Li,+Hairong

Affiliated School: duPont Manual High School in Louisville, Kentucky Experience: 2013-2014 is my second year judging Lincoln-Douglas Debate; I have frequently judged in the varsity division locally and have some experience nationally as well. I was a judge at NFL Nationals in 2013.
 * Hairong Li **

As an overview of who I am as a judge, I tend to prefer arguments that are true, logical, and persuasive. I generally tell debaters to convince me and show me the logic in their arguments. Although I have judged traditional arguments most frequently and prefer these the most, I am open to complex arguments as long as you take the time to slow down and clarify what you're saying. Please keep in mind that I will never vote for an argument if I can't understand it fully, and that I will vote for almost any argument if you can convince me that it's warranted, true, logical, and relevant.

In terms of speaker points, I will give out a 30 only if I thought that you had an overall performance that was almost entirely without flaw. In general, be a polite debater (there is a fine line between being aggressive, which is great, and being blatantly rude), and speak clearly and to the point (be as word-economical as possible). Address the major issues raised by your opponent, and having a nice presentation or being entertaining might earn you extra speaks.

For any other questions, you may find me either before or after a round and I will be happy to speak with you.


 * General preferences: **

I prefer for you to be slower if possible, but spreading is fine only if you're clear. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you; thus, you should either be slow or be clear. When I can't understand you, I will yell "clear."
 * Speed: **

As I am a second-year judge, I am not going to be the world's greatest at flowing. If there is something unclear to me, I may ask you clarification questions after a round (especially on key issues). Once again, I would like for you to make all of your arguments as clear as possible so that I can evaluate them.
 * Flowing: **

I will know when a case is abusive and am generally less willing to vote for cases that are as such. I will buy theory against truly abusive cases (running theory for no reason is both confusing and abusive in itself), and always keep the theory debate as clear as possible. As a general rule (and this goes beyond just theory), consider the debate from my point of view and try to persuade me to vote for your side.
 * Theory: **

In terms of framework, I understand basic philosophies but will need complex frameworks explained to me without using complicated rhetoric. As long as you can clearly and persuasively tell me your advocacy, I will be able to vote for you.
 * Framework: **

In general, make true arguments that are well-warranted and logical. Never try to twist the meaning of the resolution; don't give me an argument I have to think longer than a five minutes to fully understand. This also means that, in general, you should stick to the actual resolution; parametricizing is not encouraged.
 * Arguments: **

I am not extremely familiar with K's, and from my understanding of them, I do not recommend that you run a K in front of me. However, if you do wish to run a K, you must explain it to me well; if I don't understand it, I won't vote on it. Especially when your case is extremely complex, slow down to explain what everything means.
 * Kritiks: **

I will buy disads as long as you have a clear, logical link chain.
 * Disads: **

As long as you run them well, plans are fine.
 * Plans: **

I hope that you both can have fun while you debate; good luck!