Chen,+Emily

Glenbrook North High School - 2016

If you have any questions regarding my decision after a round or about my judge philosophy, please do not hesitate to email me at chenemily817@gmail.com

__**Overview**__ I evaluate the debate based on my flows. This means I believe tech will always come before truth in debates. In kritikal debates, I'll default to truth over tech. Please do not read into my judge philosophy too much. Do what you are best at, and I will do my best to evaluate the round objectively. If you are offensive or overly rude in the round, I will vote you down. I believe that debate should be a safe community for all debaters, and if you are being mean, I won't hesitate to punish you for it. Unless persuaded otherwise, I will default to an offense-defense paradigm. I don't like it when debaters spread at top speed because they have some pre-typed out block in front of them. I will deduct speaker points if I see that you are not flowing, not using your flow, or too dependent on blocks. I don't take prep for flashing. I'll call clear three times. After that, I'll stop flowing. If you show me your flows, and I believe they are good, I will give you at least a 28.7.

__**Kritikal Affs**__ I think these affs can be very interesting and well-debated. In fact, if I wasn't from GBN, I would probably run a kritikal AFF. You do have to say the world "oceans" at least once in the 1AC though. I am easily persuaded by exclusionary disads on framework.

__**Kritiks**__ I think kritiks can be interesting and fun. My favorites include Buddhism, Bataille, Death cult, Wilderson, Nietzsche, and all identity kritiks. I love them. Read them all.

__**Theory**__ Recently, I think being affirmative in debates is getting harder, as most people assume that being negative means you get to control the debate. Thus, I think the aff team can/should go for theory more.

__**Cheating**__ don't.

__**Cheating Counterplans**__ great. do.

__**Disads**__ Love them! My favorite 2NR is case+disad. 2AC's that undercover case should be punished. I feel that debaters do not do enough work on case debates. I believe that the AFF could win a debate solely based on impact calculus of why the case outweighs, but the NEG can also completely crush the AFF on case. In addition, I believe that debaters under-utilize analytics. If you make analytics in the 1NC on case, and the 2AC drops it, don't be afraid to go for the argument in the 2NR. Evidence is only meant to strengthen your argument, not to be your argument.

__**Speaker Points**__ Don't be mean to your opponents, don't be mean to your partner, don't be arrogant. I find that there is a fine line between sassy and mean, but if you are sassy/funny, then extra speaker points for you. Do what you are best at! If you're funny, be funny. If you're sassy, be sassy. I love sassy.