Li,+Diana

I debated LD for four years for Hunter College High School (NY) and graduated in 2011. I taught at VBI for 3 summers after I graduated, most recently in 2013. I did the TOC/NFL/NCFL stuff so I am familiar with and receptive to a number of different styles.

Last updated: 9/13/2014

From the rounds that I've judged so far, there are two huge, huge things that I've realized debaters don't really understand that I wish I knew as a debater. To be honest, you probably don't really have to (or want to) read the rest of this, and you can basically figure out everything else in here from the following two things.

1) Your arguments are ALWAYS less clear to your judge than they are to you. I can tell you far less about rounds I've judged than rounds I've debated - in other words, debaters are (for obvious reasons) much more invested in the round and attuned to the minute details. This doesn't mean I'm not paying attention; it means that you should make things as clear as possible during a round and that if you think an argument is going to be important, don't obfuscate it for supposedly strategic purposes and/or only spend 5 seconds on it.

2) LOOK AT ME! Even when I say this before the round, people forget to do it. I'm really expressive with my face and if I'm not catching your arguments or I think your arguments are really bad/really awesome, you'll be able to tell from looking at me. Additionally, if I'm making a face at one of your arguments... probably means you should think about your strategy if you're interested in winning, especially with high speaks. In a round at Bronx, I literally threw up my hands because I couldn't flow the debater; I kept my hands up for about 30 seconds and he never noticed, so I flowed nothing (he lost). This will honestly really help you in front of me.


 * Short Version**

Establish a clear decision calculus and write my ballot story for me. The trends that bother me the most and honestly just frustrate me are blippy arguments (arguably the worst, especially in succession), lack of weighing, not approaching rounds strategically, and rudeness to both me and your opponent. Obviously none of this is particularly unique to me, but I do probably hold people to higher standards when it comes to these things.

I really like substantive debate (which can take a variety of forms) and feel like a lot of rounds have almost 0 interesting substance in them. There are too many debaters who just go through the formal motions of things like theory, spikes, etc. without actually warranting their arguments, thinking about those arguments, and most importantly, conceptualizing how they interact.


 * Speaking Preferences**

Speed is usually fine; generally, however, clarity is the issue. Enunciate and vary your voice; the monotone is killer. Additionally, I'm not going to lie and tell you that I understand all speeds - as a general rule of thumb, if you can say the same stuff slower, you probably should. Finally, I can't stress enough... just look up at me and you will be able to tell how well I understand what's going on because my face will make it very clear. I also haven't been as active as probably a first year out has been, so keep that in mind when you're deciding how fast to go in front of me.

I'll yell clear. Keep in mind though: a) I'm really reluctant to yell clear because I want to let you debate whatever way you want to, so just because I don't yell clear does not mean I'm getting every single argument, and b) if I yell clear, it probably means I've missed a significant portion of what you said. It might do you good to repeat the important points.


 * Theory**

I don't default to either competing interpretations or reasonability.

If you run theory, please make sure it's fleshed out. You don't need to repeat yourself, but PLEASE cite specific in-round abuse, because obviously that makes theory a lot more compelling. If you really want to know what I think dumb theory is, I have no problem with you asking me with specific examples before the round, for the sake of the quality of the round. I am a firm believer of the idea that if you can win the round cleanly without theory, you should do it. If you run theory that doesn't really highlight clear abuse or explain why KEY ground or KEY topic literature was taken away (just saying why you lost some ground isn't particularly compelling to me), that will probably be reflected in your speaks.

I'm most impressed by people who extemp their theory because that's a sign that they actually understand the theoretical issues at hand and the way they play out in the round. That said, I obviously understand if you're reading some generic stuff (fairness voters, etc.)

Weigh your standards. It's like substantive debate - both of you will probably be winning arguments unless you are actually awful; the only relevant thing is which argument is more important.

I'm receptive to RVIs, especially when the initial theory sucks.

Fairness is probably a voter.


 * Weighing**

This is probably the most important thing in the round... at the end of the day, unless one of you is awful, both of you are winning some arguments - the only thing that is relevant is which arguments actually matter. Please compare SPECIFIC arguments to each other and explain their interaction with me.

Any complete piece of weighing has to refer to at least TWO arguments; otherwise, there is no comparison being made. This should be obvious but very few people do this. "This argument precludes theirs because it undermines an assumption that their argument makes" is probably preferable to "500,000 people are dying in my world, I must outweigh on magnitude." I don't care about buzzwords. If you're not referencing your opponent's arguments when you're weighing, then you're probably not really weighing.


 * Arguments**

I don't care what you run as long as it's not blatantly offensive or whatever. Ks, DAs, CPs, whatever are fine. Keep in mind, however, that I wasn't really a K debater and I'm unfamiliar with a lot of critical literature. In the rounds that I have judged, I've voted for really interesting critical cases, but I need them to be slow and simple enough for me to understand.

Do not run analytical blips. Do not run blipstorms. I really hate the string of quick analytical arguments at the top of ACs that lack warrants and are extended to exclude entire negative positions, etc.

As a general rule, almost every argument you make (especially in rebuttals) should be at least 10 seconds long. Even arguments like "no warrant" and "no impact" are terrible when shorter than 10 seconds long - for example, explain to me what the evidence needed to have in order to be warranted, why the evidence didn't have that warrant, and why it couldn't have had that warrant (aka why the argument is actually wrong). Incomplete/blippy arguments will hurt your speaks.


 * Speaks**

Speaks are both a reflection of content and delivery. Generally though, they're more about quality of argumentation. I'll try to average around a 27.5-28. I will hold onto the ballot and tweak your speaks if you're incredibly rude to me during my RFD, so please don't be!


 * Random**

This is true for everyone - blippy arguments make debates pretty awful/hard to judge. Obviously some responses can be made quickly, but as a general rule of thumb, your responses should be more than a sentence long... If you blip out 10 reasons why utilitarianism is wrong, each of which is a sentence, like "utilitarianism justifies slavery, which is bad," etc., I'll be really receptive to overviews about the lack of warrants. Additionally, reading 10 generic reasons why someone's framework is wrong is, in my opinion, a silly strategy in the first place.

All arguments have implications. Most people make arguments and then never explain why they matter :(

I don't care if you sit or stand. Please come to the round flowed.

CX is valuable and some CXs are devastating enough to win the round. Too few people take advantage of CX now and that LD is really lacking some good personalities. I'll be really impressed if you can make me laugh and make me want to pay attention during CX. I'm fine with flex prep, but if you spend all 3 minutes of CX just prepping, I'll probably expect your speech to reflect that.

Don't be rude! Don't do it. I will tank your speaks but more importantly I will be super sad. It makes me super uncomfortable and it's just awkward all around. Please respect both your opponent and me! I don't mind answering questions about substance after the round; I do mind questions like "how could you even think about doing this to me??" etc.

This is your activity; enjoy yourself and don't take it too seriously. Don't alter your debate style just to try to please me - I obviously have preferences but things will go well if you do whatever you're best at.

If you have any questions about anything, feel free to ask me before the round/at the tournament, or e-mail me at diana.li [at] yale.edu. If I don't disclose, you can come find me and we can talk about the round.