Chan,+Sophia

I am a fourth year, psychobiology major at UCLA, which means that I do not currently debate. However, I debated in policy debate for four years at Lowell High School.

In terms of my philosophies, I think that the 2NR/2AR should frame the round and tell me "why you win what you win when you win it." Clash is also important - answer your opponents' arguments and don't just leave them hanging. My preferences are listed below, but I would NOT base your 2NR strategy on it. Go for whatever you want - just have a good explanation and justification for it.

Kritiks: I have never been very fond of the kritik, so I am not familiar with the literature and probably will not understand very specific, complex, jargon filled kritiks. With that said, I //will// vote for kritiks if it is explained and articulated well. Do not just repeat tag lines to me - give me a story and specific links to the affirmative in order for me to understand what exactly your alternative would do in a world where I voted for you.

Performance: I don't particularly like performance debates. I think that the aff should read a plan and defend it, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Counter-Plans & Disads: I love a good CP-DA or DA-case debate. Counterplans should probably be competitive and have a net benefit.

Theory/Topicality: I will vote on it if it's impacted well and not just a blippy 10 second argument.

Speed: I'm fine with it, but please be clear (and perhaps slow down on tags and authors). If I can't understand you, I probably won't have it on my flow.

If you have any specific questions, just ask.