Yan,+Sophia

Debated 4 years of policy in high school on the national circuit (South Eugene High School in Oregon). Assistant coach in the Chicago UDL during the 2008-2009 season. Currently a student at the University of Chicago.


 * BOTTOM LINE: It's your round, so don't change your strategy based on the (mostly minor) biases I list below. Justify your arguments, do impact analysis (tell me how to vote and what an argument means in the context of the round), and have fun.**


 * Topicality**: I default competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded by reasonability, especially if there's a heavy literature base (although don't assume that I'm familiar with the topic, so explain thoroughly).


 * Theory**: You're gonna find it difficult to get me to vote on theory alone unless you spend substantial time on it and impact it. Although I've won plenty of debates on "cheap shot" dropped arguments, I'm hesitant to pull the trigger immediately unless your opponent completely ignores it in subsequent speeches.


 * Framework**: Don't assume that if you win the framework debate, you win the debate - it just determines how I weigh your arguments. If you're running a performance aff or neg, however, winning framework is absolutely crucial because there are rarely ways to evaluate such movements in a policymaker post-fiat world. Impact your arguments by comparing frameworks and tell me why yours is superior. I default policymaker. I'm pretty strongly predisposed to thinking that having a plan and the resolution are good things.


 * K**: I've read enough literature to follow most K arguments, but if you go deep into a one-off, you should make sure you explain it very well. Specific plan and topic links are appreciated - "they use USFG" is pretty lame. Explain why your impact outweighs or turns case, and why your alternative solves. I'm okay if you just run your K as a case turn without the alternative (in other words, defending the SQuo), but make sure you explain why it's more than a non-unique disad.


 * Counterplans**: I am reluctant to vote for process counterplans, counterplans without anything resembling a solvency advocate, and counterplans that use the affirmative agent - but the aff doesn't call you out on it, go right ahead. I tend to think Conditionality/Dispo and PICs are fine.


 * DAs/Case Neg:** Awesome - the more specific the link, the better. Tell me why it turns case, 'cause it probably does. Good defense and analytics > crappy cards.


 * Weird stuff:** I have never seen Spark, Wipeout, Timecube, Nano, etc. debated convincingly. Make sure you can do so before you run it.


 * Technical stuff:**


 * Speed**: Is fine, generally speaking. I don't keep the greatest flow, but I have no problem saying "clear" or "slow" or "loud" if I can't understand you. Make sure there is some differentiation (tone, speed, etc.) between tag and card. Clipping cards is lame and you will pay in speaker points (and potentially with my ballot).


 * CX:** I pay attention to it. If you're a jerk, expect low speaker points. Tag team is fine, but don't abuse it. Sexist or otherwise oppressive language is problematic and will be reflected in speaks; I'm not gonna vote you down unless a) the other team wins the argument that you should lose my ballot, or b) it's so egregious that it impedes my ability to judge the round on substance alone.


 * New Arguments**: I was a 2A, so I know that you're making that shit up, but I understand that deeper analysis is near-impossible in the 1AR. In sum, impact analysis and clarification/extrapolation is fine. Otherwise, I'm gonna protect the 2NR.


 * Evidence**: I will call for cards, but will do so only to check warrants or if you ask me to. Otherwise, my decision is based on my flow.


 * If you have specific questions, ask.**