Lin,+Chen


 * My background:** I debated four years of college parli, mostly with Berkeley. College Parli is very different from HS Parli -- it's technical, fast, and the pool is full of former HS policy and college parli debaters. So I'm fast on the flow and I consider myself pretty well versed in debate theory. I have NO LD or value debate experience, so a.) I get value/value criterion, but it takes a moment for me to wrap my head around the implications. It would be worthwhile to spend extra time explaining how these arguments interact to win you the round in rebuttals. b.) I am unfamiliar with the lit base for the topic and I don't know the authors, so reference *arguments* and *tags*, not just cites. And c.) LD specific theory is alien to me, so explain the arguments in more detail.


 * Speed:** I can flow fairly quickly. That said, I am not used to debate with evidence, and I often miss cites or parts of tags when debaters are going at a fast clip. To prevent this, //I need you to slow down noticeably on the tags and citations.// I will say "CLEAR" if you're not articulating clearly -- I can follow you but you're muttering and I don't like guessing what words you're saying. This mean you need to do clarity drills. You can either articulate better or slow down so you're more comprehensible. I will say "SLOW" if I can't keep up on the flow. If this happens, please slow down on the tags and cites. If you do not respond to these commands, I will miss arguments on the flow. Be mad at me if you like, but I try *very* hard to be honest with debaters about my abilities. If you don't adapt, then that's *your* bad.


 * Trichot:** Obviously I prefer policy rounds, and I have a much easier time evaluating those debates than value. This does not mean that debaters who run plans/counterplans/disads have an advantage, just that I can probably evaluate those debates more comfortably and consistently. I will listen to theory arguing that either is preferable.


 * Kritiks:** I'm open to the K, but it's not my favorite argument. You will *not* be at a competitive disadvantage for running it, however. I am not familiar with most K lit but I know the most common arguments well. I ran it and answered it, I just didn't read the lit, so my understanding is kind of superficial. If the debate comes down to the impact level, you should spend a little more time explaining what your arguments mean.


 * Theory:** I default to a competing interpretations paradigm, but I think "reasonability" is preferable. This means you need to win offense in the standards debate to win theory, but that I am open to arguments that I should evaluate theory using alternative approaches. It helps to have a counter interpretation in answering theory, but if you don't have one, I will assume the counter interpretation is the negative of the interpretation. Keep in mind this is not always your best option strategically.

**My rant about debaters being dicks (** ** __This part is important. Read it.__) :** I'm tired of seeing unwarranted assholery over trivial shit that won't win you the round. I'm ok with people being bad at debate. And I'm ok with swagger. My problem is when you're bad at debate AND a dick. Don't do it. Your speaker points will be affected. If it gets to the point where you're really pushing it, I will verbally tell you to tone it down. This happens *fairly* often in debates I've watched so if you think you might be crossing the line, then don't do it.