Babphavong,+Kelley

**Hi!** My name is Kelley. I'm currently a freshman at Harvard, planning to concentrate in Government and have a secondary concentration in Economics.. I debated policy for 3 years in High School and coached my high school team while debating with Debate Rhode Island. I also co-founded/ran Harvard’s Summer School debate team in 2014 and 2015, so I was exposed to all different kinds of debate. I did a few national tournaments like Bronx, Little Lex, and Harvard. I was part of a UDL and went to NAUDL last year. If you're reading this right before round, just skim this and ask me questions. It'll also be really helpful for you (if you have time) to read Janet Novack's paradigm - she was my coach in high school and her views have really shaped mine.

So here goes:

1) **CLARITY**. Please keep my flow clean. Most important thing to me - if you make it more work for me I'm more likely to miss something and it may cost you the round. Do clear line by line. Roadmapping and signposting gets good speaks from me. I'm already an indecisive person by nature - if I feel like you didn't weigh the arguments enough I'll do them myself and you may not agree with it.

2) **SPREADING**. I'm decent with spreading. I was a policy team (k aff my senior year but it was still policy oriented) and I'm more used to these kinds of arguments, but being from Rhode Island (small policy circuit) there's some arguments I have not heard of yet and so don't assume that I know what you mean when you say the "*insert philosophers name* K". Explain, explain, explain. Speed is ok for me - my partner and I were about average speed. I can understand spreading usually but I need clear tags and authors - I may miss an author here and there so don't just refer to the cards by their cite the whole round - tell me the argument. I'll tell you to slow down / will say "clear" if I can't understand you. I'll only do this a handful of times though so it's up to you to see if i'm flowing or not.

3) Judges are ignorant and unpredictable creatures, I am no exception, don't let me make the decision on who won based on my musing at the moment. Demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that no matter what insanity may be possessing me today, that I must vote for you.

4) I try to be as blank slate as possible. I throw out most of my personal knowledge and experiences, meaning you need to tell who to vote for and why. That means IMPACTS, IMPACTS, IMPACTS. Don't make me look at the flow to figure out who won (your speaks will suffer). Make my life simple, and you will be rewarded. I love a good impact calc and line by line. Make sure you have offense too or else there's no reason to vote on defense.

5) I'll vote on Theory and T but you must spend time on them. I love both of these but don't just extend them into the 2NR, give them the time they deserve. On that point, do not extend any argument by saying "extend that" - you at the very least have to give a reason for your extension. Specific arguments: 6) Kicking args - not a fan of kicking too many arguments in the 2NR, I can/may vote for the 2AR if they run theory (but spend a good amount of time on it, don't just say "They kicked 2 K's in the 2NR and this is a timesuck so vote aff") 7) CP comp: personally not a believer in running your aff as a CP if it's simply policy and isn't that specific / doesn't address the same problems that the aff does. I mean, go for it if you want but explain it well.
 * Topicality: I'll vote for it if the aff doesn't respond to it correctly. I've ran multiple T's in rounds. That being said, don't make your whole entire strategy T unless you really need to. I love off case.
 * ROB/ROJ: Unless it goes contested, I usually default to whatever team tells me the ROB/ROJ is.
 * I'm not too versed in this - make it clear to me.

8) ASPEC: It's fine but spend time on it. ((There's a recurring theme here of going for less args and spending more time on them)).

9) Risk analysis: Defense matters. If it didn’t, the aff would always be able to win on a tiny risk of “try or die” framing and the neg would be able to simply read a bunch of terminal impact cards and go for “there’s a .0000000001% chance they cause this.” You can win a 100% risk of a no link argument. However, that is pretty difficult to do. I will generally adhere to an offense/defense paradigm unless told to do otherwise. Dropped arguments are usually true arguments. That being said, don't do purely defense or I probably won't vote for you. 10) K’s: I wasn't that critical in high school and if your K has no relevancy to the China topic there's a 99% chance I won't vote on it - I was a firm believer of the thought that you have to have relevancy or else it's a narcissicism kritik. Explain your K well if you go for it. I will listen to cross X on the K. Show me that you know it and that it matters to you. I personally ran DnG Cap K (a variation from the typical one) and ran anthro for fun a few times.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">10) Kaffs: Similar story here. You really have to sell me on solvency. I find that most K-aff teams have trouble articulating their solvency. In round? Out of round? Spillover? If you can sell your solvency, then I will probably vote for you.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">11) Speaks:


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">What gets you good speaks:
 * Following the flow
 * Making it easier for me to flow
 * Making things interesting
 * Clear spreading
 * Productive CX
 * Being passionate


 * <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">What hurts your speaks:
 * Being really boring
 * Wasting CX or Preptime
 * **Being rude**

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">12) I'm doing this for fun so I expect you to have some fun as well, take the round seriously but that’s no reason to be boring. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If you’ve made it this far - congrats!! Any further questions can be emailed to kelleybabphavong@college.harvard.edu