Chen,+Jackie

Jackie Chen Debated 4 years at Westwood HS Debated 2 years at Dartmouth College Updated 2/13/17

I have pretty extensive debate experience at the college level (national tournaments and NDT), but I haven't been actively involved for a few years. I have judged at a fair number of tournaments in the past, but have not seen any rounds on this topic. So, try not to assume much background knowledge - take the time to explain any acronyms or details of a given policy. In college, I mostly read policy arguments (defended a plan, usually went for disads/counterplans/case).

Topicality - I find reasonability to be pretty persuasive. Negatives should argue competing interpretations in the context of limits rather than ground. I generally feel that the aff should defend some kind of substantive change from the status quo related to engagement with China. I don't think you necessarily have to defend the USFG, as long as you have a well warranted and specific reason why the topical version of the aff doesn't solve.

Kritiks - If an argument doesn't make sense to me, I am not likely to vote for it. By the end of the 2NR, I should be able to articulate the thesis of the K and how it engages with the aff. I am pretty comfortable with the Cap K/Security K/variations of these, but have generally been unimpressed with arguments like Baudrillard.

Counterplans - I like the CP+DA strategy a lot; process/consult/delay/etc CPs not so much. PICs that are super specific to the aff are great, but I find there are often problems with competition based on exactly what the aff chooses to defend from the plan text. Good explanations of the permutation often tip the question of theoretical competition in favor of the aff.

Theory - Most violations are reasons to reject the argument, rather than the team (except for conditionality). I have a high threshold on voting against a team solely for things like 'severance perms' or 'PICs bad'. I find impact comparison to be more persuasive than line-by-line tech on theory issues.