Gu,+Andy


 * About me:**

I have judged 0 rounds on surveillance. I also haven't flowed in a year and a half. Please don't make my life miserable.


 * High School**: Saint Francis High School, Class of 2014. I debated all four years in high school. I read a variety of arguments, from Nuclear War Good to Decoloniality to Zizek to a variety of process counterplans throughout these four years.


 * College:** University of Southern California, Currently not debating


 * Rounds judged on the Oceans topic**: 9


 * Judges I look up to**: Orion Steele, Doug Dennis, Sam Haley-Hill


 * Favorite color**: Lilac


 * Picky Things:**


 * -**Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.

-If I catch you stealing prep, I’ll give a verbal warning and then just dock points until you stop.

-One of the worst things I had to do when debating was having to somehow flow the most unintelligible spews of text and then somehow respond to them – I’ll say clear twice and then just stop flowing.

-If your viewing computer is the worst thing that ever happened to the world of computing, you better be flashing your speech.

-I like jokes, but you shouldn’t be a prick.

-Arguments have **warrants**. “Zizek says cats should be taxed” doesn’t mean cats should be taxed. Similarly, “Zizek is a terrible parent” doesn’t mean his theory is wrong.

-If you cut the card, you better be marking it with returns on your laptop. I realized that a lot of really technical teams mark cards in the **shittiest** places, and you can use that to your advantage.

-every accurate zach rosenthal joke is a +.05


 * Case / Disads:** There’s nothing I love more than watching a team get smashed on their own argument. That being said, impact calculus is important. If you don’t give me a form of evaluation between clashing pieces of offense, I’ll do my own thing. If you are a terrible person in the round who doesn’t give me that form of evaluation, I will be a terrible person when evaluating.

-“**If I can’t explain your argument back to you, I’m not going to vote on it.”** Someone along my debate career told me that one time, and I’m going to use it as a rule-of-thumb.

-I will default to offense-defense if no one tells me not to, but I don’t want to.

-I have a soft spot for smart analytics which expose bullshit in silly affirmative advantages. There are a lot of affirmative advantages which can be taken out by common sense, and I respect teams which can defend that.

-Don’t double turn yourself, but if you do, I won’t vote on it unless you point it out.

-Impact defense is your friend – a non-contextualized nuke try-er-dai 2AR is probably going to lose if it doesn’t answer mitigators by the neg.


 * Counterplans:** Read a lot of process counterplans my junior year. That being said, you gotta justify why your counterplan is legitimate.

-After messing with people, I probably lean aff on competition arguments.

-I’m not going to kick your conditional options for you.


 * Kritiks:** I read pretty topic-specific kritiks in my HS career, but you should assume that I have no clue what your theories are talking about if you don’t explain them.

-Kritik buzzwords are not arguments.

-Your three card generic cap-K is probably a lot less convincing than a contextualized 1NC/2NC link wall. I’m much more willing to let your K tricks slide when you reference parts of the aff. I’m __very__ receptive to links which apply to the aff, and you will be rewarded for it.

-Make sure your links have clear impacts. “X plan is capitalist” is not very convincing, but “X plan’s use of Y which abuses Z through a clear manifestation of capital” is.

-Permutations can sometimes be the focal point of a K debate. Ironically, not many teams put enough support / explanation for their perms.

-

media type="custom" key="26945030"


 * Theory:**

-Y’all need to slow down. I enjoy theory debates a lot because late speeches often encourage teams to move past card barf, but these can quickly turn into the worst debates for me if becoming block-barf.

-1 Condo is probably good. 2 or more depends. Perf-con arguments are very convincing for the aff for me. I will vote on offense defense, but I’d much rather see a concrete abuse scenario.

-If your condo block is five four-word arguments I’m not going to be able to flow them.

-I don’t know where I lean on T. I default to offense-defense, but I think reasonability as a form of impact analysis (high risk of education versus a miniscule probability of lost equity) is an important tool.

-People usually say I have an unusually low threshold on condo. I usually tell them that they usually high ones. Personally, I think that options that link to each other are iffy. Especially if you are making substantive claims/impacts with your condo argument, I am very willing to hear out those debates. However, l o l no one does this so yolo. Also don't just go for theory because I'm ranting here.


 * Framework / Planless affs:**

-I’ve never been in an evaluated framework debate. I’ve never read a plan-less aff. That being said, I believe these affs are performatively important and related to the topic.

-I **have** been in debates about counter-methods against the aff.

-I still do not know whether or not performance affs have access to the perm. I get the argument that permutations can decide between two mutually exclusive starting points, but the effects of this assumption being good or bad is up to you to decide.

 -If I catch you stealing prep, I’ll give a verbal warning and then just dock points until you stop. -One of the worst things I had to do when debating was having to somehow flow the most unintelligible spews of text and then somehow respond to them – I’ll say clear twice and then just stop flowing. -If your viewing computer is the worst thing that ever happened to the world of computing, you better be flashing your speech. -I like jokes, but you shouldn’t be a prick. -Arguments have **warrants**. “Zizek says cats should be taxed” doesn’t mean cats should be taxed. Similarly, “Zizek is a terrible parent” doesn’t mean his theory is wrong. -If you cut the card, you better be marking it with returns on your laptop. I realized that a lot of really technical teams mark cards in the **shittiest** places, and you can use that to your advantage. -every accurate zach rosenthal joke is a +.05 -“**If I can’t explain your argument back to you, I’m not going to vote on it.”** Someone along my debate career told me that one time, and I’m going to use it as a rule-of-thumb. -I will default to offense-defense if no one tells me not to, but I don’t want to. -I have a soft spot for smart analytics which expose bullshit in silly affirmative advantages. There are a lot of affirmative advantages which can be taken out by common sense, and I respect teams which can defend that. -Don’t double turn yourself, but if you do, I won’t vote on it unless you point it out. -Impact defense is your friend – a non-contextualized nuke try-er-dai 2AR is probably going to lose if it doesn’t answer mitigators by the neg. -After messing with people, I probably lean aff on competition arguments. -I’m not going to kick your conditional options for you. -Kritik buzzwords are not arguments. -Your three card generic cap-K is probably a lot less convincing than a contextualized 1NC/2NC link wall. I’m much more willing to let your K tricks slide when you reference parts of the aff. I’m __very__ receptive to links which apply to the aff, and you will be rewarded for it. -Make sure your links have clear impacts. “X plan is capitalist” is not very convincing, but “X plan’s use of Y which abuses Z through a clear manifestation of capital” is. -Permutations can sometimes be the focal point of a K debate. Ironically, not many teams put enough support / explanation for their perms. -
 * About me:**
 * High School**: Saint Francis High School, Class of 2014. I debated all four years in high school. I read a variety of arguments, from Nuclear War Good to Decoloniality to Zizek to a variety of process counterplans throughout these four years.
 * College:** University of Southern California, Currently not debating
 * Rounds judged on the Oceans topic**: 9
 * Judges I look up to**: Orion Steele, Doug Dennis, Sam Haley-Hill
 * Favorite color**: Lilac
 * Picky Things:**
 * -**Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.
 * Case / Disads:** There’s nothing I love more than watching a team get smashed on their own argument. That being said, impact calculus is important. If you don’t give me a form of evaluation between clashing pieces of offense, I’ll do my own thing. If you are a terrible person in the round who doesn’t give me that form of evaluation, I will be a terrible person when evaluating.
 * Counterplans:** Read a lot of process counterplans my junior year. That being said, you gotta justify why your counterplan is legitimate.
 * Kritiks:** I read pretty topic-specific kritiks in my HS career, but you should assume that I have no clue what your theories are talking about if you don’t explain them.

-Y’all need to slow down. I enjoy theory debates a lot because late speeches often encourage teams to move past card barf, but these can quickly turn into the worst debates for me if becoming block-barf. -1 Condo is probably good. 2 or more depends. Perf-con arguments are very convincing for the aff for me. I will vote on offense defense, but I’d much rather see a concrete abuse scenario. -If your condo block is five four-word arguments I’m not going to be able to flow them. -I don’t know where I lean on T. I default to offense-defense, but I think reasonability as a form of impact analysis (high risk of education versus a miniscule probability of lost equity) is an important tool. -People usually say I have an unusually low threshold on condo. I usually tell them that they usually high ones. Personally, I think that options that link to each other are iffy. Especially if you are making substantive claims/impacts with your condo argument, I am very willing to hear out those debates. However, l o l no one does this so yolo. Also don't just go for theory because I'm ranting here.
 * Theory:**

-I’ve never been in an evaluated framework debate. I’ve never read a plan-less aff. That being said, I believe these affs are performatively important and related to the topic. -I **have** been in debates about counter-methods against the aff. -I still do not know whether or not performance affs have access to the perm. I get the argument that permutations can decide between two mutually exclusive starting points, but the effects of this assumption being good or bad is up to you to decide.
 * Framework / Planless affs:**