Liu,+Elise

My name is **Elise**, as in the Beethoven or Cure songs. Don't call me "Elsie" or "Alice" and we will probably get along.

I debated for Fox Chapel Area HS, a suburban public school in western PA, for three years back in 2004-2007. I was the 2007 PHSSL state champion in Lincoln-Douglas and broke at NFL and CFL nationals, running only traditional teleological arguments with a strong affinity for 20th century social theorists. Now I'm a senior at Harvard College, judging the Harvard tournament as a break from my senior thesis in economic sociology.

Until this weekend -- that's right, //this weekend// -- I'd never seen a circuit round in my life. In case you're paranoid about "bias": my politics are leftist with Clintonite leanings, my faith is in coffee, and my ideology is not to be offended if you disagree.

In a nutshell, I'm a **traditional but openminded** judge. I'm neither completely new to this nor so set in my ways that I won't tolerate a little creativity, but humor me. Don't use jargon. Stock arguments are fine if argued well, but I'll probably weigh your argument more heavily if it's both powerful //and// interesting. Don't use jargon. "Nontraditional" cases are acceptable as well: I am more likely to be impressed than horrified if you pull a Jonathan Swift. //Don't use jargon.//

I like a good **value clash,** and I expect a little more analysis on it than "my value is prior to his value because you have to have mine first." To be frank, I'd prefer a synthesis of values and a clash of criteria: talk about why yours is necessary, sufficient, and efficient to accomplishing your opponent's value, and you can still win if your opponent's value flows through the round.

While **theory and paradigm debates** can be interesting -- who doesn't love a little epistemology -- they tend not to be. The resolution was chosen for a reason -- it is contentious and complex -- while there are only so many ways one can debate the finer points of debate theory without going mad. If more than 20 percent of your original case has almost no bearing upon the specific resolution, you are unlikely to win my vote. If your opponent runs a compelling resolution-specific case and you extend some hidden part of your framework as a trap, you are also unlikely to win my vote.

I hope none of you are too upset by this view. I know the decision to run debate theory can be a prisoner's dilemma of sorts. By explicitly asking you not to hide the real issues behind meta-arguments, I'm acting as your commitment device.

Moving on: **style and structure** matter. Multiple rebuttals are good; multiple rebuttals delivered clearly with memorable taglines and clear signposting are better. To give you a sense of my favored tempo, I used to run cases of about 1,150 words in a six minute affirmative. I can probably flow up to 230 wpm depending on your enunciation, but if I have to work that hard, you better convince me all those words matter.

Speed, whether high or low, will not be counted against you -- poor arguments, however, will. I will not flow arguments without warrants, and I will only adjudicate on the basis of arguments that were compellingly made the first time they appeared. Any attempt to 'spread' your opponent with a high volume of unwarranted claims that you plan to extend and then justify will probably get on my nerves, which are already frayed by my thesis, so please, be nice.


 * Timers** are fine when you are the one speaking or using prep time; they should not be audible when your opponent is in the hot seat. I will keep the official time for the round. If you want me to flow what you are saying, don't ask me for time signals.

In your final rebuttal, **crystallization is key while voting issues are not.** Don't tell me you won a specific argument or that your opponent dropped a turn -- tell me why that argument and that turn mean you have successfully affirmed/negated the resolution. Value, criterion, theory, paradigm, contentions, whatever -- the entire case structure leads to a compelling vision of what it means to affirm or negate.

To conclude: if you can be thoughtful, convincing, and precise, you will have debated well. If you can be those things as well as interesting, charismatic, and entertaining, you will have validated the time I've invested judging -- and writing this absurdly-long judging philosophy -- and your results will show it. Have fun, say smart things, and email me with any questions -- eliseliu@fas.harvard.edu.