Huang,+Sara

Bronx High School of Science '15

=**__SHORT__ version:** (read this if you're in a pinch and don't have much time)= I am open to everything. I like to have the debate set out the way it wants to turn out in the round from two teams. Debate it all out, and make sure I can understand what your argument is/what you are trying to get at during the whole round. I value strategy above all else in debate--I can tell if you're thinking strategically because I am a pretty strategic person myself and can tell when you are articulating something that has a hidden purpose (especially in rebuttals/second constructive speeches). To give you an example, it'd be strategic to go for a horrible theory argument but as long as you impact and sustain it throughout the whole round with no sufficient answer from the opposing team, I will buy your argument over all the others in the round and give you higher speaker points. I do buy theory, as I don't really believe in who "debates better," because whoever has the "better strategic plan" usually "debates better." Be confident, don't give up, and do your best! :)

=__**LONG**__ version: (I suggest reading this and the short version if you have enough time)= __**NEG:**__ Given that I was (and still am) a 2N, I am generally a little bit more biased towards this side. I do shed substantial light on the 2NR speech, because I really do think that is the hardest speech of all. That being said, I do protect the 2NR by default. Telling me that would give you higher speaks. Since the negative can mess around with the aff, I do have certain thresholds for negative arguments.
 * __AFF:__ Defend the hell outta your plan/case/advocacy/performance.** There's nothing I like to see better than an affirmative team who sticks with and upholds their plan throughout the whole debate round. Using the aff to answer everything is always a good strategy, one that I really like. I do give the aff some leeway in the 1AR by default in answering the neg team, but you have to be persuasive about it. Make sure you got it all down in the 2AR.

Tech/Truth/Evidence:

 * I do believe that tech is the surest and most fair way for me to evaluate arguments.
 * Extending something throughout the whole round is often most strategic and I will weigh it more heavily over the other arguments if you can articulate it well enough for me to listen to and understand.
 * I also think that there's shady analytics for clearly badly cut cards/bad evidence you are trying to use (if you are going to in the round).

Framework (Aff/Neg):

 * I have a default policy framework in the beginning of the round because the activity is called, after all, //**policy**// debate. This might make me a minority since most teams are no longer policy, but rather performance and other left-wing type plans.
 * My framework stays policy unless you tell me otherwise, which happens most of the time nowadays. You should state clearly how I am going to vote and what I should take into account when I use your way of viewing the round.
 * I am skeptical about framework if it's not emphasized significantly and will leave it on the side because that just shows me you can throw around technical terms without actually using/understanding the implications of your framework or your whole framework in general.
 * I will vote on framework if I can relate to it, if you can explain it well enough, and if you can address why your framework is better than the other team's.
 * I don't evaluate framework ever on 'multiple worlds' (even though that's a theory argument and I love theory) if your framework for one argument clearly or even slightly contradicts the other. It's not strategic and you will definitely lose.
 * Role of the ballot is a good way to secure the vote.
 * Role of the judge is even better.
 * I like framework arguments geared towards increasing knowledge, education, etc. Fairness is okay but not as punchy as the former two.

Non-traditional (Aff/Neg):

 * Fine with me. If you are critiquing injustices, it should be creative. I especially love nontraditional arguments that closely relate to me/my beliefs (e.g., feminism, sexism, Asian-Americans, etc.). Please be super passionate about debating these kinds of nontraditional arguments that relate to me--I will definitely give you high speaks and ranks if you do it good in these speeches.
 * That's not saying I completely reject other types of kritikal injustices (i.e., quare feminism, black body, etc.). Run whatever you want, really. I really don't mind and I'm okay with it.
 * What I mean by //far left// is poetry, music, personal narratives, or anything that doesn't have you speaking for the **whole** constructive speech/rebuttals. I'm alright with them although I do not like these very much and I think that these make the whole topic of policy debate for the year irrelevant and destroys the purpose of policy debate or even a topic there in the first place.
 * I'm not saying completely don't run one in front of me, but you should just be wary that I am very very very skeptical about these kinds of arguments and I can tell when you obviously don't know what you're arguing for. If you're really passionate about your case, I'll take that into consideration when I'm judging.
 * Just because you're not a traditional-type debater doesn't mean you can just not actually debate; you still have to do the line-byline, answer arguments, etc. If you neglect doing this, I might hold this against you.
 * If on neg, I think that if I don't know what your argument or non-traditional advocacy is talking about, or what the round is even about anymore, I kind of have to automatically defer aff because I don't see a reason to negate, so I affirm. Same with vice-versa.
 * I also feel like these kinds of arguments are inherently contradictory and don't really solve for anything at best because of all the psychological and methodological processes that are going on, but by all means, persuade me if you think otherwise.

Kritik:

 * Totally fine. I do try to be unbiased as possible towards race/other touchy arguments but if you can get to me, I'm all yours.
 * I honestly think that if you're hitting against a K aff, you should definitely run a K against it. It's seriously the best strategic move.
 * I think running Ks is a pretty strategic move because it combines counterplan elements and disad elements together in one whole big argument so you don't have to run separate arguments, leading to conditionality theory arguments and whatnot on top of defending two arguments combined into one.
 * I have a very high threshold for this argument because it is two arguments combined into one, so double the standard. You must be able to know what you are talking about in the Kritik; it's very easy to tell when you don't know what it's talking about because you will link yourself to your own K. Defend all parts of the K--whether it be framework, the link, the impact, or the alt--make sure that each part is covered. If I find one element faulty, or lacking in depth that the other team catches, that signals a red flag in your direction.
 * Connect the K with the aff. Link it well. A strategic move would be to focus on the link story with the alt, and using impact as a framework.
 * Permutations are your worst enemy and a test of the alt--make it clear to me what/how the perm works or severs in a debate round. Show that you know what your alt does and why it can't function equally along with the aff.
 * For example, if the aff can win that even the slightest permutation is possible in their world/interpretation of how it can work, then I automatically vote aff because if there is even the slightest risk/chance (e.g., 0.0000000001%) that perm solves, then that means that the aff wins all solvency for the K.
 * I'm very impressed if the neg can get perm out of the way completely in the 2NR. :)
 * Do a good job of analyzing the affirmative--at the end of the day, I shouldn't have to do guesswork to know what the aff does if you show me through your K and say how their methodology/ontology/discourse is bad.

Counterplan:

 * Perfectly fine.
 * Make sure to explain well how the CP solves and the differences between the aff and your counter-advocacy.
 * Net-benefits aren't necessary but are always a plus.
 * I'm a big fan of CP theory unlike most other judges--these arguments tend to be the most strategic and if you can debate it well, I'm buying it.
 * Pay attention to the plan text--a lot of times, teams will sever out of your solvency through just the text alone. If you catch this, I will be impressed.

Disad:

 * Yup, perfectly fine. Not much commentary here because they're pretty much the basics of what a neg team has and completely acceptable.
 * Make sure the link is clear and you're goooood.
 * Just do impact calc, answer arguments, and yeah, you'll be okay!

Topicality:

 * Fine. Haha, this type of argument honestly bores me (but that doesn't mean you can't run it!). It's just all about English, grammar, the way words work, etc. I do think this argument is undervalued a LOT, especially since it's strategic in that it's a prerequisite, so I need to evaluate this argument first, and it also combines theory elements into an argument so that it's "legitimate."
 * The kind of 'topicality' that some people call with switch-side debate/dialogue/etc, I call framework, so look on that section for what I think about it.
 * Conditionality is really strategic on the aff side. :) But neg can handle it just as well if you can do it right!
 * Do use theory more than the other parts of T (e.g., interpretation/standards/voters) because I am a theory-oriented judge and will give consideration to your voting issues if you can address it well enough.

Theory:

 * Surprisingly, I like theory. Most other judges don't but I love the strategy behind theoretical arguments, since I believe that the **science of debate** works in how the rules are set by opposing teams. So please run all the theory you want; run them all! ^O^
 * Do impact your arguments on condo or any other type of theory argument for that matter, I flow theory arguments very well.
 * I evaluate theory arguments first (with the exception of ethics) over all other arguments because without equity and justice, I don't think the debate can even happen in the first place, which is a voting issue.
 * It's a prerequisite, like T, 'nuff said.

Ethics:

 * This comes first before any other circumstances. If you seriously or righteously believe that the other team is being extremely unfair, please tell me. I don't bite!
 * I am a bit of a stickler for the rules, so if you hand me any evidence supporting your charge, whether it be on the flash drive, files, a recording, dishonesty, etc., the round will stop right there and I will judge whether or not you deserve to lose.
 * I don't believe in "we had no intention of doing this, it was an accident, etc." Cheating is cheating, I will vote against you if you did it, even if it was an accident, unconsciously or not. (Sorry.) Don't shame yourself, please. I won't judge you for it, nor think any lower of you than if you didn't, but you shouldn't do it, no matter the reason.
 * Losing the debate round is better than losing ethically.
 * If you know you are going to lose the round when you walk in the room for whatever reason, but still debate it out, that's impressive. It takes some guts to put up a fight. I'd honestly much rather have you debate it all out than give the opposing team an easy win (forfeit). I think losing is always better than forfeiting the round or conceding the ballot for a discussion because at least you didn't let them have the easy way out and made it a little bit harder for them to win, even though you know the outcome.
 * But honestly, if you don't face them, you'll never get better, so it's better to just hit them even if you know you're gonna lose. You never know, so do the best you can!

Cross-ex:

 * I enjoy sassy cross-ex but don't overdo it. Don't be overtly rude/assertive and just be confident. I do listen to cross-ex to try to understand your arguments better so try your best to make them clear to me. I like questions that make the other team silent/hesitant for a while.
 * Yup, open cross-ex is fine; just try not to over-dominate too much.

Prep:

 * I'm keeping track because I don't want you to steal prep. That'd be unfair and abusive.
 * Stealing prep is a no-no!
 * The prep doesn't end until the flash drive leaves your computer. That way, you don't stall and I'll have more time to give feedback/decide.

Speaker Points:

 * Facing me is a plus (esp. during cross-ex since it feels a bit weird to face me when you're addressing the other team).
 * Having confidence throughout--even though you may not know your evidence at all (or not well), don't know what you're doing, don't know what to do, etc.--is **always** a plus. I will give you high speaks if you keep it up the whole round and don't lose confidence. (Fake it till you make it!)
 * Knowing your evidence clearly is very good. Putting on a show is even better.
 * I'm generally really nice when it comes to speaker points. :)
 * My default is a 27.5.

If you have any other questions that aren't answered on this page, just ask! You can email me at sarahuang158@gmail.com for anything (RFDs, voting process, school, life, college admissions, etc.)!