He,+Monica

**Lexington High School 2013**
"You are 100% K hack now. You Lex alum" -- Michael Koo, TOC 2014 winner

Well, I just really like Foucault... but there is truth in the above^

__//**PLEASE READ THE LATEST UPDATE AT THE VERY LEAST. IT WILL HELP YOU WIN MY BALLOT + GET YOU HIGH SPEAKS.**//__
__//**If you have 5 minutes, read the Update and the Arguments I Currently Like/Arguments That Always Piss Me Off. If you have more time, read through the About Me section.**//__


 * OVERVIEW:**

My ballot goes to whichever team convinces me of their argument the most, regardless of whatever form of argument that may be. I only ask that you __thoroughly__ __and clearly__ explain your arguments and show me you really //understand// what your arguments truly entail of. Impacting your arguments beyond scripted impact calculus blocks would also be nice -- if you want to win my vote. Lying about the claims of a random card or that your opponents dropped this or that is a reason for me to severely dock your speaker points. I really don't want to do that. Don't make it a first.


 * UPDATE AS OF 2/12/2015:**

I want to see good __**CLASH**__. What is the point of the debate if you don't successfully demonstrate clash? For God's sake please do some clash work, or I'm going to be making an annoyingly, unnecessarily difficult choice deciding the round. No judge likes that. None. If there is no clash in a round, I will straight up flip a coin (may or may not be a mental or physical coin) to make my decision -- that's on you guys, not me.

Please also __**IMPACT**__ your arguments! If you neglect to extend your impacts into your last rebuttals (no tag line extensions; I'm talking about legit story-telling extensions), I refuse to do the work for you as easy as it may seem for me to do. That's called judge intervention, not laziness. I believe in minimizing judge intervention as much as possible to ensure fairness in the debate round (and we all know fairness is the biggest impact ever). Same goes for alternatives to Ks and what nots. I'm not going to automatically extend your alt. from the 2NC to the 2NR just because you extended the link. When you do extend the alt., make sure you create a clear image of what the alt. looks like. No matter how familiar you are with the alt, if I can't construct a mental picture of the alt. at the end of the round, then that's your personal problem. If I don't hear it come cleanly and clearly out of your mouth, then it will not go on my flow nor impact my decision -- that's again on you, not me.


 * ABOUT ME**:


 * I debated for Lexington High School's policy debate team as a 2N and a 2A. I have debated more as a 2N and I know the pains of being a 2N. For example, I will give some leeway to the 1A for the 1AR, as I know how time-pressed this speech could be. Use this to your advantage: do the 1AR well and you may easily merit a 30 for speaker points. I also know how much bullshit the 2AR can have -- don't ever resort to lying. Ever. The 2AR should be used strategically to summarize your arguments up and give reasons to prefer your argument/case/impact over your opponents'. This speech is awesome for speaker points and persuading my ballot. Often I vote Aff because of how convincing the 2AR was (of course because of the arguments too).
 * I have had three years of varsity policy judging experience at various tournaments including Harvard, Bronx, Big Lex, Lakeland, and Scranton, so I've seen a good variety of both policy and K debates.
 * I am currently an anthropology major at Tufts University with a strong background in biological sciences (biology, chemistry, physics), so if you happen to be knowledgable in this field, show it off to me. Medical anthropology especially cool with me. High speaks definitely will happen. __Proper and sophisticated__ inclusion of Wacquant's theory of the //prisoner industrial complex// will probably earn you a 30. __Proper and sophisticated__ inclusion of Canguilhem's theory of //normativity// will also most definitely earn you a 30. Not going to lie, I have done very extensive readings on Michel Foucault's works, which includes //Discipline and Punish//, //Birth of the Clinic//, and //The History of Sexuality//. If you choose to craft your arguments around any of Foucault's works (assuming you do so properly), I will be a very happy judge.
 * I don't like to be called "judge". I think being called "judge" puts me on a high pedestal, as if I'm some godly figure you're suppose to impress. Well, you are, but I want to be treated as an equal human being. I'm not simply known as "judge"; I damn well have a name. A judge's role should not be some untouchably powerful being; a judge is simply someone meant to help you sharpen your debate skills. __I would highly preferred to be called by my name__, as I believe that places us at the same level. That's not to say you can disrespect or undermine my authority, only that you should not be too intimidated by me or suck up to me. You do you. I want you to feel comfortable expressing your ideas, and not to feel judged (no pun intended) for them.

__**ARGUMENTS I CURRENTLY LIKE (SUBJECT TO CHANGE):**__


 * 1) __**Mestiza**__: I can personally relate to the mestiza argument quite a lot being an immigrant raised on a very different set of ethics and morals (it only helps me understand your arguments better, not influence my decision- I try to minimize judge intervention). However, that is definitely NOT to say I won't like/vote on other arguments (esp. anti-blackness, etc.). If you read on, you'll see that I actually really like to see work done on critical pedagogy as it is related to the resolution (or how the topic/enacting USFG itself is problematic). It is, however, more likely I vote mestiza over anti-blackness oppression- IF AND ONLY IF there is good clash and proper technicalities (I'm not going to do the work for you).
 * 2) __**Foucault:**__ As an anthropology major with a focus on medical anthropology, I am well versed in Foucault's biopolitical theories. I am currently in my Medical Anthropology class's biopower unit right now, so I like seeing his work placed in the right context, used practically and accurately in debate. However, if you run Foucault in a faulty way that seems to twist and turn his words into some silly argument, I will not vote for it. Use this argument if you want to take a risk and impress me.
 * 3) __**Kauer:**__ Wenshu Lee's writings are very interesting, and I think this is a big impact turn to the "normal" Queer Theory argument. I would like to see a Kauer vs. Queer Theory debate, with a strong focus on clash and the a priori question. If you are running Kauer, understand that Wenshu Lee's writings is a metaphor for how queers need to carve out their own path by separating themselves from the heteronormative space. Please also talk about the transnational aspect of Kauer. I think that's the real cool part of this.
 * 4) **__Wilderson__**: If you can PROPERLY run Wilderson and demonstrate to me that you have a true understanding of Wilderson's argument, then go for it. I encourage you to take that risk. But if you run Wilderson because it's apparently trendy to do so right now, or that you simply think it's cool to say "fuck you" to the USFG, then I perceive that as bullshit and you won't win my ballot. Specifically, you need to show me that your understanding of Wilderson transcends the superficial layer of his argument to burn down the government. Wilderson is not simply about that- on a much deeper level, it's more about __using radicalism as an alternative way to fight against oppression, structural violence, etc__. If you are hitting Wilderson, **__YOU MUST ANSWER THE A PRIORI QUESTION__** that a lot of Wilderson alts. advocate. Otherwise, I'll probably have to vote for Wilderson again. I really like the a priori debate surrounding Wilderson. For example, Aff defends util, Neg defends value to life. If Neg wins blacks are ontologically dead in the present, then util doesn't matter for two reasons:
 * 5) __Blacks are already dead__. Aff would have to win every human being life has the same value (i.e. Asian lives matter as much as black lives). I don't want to see Aff simply dismiss this issue as a question of util. I want to see Aff do analysis that other groups have also suffered/are ontologically dead, therefore, their lives also "matter".
 * 6) __Blacks don't have the means to participate in a util-based impact calculus__. Aff assumes that a util framework includes everyone. However, if blacks are ontologically dead, they don't even have the right or means to include themselves in a util debate, that a util framework is inherently exclusionary (which only feeds into Wilderson's critique of civil society).

__**ARGUMENTS THAT WILL ALWAYS PISS ME OFF (NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE):**__


 * 1) __**Racism good**__: This is dumb. I shouldn't even have to say anything. I don't find this argument dumb because it's politically correct to reject racism in all instances in this society or something like that. I think it's dumb because I don't buy the link stories, I don't buy the impact, and I certainly am not morally convinced that having racism is necessary to have a functional society.
 * 2) __**Death** **good**__**:** Let's be honest here: death is probably not good. There would be no ramen to eat, no Netflix to procrastinate with, and sadly no debate... In all seriousness, you can run Nietzsche if you want -- again, you do you -- but if I don't get a clear picture of the alt./I don't think the alt. is a good enough thing to justify my death/death of the human race, then I'm not voting for you. That is effectively saying death of human race good just because and is in fact arrogant of you. Even if you don't mean to project this thought, don't treat the human race as if it were some simple lab rat. I don't like people with god complexes. If you do run Nietzsche, make sure you spin your story around the alt.
 * 3) __**Rape good**__: I find this offensive on a fairly intimate level. Some of my closest friends have been victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. This is where my judge intervention steps in. If you read rape good, I don't care how good you are, I will probably sign my ballot the minute that argument is read. If the other team has the very unfortunate fate of dropping this argument, I'll possibly consider giving an extremely low-point win (expect speaker points to be in the single digits or zero).
 * 4) __**Sexism good**__: I don't care if you try to impact turn patriarchy or some variation of that. I'm much more compelled to vote for the other team and I will probably give you low speaks (<25). Don't bother trying to troll with this either. I don't discriminate between trolling and being serious when it comes to sexism good.
 * 5) __**Genocide good**__: No. This is dumb. Don't make me sit through one of these. If you have to ask yourself or me why I don't think genocide good is an okay argument, then there is something wrong with you. Again, this is the extent of my judge intervention. Beyond this type of immoral bullshit, you do you.


 * HOW TO [ ] MY BALLOT:**


 * **__Win__:**
 * __Clash__: Give me specific reasons to vote on your arguments as opposed to your opponents' arguments -- you can easily achieve this through good //evidence comparison//, //impact// //calculus//, etc.
 * __Impact Calculus__: This part of debate is so important and so key that if you choose to ignore this, you are almost guaranteed to lose my vote -- again, I don't care what argument you choose to run; I care that you impact your argument and give me a reason to pick your impact over the other team's impact. The same goes for framework -- if you choose to run a critical argument and lose the framework debate, then in my eyes, your critical argument is nonexistent. Please give me a reason to pick your framework over your opponents' framework. Otherwise, no matter how OP your K, DA, CP, etc. is, I can't and won't vote for you.
 * __Ethos__: Won't win my vote alone, but if both teams have done the above and more and you have more ethos, I might just vote for you. That said, ethos certainly doesn't mean domination -- it means speaking in such a way that really appeals to me. Be sassy if you need to, but still know your bounds.
 * __Clarity/Good Organization__: Makes it a lot easier for me to flow and to decide on my ballot. Whatever I don't hear/understand verbally __will not__ go on my flow, and will, therefore, not contribute to your argument. I should be able to hear all the points of your 1AR, of your topicality flow, of your theory block, etc. If it happened to have been your kick-ass link card, then that would have been very unfortunate :( Don't expect me to automatically call for evidence if I miss something. I will __ONLY__ call up evidence if there was evidence comparison and this debate is extended to the 2NR/2AR, or when I see it necessary for me to read into the validity of a card. Also, if you want to score a 30, do line-by-line. I LOVE line-by-line, and I will be more inclined to vote for you if you do a great job on the line-by-line.


 * __**Lose:**__
 * __Neglecting to Sign Post/Road Map__: I shouldn't have to designate a section for this, but in the past I have been ignored in this simple request, and I have been throughly confused and annoyed. Please just do it. Not just so that I can flow your arguments on the right flow, but because it's a respectful thing to do for your opponents, your partner (if you have one), and I.
 * __Clipping Cards__: DO NOT DO THIS. I consider it cheating not only debate, but also cheating your opponents and me. As a judge and a former debater, I would feel personally offended by this act. If you do this, the highest speaker points I give you will be at most a 24.
 * __Being Obnoxious/Disrespectful/Overly Aggressive__: If you resort to any of this, I will not only severely dock your speaker points, but also stop flowing your arguments. Swearing is fine -- I'm a college student for crying out loud -- but if you're swearing unnecessarily in every.fucking.sentence, then I'll probably dock your speaking points, roll my eyes, and stop flowing.
 * __Stealing Prep Time__: This is such a novice thing to do, and SHOULD NOT exist at all in non-novice debates. I will be less harsh with novices because I understand debate is a learning experience. That said, it doesn't mean it's okay for novices to do that. It is disrespectful, rude, and cheating. Stealing prep time will result in very low speaker points and will be noted when I am deciding on the ballot.


 * SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS:**


 * **Theory**
 * I am more than willing to vote on theory IF it is argued properly. I believe that theory is an integral part of debate, and when used realistically, can be a lethal weapon. For example, if the Neg is running a billion CPs and a trillion Ks, then the Aff should definitely run theory and I would love to vote Aff on theory. The boundary for me is if the Neg is only running one CP or one K, and the Aff runs theory. The Neg is probably going to win the conditionality debate. If the Neg is running a CP and a K, the conditionality debate would be decided by you guys. In that particular case, I can go both ways. When you do run theory, please IMPACT your arguments. If you lay out all your theory points without an impact, I will be very unlikely to vote for you. It's the equivalent to having an argument but without an answer to the "so what?" clause. You must answer the following questions: Why should I care about your theory arguments? So what if the other team severs? Framing your theory arguments in the context of debate is the best way to get me to vote you on theory.
 * **Topicality**
 * I will vote on T if and ONLY IF it is argued and structured properly. Most of us know that the T consists of the following: interpretation, violation, standards, and voting issue. If you want to win the debate on T, you MUST carry all of these in some way through the 2AR. You NEED to frame the debate on T, making sure to emphasize that everything else in the debate is irrelevant because the Neg is non-topical and WHY the fact that the Neg is non-topical important in the debate (and in debate in general). Not impacting your T arguments is asking for me to ignore your argument, even if you have the best interpretation or violation blocks ever.
 * **Counterplans**
 * As I mentioned before, I was mostly a 2N, so I have a soft spot for CPs. In particular, I really like case-specific CPs because I believe they are more realistic and better for debate purposes. They promote clash and topic debate. They're awesome. Use them. When you're running a CP, NEVER forget to answer theory (e.g. condo), perms, and ALWAYS provide a reason for mutual exclusivity.
 * **Disadvantages**
 * Case-specific disads are the best kinds there are. Being from Lexington, I have a soft spot for politics disads. They were the first kind of disads I learned in my novice year and I will always love them. I don't really buy the intrinsic bad theory argument, but if the Aff drops it, then it could be potentially devastating. However, if the Neg does NOT impact intrinsic bad, I still won't vote on it.
 * **Kritiks/K Affs**
 * I am fine with both. What I am not fine with is super obscure Ks/K Affs that are NOT explained well. I am human too. I don't have a mental encyclopedia of all Ks and K Affs. Please don't assume I do. Please also keep in mind that I tend to err toward policy-oriented options, but I will vote on the K/K Affs if they are well organized and well debated. The alternative MUST be present in all Neg speeches and impact calculus should involve the framework debate and should give me a reason to vote you as opposed to your opponents. The alternative must also be legit. If your alternative sounds silly in theory, it will probably sound silly to me. And unless you have the ethos of Alex Parkinson, you probably will not end up convincing me that your alternative is legit.
 * **Performance Affs**
 * I have absolutely nothing against them, in fact, if done correctly, I will be thoroughly impressed, and you will certainly be rewarded with high speaks. However, many of the performances I have seen have been slightly lacking. I would like to see a performance that more engages with the resolution specifically to increase topic education and increases critical pedagogy. The performance should address the issues found in the debate community and/or society in general (e.g. racial oppression), and explain why critical rhetoric is important in the context of the debate round itself and and larger debate community. Your argument should ultimately answer the question: "Why should I care about the existence of critical pedagogy and language in debate?" If you are truly passionate about debate and about portraying your personal narrative through performances, you absolutely need to form a relationship between your argument and debate as a space to express your story. Do not even bother using performance in your debate if you only focus on the performance itself and not about the debate itself and your performance's impact on debate. I have a sharp nose for bullshit.
 * **Case**
 * This is where you can impress me a lot. Do a really nice line-by-line and I will love you. Case is an awesome place for clash to take place, and I love clash. High speaks to whichever team does better line-by-line and/or better clash on case. Just so you know, I have not debated the current topic before, but I am familiar with some of the literature. Policy-wise I should be able to follow along relatively easily. If you throw something obscure at me and use debate/literature jargon excessively without first explaining them, I won't be able to follow you and I meant just stop flowing. Not a good idea. I highly advise against it.

If you guys have any other questions or concerns, feel free to email me at __**monicahe.mh@gmail.com**__**.** I'm usually on gmail 24/7