Guo,+Angela

I was a policy debater at Westminster (in Atlanta, GA) in high school. I'm now a law student at Stanford and did my undergrad at Rice. I've been out of the community for years

In general, you should run what you feel most comfortable with. I care a lot about the flow and if you drop arguments, that's definitely bad. But I'll be honest - I don't know too much about recent topics and have judged debate quite minimally over the past few years so if you're going to use a ton of unfamiliar topic-based phrases and acronyms (or topic-specific theory arguments), know that I might not know what you're talking about.

Speed/Style: I've been out of the community for quite a while but I've found in judging the occasional round over the past few years that I'm still comfortable with speed so long as you are clear. Signposting is good. If you're unclear, I'll stop flowing since I won't be able to understand you. I consider card-clipping (and misrepresenting your evidence - i.e. leaving out a "not" in a sentence) cheating and I will have no qualms voting against you should you choose to do this.

Arguments: I'm very flow-oriented and there's nothing that I per se would not vote for. However, I feel most comfortable judging debates that involve the traditional aff v. CP + DA + defense type. The more specific your counterplan (is to the aff), the better. Topicality is fine/good (as in, affs should be topical) and I'll generally evaluate arguments as competing interpretations but please do some solid impact calculus if T is what you go for. Theory arguments are fine/good but not everything is a voting issue - in fact, I think that theory is only a voting issue in limited circumstances where you explain why something has been unfair and you've demonstrated clear abuse. Poorly explained small theory arguments that are generally perceived as stupid might actually hurt you. I tend to err on the side of fairness and reasonability for theory and T debates but can be convinced otherwise.

Ks are fine but I'll also warm you that I don't know the literature that well - and I'm probably not the best at judging Ks. You should definitely explain obscure Ks to me (and the other side), frankly. Give me clear frameworks with which to evaluate args. The alternative is important to me in a K debate and explanations as to why the alt solves the case/impacts (and vice versa) will get particular attention.

I'll come out and say that I'm pretty pre-disposed against performance-based arguments. I'm not the best judge for these and I will likely continue to judge them the way I would judge a K debate? I don't really see it as my job to intervene against the other side.

Please have fun and be nice to each other! Debate was a highlight of my high school experience and I hope that it's a highlight of yours too. Don't lie and speak well :)