Lin,+Kathie

I did LD for 4 years (2012-2016) at Dulles High School, competing primarily on TFA and TOC circuits.

If you make overviews and practically write the ballot for me, you will make my job easier and that will probably reflect in your speaks, if not in the results of the round. I admire well-developed arguments, not blips. Any argument goes, as long as you do it well and it's not offensive.
 * TL;DR (Because I understand that this paradigm is too long):**

General: - Debate the way that you want to debate. I’ll be more impressed at seeing you be really good at your schtick then try to read something you’re unfamiliar with. - Listen to each other and try your best to respond to the argument that your opponent is actually making instead of the one you think that they are making. - Speed is fine, but slow down on analytics and author names**.** - Please no blippy arguments. I’m slow and dumb, so I won’t catch all of your blips or understand why they’re amazing arguments. I’ll be extremely hesitant to grant you lenience on exploding blippy arg #6 as a reason to vote for you. - If your argument is graphic/personal/possibly triggering, please say something before you read it. (i.e. give a trigger warning)

Ks: - Don’t assume that I’m familiar with what you’re reading. Just please explain your position clearly. - I give no-links a bit more credence than most judges. If the aff makes a compelling no-link argument, I probably won't vote on a risk of a link. You can still win the link though, just explain it well. - Develop your perms. Describe the world of the perm, the net benefits, etc. If you don’t, I probably won’t vote on a three-word “perm do both.” - I have a higher expectation for justification for a ROB/FW than most judges. I want to see an explicit link to the function of debate or the need for education or something. Without that, I will be VERY receptive to attacks against your ROB.

Policy arguments: - In theory I’m receptive to these arguments, but complex and technical LARP debates are hard for me to evaluate without clear weighing. So please do that. - I’ll be more receptive to defense on iffy link scenarios than most judges. Most likely I won’t evaluate a DA with good defense (even if it’s mitigatory) on the link level, and will look to another layer of the debate.

Ethical Framework: - I will be super impressed if you are a really good framework debater. - I’m not that familiar with a lot of ethical frameworks, especially in how they interact with other frameworks. Please explain yourself well and clearly. - Please remember that FW debate is comparative – don’t just read a bunch of defense or “turns” on framework and fail to explain why your FW resolves those issues or what the impact to those arguments are. I will be very confused. - Slow down on analytics. - Please no skepticism against oppression args.

Theory/T: - Read at your own risk. For a complex, technical theory debate, I am the absolute worst possible judge. - However, do not hesitate to read theory/T if there is clear abuse. But when you do, please slow down and clearly impact your arguments. Also, overviews. - I’m not a fan of frivolous theory, so I might dock speaks even if you win it. - Competing interps/reasonability: I’m whatever you tell me to be. If no one justifies any paradigm, I probably default reasonability and no RVI’s.