Humor okay, as long as it's not dumb.

Flashing to your own partner = prep time.

I may nod my head or raise my eyebrows or whatever, but I would advise against attempting to read my expressions.

Have fun, and shake hands with the other team after.