Chou,+Joanna

Debated at Santa Margarita Catholic High School as a 2n/1a and briefly as a 2a/1n 5 Years experience on the National Circuit in Policy

Worked at the UTNIF this summer, but my experience on this topic only goes about that far.

I will do my best to limit the amount that my predispositions influence my evaluation of the round. The final two rebuttals should write my ballot for me, teams that accurately break the round down and are reasonable about what they are and are not winning will usually be rewarded with increased speaker points.

**Evidence:** While I place a premium on quality evidence, I believe that a smart analytic argument has the potential to gain equal traction to a solid piece of evidence. Quality always trumps quantity.

**CX:** I think that CX is incredibly important. I keep track of it and think that most debaters misuse their time and often forget to utilize arguments made in CX during their speech. I also think that debates can be won and lost in cx, so please utilize it carefully.

**Theory:** Theory needs to be well executed. Debates in which theory blocks do the arguing usually favor the neg.

**Non-Traditional Affs:** I think that the aff should to be about the resolution. The aff’s relationship to that resolution is up for debate. I rolled with a Kritikal aff for most of my debate career, but don't assume that I know your argument as intimately as you do, because I probably don't. That being said, please make it clear what your affirmative is about, why I should care about it, and why you should win the debate.

**FW:** I actually enjoy FW debates and can easily vote for either side, the best piece of advice I can give in these debates is to explain what your vision of debate looks like, convince me to live in your world.

**Kritiks:** Kritiks were my favorite arguments in high school. I went for them a grand majority of my time as a 2n, specifically Afro-Pessimism, Anti-blackness, Model Minority, and Chen. However, please don't run a kritik for the sake of running a kritik! While I really enjoy these debates, I do need clash and comparison of aff/neg worlds and what the alternative means. Also, I feel like high school debate often neglects the potential and actual weight of links as independent arguments and integral parts to each kritik.

**CPs/DAs:** I love a good, well-researched, specific strategy. The more generic your strategy becomes, the greater the chance of me assigning an extremely low risk to these arguments.

In general, my philosophy is tech>truth unless i am convinced otherwise. Be polite to everyone in the round, flashing isn't prep, time your own speeches/prep, don't say "conceded" when they didn't actually concede something, speed is fine, slow down on tags/cites, jokes will get you extra speaks, and have fun! Excessive/intentional racial slurs, jokes in bad taste, misgendering, ableist slurs, and rudeness to your partner/the other team will result in lower speaker points. Add me to the email chain please! joanna.chou2017@gmail.com