Wang,+Kathy

stuy '16, nyu '20 school affiliations: stuyvesant (NY) i coach these people: Quarry Lane SK, Lexington JG other conflicts: Cambridge Rindge and Latin AG, Cambridge Rindge and Latin MB, Acton-Boxborough ML, Colleyville CW, Westford VA, St. Agnes LH, Needham ZL

1) normally i bump speaks for good disclosure practices. since it's the toc, though, i really believe in argument transparency here. so instead of bumping speaks for good disclosure, i'll probably be demoting speaks for people who don't disclose. 2) it's honestly been a while (since harvard) that i've handled a lot of heavy topical prep so try to explain that a little more for me if you're delving far into it, i'm not even close to a legal expert. 3) be good to each other
 * TOC EDIT:** a few things --

speed is fine. progressive argumentation is fine. performance/nontopical args are fine. sit or stand, don't care. i prefer tech > truth when evaluating rounds and will p much vote on the flow to the best of my ability. if you plan on reading dense analytical philosophy/high theory, SLOW DOWN and EXPLAIN, especially if you think you are the only one in the tournament reading that position. PLEASE PAUSE BEFORE AND AFTER TAGS & CARD NAMES!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! being an asshole in round will drop your speaks. actively promoting violence against a marginalized community in round will drop you. don't be afraid to be casual with me! debate is about being comfy and having fun as well. i like jokes. email chain: k.wang6898 [at] gmail.com (nyu emails are being wonky with chains), i don't flow off docs so be clear anyways.
 * "I AM LITERALLY RUNNING UP THE STAIRS ON THE WAY TO ROUND. WHO THE HELL IS KATHY??"**

my comfort levels: policy/substance/Ks > performance/non-t/high theory > theory/t >>> tricks > dense analytic philosophy.

HERE is my past judging record.

hi! i'm kathy. i debated LD for 4 years at stuyvesant high school and graduated in 2016. i currently do college policy at nyu.
 * "PREFS ARE DUE IN LIKE A WEEK BUT I'M A TOTAL TRYHARD AND AM SCOPING OUT JUDGES/HAHAHA I'M UR FRIEND AND PLAN ON MAKING FUN OF YOU OVER THIS PARADIGM KATHY"**

specific argumentation:

__LARP/Traditional Policy/Substance:__ this was my favorite type of argument as a debater, and still my favorite probably. innovative and cool plans/cps/das get good speaks from me. substance debate is great. everything else is great too but substance debate is great. i like traditional policy and am very open to techy debates of that nature. can people stop roasting me bc i like substantively engaging the topic pls.

__Ks:__ (UPDATED 2/12/18) go for it! i read a looooot of k lit, dabbled in it mostly for senior year and now do mostly Ks in college policy. Ks that engage are fantastic and i love those debates. Ks that don't are physically painful to sit through. be the former, not the latter! non-topical and performance affs are good with me too. i'll listen to and vote for them, but will also be open to t against those kinds of affs. i've voted both ways on those kind of debates before.

__High Theory:__ rule of thumb: **//if you think your team is the only team in the pool running your position (and def if you think your team is the first in the debate comm as a whole to read this position), it will need more explaining.//** i read a lot and am familiar with most things that have some sort of popular precedence in debate (deleuze, baudrillard, etc.), but high theory seems to be the field that invites the most innovation, and you shouldn't be too quick to trust my ability to grasp something totally new in 45 minutes.

__Heavy Phil/Framework:__ (UPDATED 2/12/18) i'll listen to white people phil but it's hard to adjudicate and kinda bores me unless you do something like, real incredible with it. overall though, i find myself to be really weak at being able to handle phil debates (especially on a level of like substance clash) and i really don't wanna think about it more than i gotta. my familiarity with that sort of literature is just low and you probably should make it clearer because relying on me to fill in gaps or automatically get heavy phil debate (especially all y'alls analytic kant frameworks - please slow down for the love of god) might be risky on your end.

__Theory/Tricks:__ (UPDATED 2/12/18) i'm okay with evaluating theory and will do so. i feel like lately theory has become a lot of really frivolous and silly stuff though and debaters are becoming more and more shameless about it being frivolous. i won't hack against it, but i'm lowkey really tired of arbitrary things like "can't read competing worlds and means-based fw and deny 1ar theory and have a 2 min 30 underview and affirm the resolution" and it probably won't garner super high speaks, especially when it comes at the cost of substantive clash.

- speaks start at a 28.5. i will usually disclose if asked. if i don't, at least one of you REALLY does not want to know. i notice i'm actually pretty good at averaging to this, but sometimes it's higher. speaks will be adjusted per tournament. - in-round environment means a lot to me -- i'm chill and joking with people nearly every round and i prefer my rounds to be more comfortable. feel free to treat me like a friend. promoting a comfortable in-round environment will get better speaks, so do things like make jokes or ask for pronouns. - pls don't run 30 speaks args in front of me. [UPDATED 2/12/18: for whatever reason harvard reaaaallly likes speaks inflation and 30 speaks args. i would prefer you not. speaks will be adjusted per tournament.] - big schools: don't be assholes, especially to small school debaters. non-disclosure vets lower speaks. bringing all your teammates in as an intimidating technique vets lower speaks. being condescending vets lower speaks. support your local small school debater today thanks. - if you say "hiya" to me in round your speaks will shamelessly be dropped. if you make a joke about me being an anthro debater your speaks will shamelessly be dropped.
 * speaks:**

- in general, i think my overall approach to judging is one that tries to centralize debaters more. obviously being perfectly tab is impossible and would likely be a Bad Thing, but my opinion is that since graduating, debate isn't about me anymore and i think i would rather have debaters learn more in-depth about things they're passionate about then forcing them to cater to me just because by whatever chance i ended up in the back of the room on pairings. - don't just impact things in a vacuum but also impact them in a way that contextualizes the argument to my ballot/rest of the debate. - i am ok at flowing but definitely could be better. be clear, i'll yell twice and then give up, look sad, and dock points. PAUSE OR SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS/AUTHORS PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE. - i evaluate disclosure theory & will check the wiki (but probably slightly boost speaks if there are screenshots). but if you're a big school running it on a lone wolf/new debater i will be annoyed. - feel free to ask me shit after the round but the rfd is not your place for arguing your position more lol. i'm really tired of needlessly having my time wasted in rfds with salty debaters. stop preffing me. - tech over truth, minus obviously offensive arguments. my threshold that if i can re-explain an argument to you in the RFD, then it's good enough for me to vote on.
 * misc:**

__**IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT DEBATE IS A SAFE SPACE. YOU CANNOT ARGUE THIS WITH ME.**__ i don't give a shit if the real world isn't safe. debate, as a place to compose advocacies and solutions, should be an inclusive space. this means a) yes, i do believe in trigger warnings/content warnings. if you genuinely trigger someone in-round without providing one and don't apologize/show respect about it you will get an L20. b) saying anything blatantly oppressive -- racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/classist, and all others when i am in the room and you are under my jurisdiction will result in a huge speaks tank AT THE VERY LEAST. c) if you are genuinely uncomfortable or triggered, stop the round. i will not judge you. i understand that things are sometimes overwhelming. your safety always comes before a sick 2NR. d) please just be a decent person. if you do not respect everyone else in the room, i will not respect you. i generally try to be a kind person but i have really low tolerance for people who think they're too good to do the same. i know this whole paragraph is written pretty aggressively but i'm usually a cheerful (if a bit tired) kid and i've never had to flip shit at anyone, please don't be the first. my contact info is all over this paradigm, plus you can reach me by email or ask for my number. if you feel unsafe at all during a tournament or just need someone to talk to, let me know and i will be here for you.

have fun. you don't need to act like you have a stick up your ass to debate well in front of me. if you genuinely enjoy the round, i will too! happiness is contagious, y'all. debate's your life to live.

any more questions? kw1892 [at] nyu.edu