Li,+Lisa

Cherry Creek HS 2010 (debated three years) Emory 2014 (debating)

Some general points:
 * As you can probably guess, I haven't judged much at all and am not familiar with this topic, so when necessary, clear explanation will be much appreciated.
 * I (like lots of judges) am a fan of in-depth case debates...
 * and impact debates! I can't do the work for you, but impact calc with evidence analysis and such is always excellent.
 * Speed's fine, just keep it clear.
 * I do have some vestiges of the old-school Colorado debater in me - don't plan on going for it or anything, but I do think that inherency (in what is hopefully rare cases) is worth voting for if the squo alone solves all the relevant parts of the aff, and I do buy terminal defense (though I think most judges aren't fans of the whole un-warranted "1% risk totally outweighs, and that's all I'm going to say" kind of thing).

Topicality: Nothing radical here, I'll buy your 1NC interpretation unless the 2AC answers it effectively. If you go for it, try for specific clash and clear linkages to the round as opposed to just relying on your blocks. I don't think I'm particularly biased towards either competing interpretations or reasonability. Also, I'd appreciate if you'd slow down on all your kitschy theory arguments.

Theory: A lot of the same ideas as T. I'm not biased towards or against any theory arguments, but if you are going to go for a theory argument, there needs to be sufficient time allocated for it before the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans: ...are great! Just make sure as the negative that you clearly explain what the CP does during the block since I might not catch all of the text. As the affirmative, clearly explain solvency deficits. I'm a 2A and I'm not used to running super complex CPs that tend to run into a lot of theory, so if you go for one of these, please just make sure you're explaining it well.

Disadvantages: ...are also great! Disad and case or disad and CP are probably my favorite debates.

Critiques: I'm open to K debates but unfortunately, I am not well-versed in critique literature, so please explain. The Ks I ran in high school were more policy-oriented and generic, like cap. If you go for the K, make sure you have a clear explanation of your K and alt, win/justify framework (unless being told otherwise, I will default to the affirmative being able to weigh case), and clear link and impact explanation and analysis (which I realize is what any judge wants, but there you go).

Performance: I'm not your best judge for these debates, but clear explanations and well-warranted arguments go a long way. Just make sure we're on the same page.