Hu,+Emily

I debated Lincoln-Douglas four years in high school (graduated in 2016), competing primarily on the national circuit. I now debate parli for Stanford University.
 * Background:**

Conflicts: duPont Manual High School (KY)


 * SHORT VERSION***
 * Spreading fine but go 50%-80%.
 * Warrant things! Provide full links! Don't just mechanically read cards and expect me to magically come to the right conclusion.
 * I'll try to be tab and I'll evaluate any argument. Quality > quantity, and if you run trick/generally bad arguments, your speaks will be low and I'll have a very low threshold for just ignoring those arguments altogether.
 * I'm not the judge for theory/tricks.


 * LONG VERSION***


 * General:**
 * I'm familiar with circuit debate, so I understand the jargon. However, that still means that you should flesh out all the links and warrants. Asserting that something is an a priori obviously isn't sufficient for me to make that a voter—likewise, if you're just reading 20 generic blips, I'll be far more likely to favor a fewer number of responses that group arguments intelligently and give solid analysis. Quality over quantity.
 * I now debate parli, so I'm no longer involved in a high-speed style of debate. Feel free to spread, but start at 50% of your top speed and don't go above 80% your top speed. I was never great at flowing, and being out of practice doesn't help much. I'll shout "clear" and "slow." I won't deduct speaks unless you're so unclear that I literally cannot understand anything you're saying.
 * If you flash your cases, flashing them to me will be very helpful!
 * I'm not involved with the LD community anymore, so I don't know the topic lit and likely don't even know the topic.
 * I'll try to be as tab as possible. Given the above statements, though, you can help me be more tab by (1) SLOWING DOWN when you think you're making a round-winning argument; (2) doing lots of weighing; and (3) giving some big-picture overviews that analyze each layer of the debate and break down why you're winning the round. Especially when there's multiple off-case arguments floating around, I need to know what to prioritize. If no one does weighing, I'll just have to arbitrarily pick whichever layer to evaluate first, and I really don't want to intervene.


 * Style/Argumentation:**
 * I don't really care what arguments you run, as long as you explain them well and don't assume that I have prior knowledge. I favor solid analytical explanations to just reading cards and taglines. The more work that you do on your part to explain and weigh, the more likely you will be to win and to also get high speaks.
 * **__I hate messy theory debates. I'm also terrible at flowing theory.__**
 * __If you're just introducing random theory/tricks to "layer the debate," I will make my threshold for responses VERY, VERY LOW (meaning, I'll ignore it if your opponent so much as says "this is silly" and moves on). I also won't consider particularly messy theory/tricks to be voters unless you actually devote time to explaining why there was abuse/weigh it along with everything else in the round. If the theory debate is so messy that I can't evaluate it, I reserve the right to just wash theory and go to substance.__
 * I'm fine with listening to stock/traditional debates, since I probably don't know the topic. If you do circuit debate, I do have a preference of the kinds of arguments that I feel most comfortable evaluating:
 * Framework > Standard K debates > Util/LARP > Theory/T/Tricks/Uncommon arguments, like satire or performance
 * Feel free to have non-standard ways of justifying a criterion or a non-standard structure, but as with everything, explain and weigh! Your cool case won't be very useful if it just confuses me.
 * Please don't make ad hominem arguments or say anything racist/sexist/ableist, etc. I reserve the right to nuke your speaks or even drop you if you're just being being blatantly rude/disrespectful.
 * __Arguments I dislike:__
 * All neg interps are counterinterps
 * Bostrom/extinction first (also, super tenuous extinction links that came out of a random policy backfile from 2007)
 * Aff must include full shells with violations
 * Loads of unnecessary NIBs
 * Nailbomb affs
 * Descriptive standards, like I-law or polls
 * A bunch of conditional offs (especially ones that are contradictory)
 * AFC, AEC, Aff (insert whatever) choice
 * Any interp similar to "must run plan," "must not run plan," etc.
 * Loads of blips
 * Oppression good
 * Role of the judge arguments that involve weird discussions about literally taking the ballot from me (???)
 * I should auto-win/get a 30 for some reason
 * Disclosure theory/brackets theory/miscutting evidence theory (if they actually miscut evidence, tell me to call it after the round instead. Don't run theory.)
 * A prioris
 * ^^If you absolutely cannot avoid running one of the above strategies, I'll still try to be tab and evaluate the argument.
 * __However, the caveats are that (1) my threshold for responses those arguments will be super low. If your opponent just gets up and says something to the effect of, "hey, this argument is stupid," I'll probably just cross it off my flow. (2) You're going to make the debate unnecessarily messy. I will be more likely to make the wrong decision if you introduce random a prioris, stupid theory, and the like. (3) Expect very low speaks.__
 * If you're a circuit debater hitting a novice or traditional debater, be polite.


 * Defaults:**
 * I don't like having to default to things, since that means you probably didn't do enough weighing on your side, and you'll probably get low speaks as a result. However, absent any justification in round, I default to:
 * No RVI's
 * Drop the arg
 * Competing interps (offense/defense)
 * Judge is an adjudicator ("vote for the better debater") but probably has some educational role (i.e. drop people who are literally racist)


 * Speaks:**
 * I'll try to average around a 27.5, which is what I'll take to be the "average-level varsity debater," and I'll go up and down from there.
 * "How do I get a 30?"
 * Being clear, emphasizing important points by slowing down, solid overviews, clear weighing, avoiding general messiness, and being charitable to your opponent can all raise your speaks.
 * You'll get high speaks if you make smart, interesting arguments, do your best to clash well instead of just layering your way out of the debate, and generally make the round fun to be in. I find it a shame when the neg responds to an interesting aff by just reading 6 off and never actually clashing with the arguments.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at xehu@stanford.edu.