Zhang,+Selena

i keep a more updated paradigm on tabroom, which you can find [|here]

earlier: selena zhang fairview high school (boulder, co) ’17 uc berkeley ’21

i debated two years of policy in high school and currently debate for cal. email chains, g-chats, questions, anything: selena.zhang17@gmail.com

__**some general things:**__
 * i was very policy oriented in high school; however, since debating in college, i have become more open and familiar with kritiks and other styles of progressive debate. thus, run anything and everything, but tell me why you win.
 * clarity over speed. clarity with speed is great as well. some arguments are more important than others and thus deserve more clarity.
 * tech vs. truth: i slightly favor tech, but both hold similar weight in the round.
 * open cross-ex is fine; do not let your partner carry you. flashing/emailing does not count as prep unless it becomes excessive.
 * do not clip cards. if the other team points it out and has proof to back up their claim, i will subsequently drop you.
 * engage with the other side's arguments-do not solely rely on blocks to carry you through the round.
 * there is a line between being assertive and being rude. do not cross that line.

__**thoughts on specific arguments:**__ __**case:**__ i love case debates. i am a huge fan of ones that have more than just impact defense in the block, and it is so unfortunate that i do not get to see that very often.

__**counterplans:**__ are generally good if they are well researched. i am not against any specific counterplans, but if you do choose to go for ones that are considered to be somewhat illegitimate and/or abusive, be ready to thoroughly defend them.

__**disads:**__ are great. i especially like case specific ones that have a strong link chain. impact calculus is important.


 * __kritiks:__** i love them. i am relatively well-versed in some of the more common kritiks, but i am not very familiar with some of the hyperspecific k's on this year's topic. it would be in your best interest to explain and contextualize your k to me. i love it when you have a very specific link and the thesis of your k highlights the truth of the 1ac. i have a high threshold for kritiks, so if you do not have a strong understanding of the literature and the theory behind it, do not run it. alt solvency is important, but you do not need to win the alt in order to win the k. you just need to prove that the aff is bad. flesh out the link debate and the perm debate. provide a clear framework of how i should evaluate the round.

__**k affs/nontraditional affs:**__ a lot of what was written above is applicable to here. i would prefer that your aff is somewhat relevant to the topic, and unless you are able to clearly show me why you deserve to win with an untopical aff, i am more inclined to vote negative on these. performance affs are great, but affs that carry their performance beyond the 1ac are even better. make sure you have good framework answers.

__**theory:**__ theory is fine. however, i usually do not vote on it because the arguments and impacts are not fleshed out very well, which makes these types of rounds incredibly painful to judge. conditionality is okay.

__**topicality:**__ i genuinely love a good t debate, but i do have a high threshold for it. i would much rather prefer to see t brought up throughout the debate as opposed to purely concentrated at the 2nr as a last ditch attempt. competing interpretations are usually the best. tell me why you win on t.

__**speaker points:**__ my scale is relative to the tournament that i am judging at. other than that, my thoughts on speaker points do not differ much from everyone else’s. in general, i add points for clear and well-developed arguments, and i subtract them for unclear/offensive arguments or bad cx. roast any cal debater in good taste and i will boost your points by 0.2.

__**judging ld:**__ personally, i have very little experience competing in ld, and have judged a few rounds at various tournaments. with that, pref me as you see fit.

most of what i wrote above is highly applicable to ld, especially at the circuit level. however, please do what you do best: if you are not very familiar with policy-style arguments, do not run them in an attempt to please me. adapting to your judge is important, but i think that good debaters should be able to win with their own style regardless of the person they are debating in front of. i like impacts, but i am also down to judge a good traditional framework debate as well.

__update 2-4-18:__ since i will probably be judging more ld rounds at stanford and in the future, i thought it would be necessary for me to expand on this section more. i understand most of the distinctions between ld and policy, but not all. i naturally will not be as familiar with arguments that are not commonly run in policy. that being said, this does not entirely mean that i will be a bad judge for you. if you are willing to do a little more explaining and contextualizing of your ld-type arguments in the round, it will be immensely helpful for me and allow me to make a more warranted decision, resulting in a better debating experience for everybody involved. please do communicate with me if you have further questions.