Li,+Eileen


 * Westminster 2014, UChicago 2018, updated for Glenbrooks 2014**

1). Flowing is probably the most important part of debate. The line-by-line in a certain debate matters more than my biases. 2). If I don’t understand your argument, I probably won’t vote for it because I shouldn’t have to expect the other team to understand what’s going on if I don’t. 3). I didn't work at a camp and the Glenbrooks is my first tournament judging on this topic, so I don't know much about oceans specifically or the random topic acronyms. This also means I don't have a ton of predetermined biases on this topic (like X DA makes sense or doesn't, the reputation of whether an aff is topical), so don't make these assumptions. 4). I’ll say clear but I might give up after a while. So you should be clear. Slow down on important args or things like theory. If I can't flow you, I will give the other team lots of leeway in terms of dropping your args. 5). There are some things I will not vote on (RVIs on T, ASPEC, time cube, things of that general category). 6). Being mean is not ok. Exhibiting that you are in any way demeaning towards the other team (sexism, racism, demonstrating a horrible sense of entitlement or egotism) will result in terrible, terrible speaks.
 * A few overall things**


 * I feel like most of my views on debate are fairly normal/mainstream but here are my specific preferences.**


 * Case**—I think affs that actually solve for their advantages are better than random small affs that access 10 squirrely impacts through bad internal link chains. Attacking the stem of the internal link chains, then, makes more sense than just fighting back with 20 impact defense cards. Zero risk is possible, although not likely (mostly based on well-explained technical drops). Presumption is never a great strategy, so even if you mitigate the case a lot, try to have some offense.


 * DAs—** Politics is probably my favorite argument in debate (it was upwards of 50% of my 2NRs my senior year). Turns case args on politics are great, politics theory is not so great. As much as I love politics, I also think it’s one of the easiest neg arguments to answer when you’re aff. Other DAs, also greats.

If the CP links to the NB, I’ll probably vote aff. If they don’t go for the cheating CP/perm, theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.
 * CPs—**Whether cheating counterplans compete or not depends on how well the aff answers the annoying 10 point neg block perm block, where they define “should” and “resolved”, etc. I think theory against these counterplans is definitely an option and I'm pretty aff leaning on CPs that compete off of certainty and immediacy, but I don’t understand the 2AR going for “reject the CP” when the 2NR has gone for the CP. Rejecting the CP and the team in that instance almost always mean the same thing. I don't believe in that "the status quo is always an option." I will not kick the 2nr's advocacy for them-- they are stuck with their choice for the final rebuttal. Affs should impact solvency deficits in terms of their advantages and how that affects terminal impacts.
 * International fiat-** probably good, because aff should have a USFG key warrant.
 * 50 state fiat-** generally fine, depends on how much the neg cheats by adding different planks to fiat through solvency deficits and if those planks are grounded in evidence.
 * Consult, conditions, recommend, things that do the entirety of the aff/compete on certainty and/or immediacy and normal means**—probably bad
 * PICs out of the mandate of the plan-** good if they are based in lit
 * Word PICs-** bad
 * Condo—**1 K and 1 CP is probably legit, any less than that is fine, more than that probably means you should lose on condo. Blatant perfcon makes me want to vote aff.
 * Multiplank CPs—**bad.


 * T—**nitpicky T violations where you can’t prove a significant difference in ground/limits are not persuasive, going for T against tiny affs is probably persuasive. I think truth plays a big part in these debates-- you can have 6 cards in the 2AC and win that their definition is phrased poorly, but if the neg wins the truth value claim that including affs like yours massively explodes the topic, that's still a tough debate for the aff. Explaining terminal impacts to limits and topic education affects the outcome of a T debate just like turns case and impact calc does on a DA. Personally, I find impacts in the context of debate as an activity and as a game more persuasive than general "we learn about stuff", "most real world" arguments. In the neg block, it’s important to answer specific 2AC arguments instead of just reading your generic limits overview. Again, I don't know much about the topic, so going for T will require more explanation on your part about the different types of affs on the topic and the difference it makes on the neg's research burden, rather than just listing the nicknames of affs I've never heard of.


 * Ks—**Not really a fan of Ks, especially if you’re just reading them to try to confuse the other team or ignore the line-by-line. I haven’t read much K lit, but I understand normal Ks like cap and security. If you’re going to read Lacan or D&G or something else silly, you should actually understand what you’re saying and be able to explain it beyond buzzwords. Affs should just defend their aff! Heg is good, empiricism is good, falsifiability is good. Dropped K tricks like “reps 1st” or “value to life” are reasons to vote neg, so the aff should make sure to answer them. In most K debates, framework sort of devolves into this area on the flow that no one really cares about. You should tell me why I should care about framework. Weighing the aff is probably a god-given right. Role of the ballot arguments are excuses for lazy debating-- instead of making the role of the ballot "vote neg to challenge X", win that challenging X actually outweighs. Util is probably also my default. Floating piks are bad, especially if I don’t know it is a floating pik until the 2NR. Please be cautious of reading your prewritten K blocks in front of me and declaring yourself a "K hack".


 * K affs**—the aff should defend a topical plan. Framework is a very persuasive argument- like I said on T, debate as game before debate as a real world educational activity. As long as you have a plan, I don’t care what kind of advantages you read, as long as they make sense (if you read a poem and a plan, I still will not understand the strategic utility of the poem). Note: I find ad-homs against the other team to be fairly useless and sometimes offensive, causing me to drop your speaks.


 * Speaker points**-- 27.5 is average. 28.5 means you should clear. 29 or above is probably rare. I won't give anything less than a 27 unless you offend me or cheat or in some other way destroy debate as an activity.