Min,+Kathy

Centennial High School, Class of 2017 Yale University, Class of 2021


 * About me:** I competed in policy debate for all four years of high school at a public school in Boise, Idaho, but I don't plan on continuing in the college circuit. I was the 2N for all but my freshman year, and my team was incredibly small and underfunded. In my senior year, my partner and I got a bid and made it to a couple bid rounds reading straight up arguments, so perhaps that will give you an idea of where I am as a judge.


 * 1. Kritiks:** This is the area of debate I am least familiar with. This means if you want to read these arguments, I will need more explanation (and not buzzwords/terms of art because I probably do not know the literature); as with most other arguments, use examples and keep my flows clean. I am most familiar with, for lack of a better term, "traditional" Ks like cap, fem, and race, while my understanding of postmodern/high theory arguments is extremely limited.


 * 2. Topicality & Theory:** These are some of my favorite arguments in debate. Even if they are read for the time tradeoff, I appreciate debaters who will read them at a flowable speed, engage the other team's standards with comparative analysis, and frame their arguments strategically – as opposed to spreading through their blocks as quickly as possible, repeating their standards, and restating links without impacts and impact analysis.

Also, I didn't go to camp and don't judge rounds all too often, so don't expect me to know the core affs, disads, acronyms, etc.


 * 3. Disads, CPs, and Case Debate:** Along with topicality, these were the bread and butter of my 2NRs. I don't really like contrived arguments (read: sketchy internal link chains) that aren't reflected in the topic literature, but that's up to the other team to point out. Although I am a big fan of the politics disad, so make of that what you will. Specific, nuanced arguments (i.e. Questions of solvency, aff specific counterplans and disads, reading the fine print of their evidence) go a long way.


 * 4. Critical Affs:** Most of what I said about Ks applies here, although I will say that I am often persuaded by K teams who simply do what they do best. I do think K teams have to at least be in the direction of the topic, but like everything else in debate, that's debateable. I am most familiar with framework (and/or T) and presumption as strategies against K affs, so anything outside of that probably requires a little extra explanation.


 * 5. Speaker Points & Stylistic Notes:** Typically, I will give points usually in the range between 28 to 29. I think Marge Strong's speaker point index pretty much covers it (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Strong%2C+Margaret).

//**Some things that I like and will reflect in speaker points include:**//

-Making my flows look good. This means very techy and organized debating, such as clean line-by-line, numbering arguments, etc. Clarity over speed matters – slow down if you have to, so I can write down your arguments and warrants.

-Making me do as little work as possible, as in writing my ballot for me by explaining the implications or your arguments, even-if statements, etc.

-Sass

-Thoughtful and assertive cross-exes

-Being strategic, creative, and unafraid to risks

//**Some things that I probably won't vote on unless the other team brings it up, but will be reflected through losing speaker points:**//

-Stealing prep.

-Clipping cards. Be sure you are clear both verbally and textually where you mark your card, send a marked copy of your speech doc out, and only defend the warrants that were read.

-Being disrespectful. I love love love sass, but I think debaters are at the age to know where and when they are crossing the line. Check your privilege – debate should be a welcoming, inclusive, and safe space, and I do not tolerate comments or behaviors that are sexist, racist, ableist, transphobic, and/or demeaning and marginalizing in any way.