Zhang,+Catherine

(this wiki has been updated for 2014-2015)
 * Freshman at Northwestern University**
 * Past: the Westminster Schools**
 * LOLWHAT EVEN!**
 * Email me!**

Note: I am not very familiar with the oceans topic, please give me detail and context! Don't throw random acronyms my way.


 * Hi! I've debated at national tournaments, been both a 2N and a 2A, and prefer tech over truth.**

Flowing is very important. T ry to go line by line. Sign post, indicate if there's gonna be a global overview/rant at the top. If you go for something, you should explain what you're going for. Make sure that every argument HAS been extended in every previous speech, and don't just do impact calc. Make sure you have uniqueness, link, etc.

No cheating, no stealing prep.


 * Speaking -** Clarity trumps speed 100% of the time.

I will probably be able to tell if you're just reading blocks and that's fine, but don't let them consume your speech.

No tagline extensions - give me warrants yo!


 * Paperless -** I don't take prep for flashing? Just don't take too long. Since everyone's pretty much paperless, you should mark cards when you don't finish them.


 * CX - ** Utilize this, yo. Probably shouldn't put it at the bottom of this list but it's a useful tool that's pretty much binding. Look at me, otherwise it seems like I'm just watching a really boring movie. Or if it's necessary just use it to clarify what a weird CP or K does.


 * Case -** Use that beautiful aff of yours more often. Often it probably turns and outweighs the disad, ya know? Neg, I find case defense particularly persuasive with a disad or something. IT IS UNDERESTIMATED.


 * Disads** - I'm pretty sure I'll be able to understand pretty much any disad. Just make sure you don't just go for impact calc when the rest of the story doesn't line up. But still do impact calc, of course! (Impact COMPARISON and INTERACTION = yay)


 * Counterplans** - I'll vote on process CP's for sure but prefer other CP's. Just explain what it does and why it competes. Even if a CP solves 100% of the case, you should probs have a NB otherwise it's just a question of presumption. I think solvency advocates are important; the more specific, the better.

If you read a critical aff, just explain yourself, don't shift and tell me what I'm voting for. Defend your point of view and the consequences of it.
 * Kritiks** - I think it's important for me to learn what they are, but I'm not familiar with them. I probably lean aff on framework issues (I'll probably let you weigh your aff) but can be persuaded definitely! Floating ks aren't very convincing for me so probably not best to rely on them. **Please just explain them well.** D-rule args are not really persuasive.


 * T** - biased towards competing interpretations? I've never had many of these sort of debates so you should slow down and just explain, explain, explain.


 * Performance?** - Defend your plantext. Very policy-oriented. These debates are super frustrating. Tell me what to vote for because I'll probably have no clue.


 * Theory - **in round abuse is so persuasive to me.


 * Condo - ** 1 condo is totally fine, 2 condo can go either way, anything else I'm probably slightly aff-biased but I can definitely be persuaded to vote. Perf-con = bad in 99% of instances, but that's not necessarily a voting issue unless the potential abuse/in round abuse issue is clearly resolved by one side.


 * CP theory -** probably more of a reason to reject an argument, not the team. But I'll still vote either way.


 * No judge kick unless you say something about it.**


 * mrow.**