Xiao,+Lisa

I'm a senior debater for The Westminster Schools, but I previously went to Johns Creek High School.

As most judges, I try to be all well rounded meaning if you explain an argument really well, I will vote on it. At the end of the debate I'm just going to try to figure out who won with as little intervention as possible. I believe in tech over truth and appreciate good line by line and clarity>speed.

Specifics ---


 * Disadvantages: ** For the neg, good disadvantage debates follow a certain formula. Don't spend too much time on the overview, have really good turns case on all their advantages, and make sure you're winning the core uniqueness, link, i/l, and impact claims. If you're affirmative you need to protect yourself from all the tricks they do on the DA by having good impact calculus at the top and making sure you answer their turns case. If they're reading the same impacts as you, make sure to read an add-on or explain why you access the internal link better. I read a lot of politics DA's so I know them the best, and therefore might be sliiggghtttllyyyy more comfortable with them.


 * Counterplans ** : The negative probably gets away with way too much when reading conditions, process, consult, or any other CP that results in the entire aff. With that being said, if the affirmative refuses to contest this at all through a strong perm or theory debate, there is rarely a path to victory. Negatives should have compelling reasons why they deserve these arguments and need to do more than reread their 2NC theory block in the rebuttal if the affirmative is getting more nuanced. If you're neg and reading these, good and predictable solvency advocates can help you a lot. A negative with a good PIC can definitely get my ballot.


 * Kritiks ** : I have decent familiarity with most kritiks just by doing debate and am definitely fine with hearing them. With that being said, outside of the staples like Cap/Security/Psycho, I expect more analysis and explanation of the argument you are making. Just saying "decreases value to life" or "destroys the meaning of death" tells me nothing about what your argument is and basically is just an impact; please explain what the affirmative does that you don't like. Nothing is more frustrating than listening to a 8 minute block with no link work. While doing that will help me understand your argument and be more persuasive, in the end I'll still default to tech over truth and if the aff drops all your tricks, you'll still probably end up with my ballot (with just lower speaks).


 * Topicality : ** The two big things you need to do here is provide a clear explanation of your interpretation and do decent impact comparison. Make sure not to forget basic checklist items like case list, topical version of the aff, etc. Dropping these arguments in the last rebuttals can be fatal.


 * Race/Identity ** : I am not an expert in these arguments and haven't had too much exposure to them, but I do enjoy hearing these. Just make sure you are telling me what my role as the judge is and how I should be viewing the debate. If you're going for in round impacts, explain why this round is important, etc. If you're affirmative, you need to definitely explain why your aff is good, or why you get to weigh it, or why it's important to the round, etc.


 * Non Plan Affs: ** : My personal belief is that the affirmative should defend topical USFG action. In round am I going to hold it against you for not doing that? No. Ideally the closer you are to the topic, the better. Negatives should go for framework in these debates(definitely try to engage if they're identity affs though!!), it is very effective if deployed correctly. Smart arguments on the affirmative can definitely dispose of generic frameworks with no effort put into them.


 * Theory ** : Condo is good as long as it doesn't get excessive (more than 2 is going to need heavy justifications and the neg should definitely read theory in these situations). I'm fine with other types of theory too, just make sure you make the arguments explicit and not just you spreading through your varsity's pre-written blocks, which also means you should actually answer arguments that the other team makes. You need to tell me to judge kick.

- I do not take prep for flashing as long as it does not become excessive. - The main purpose of debate is to have fun. - Cheating means you lose. (Clipping) - Debate should be a safe place, do NOT make offensive comments about others.
 * Random: **