Choi,+Michelle

I debated for 4 years on the national circuit with Harvard Westlake and graduated in 2012. I qualified to and reached elim rounds at the TOC both my junior and senior year.

I default competing interps and comparitive worlds, and am fine with RVI's. Also to be honest, I am better at evaluating theory or policy-esque rounds than I am at sorting through a dense philosophy round, but if you are clear enough in your explanations I should be able to follow whatever you are running.

I am fine with pretty much any argument and do my best not to intervene. The only exception I have to this is that I will do my best not to vote for arguments that just say "skepticism means no morality, thus events like the holocaust are justified." In other words, as important as I think non-intervention is, I personally believe its is more important that as a judge I do not encourage debaters to make arguments that I find morally repugnant when taken out of the "flow debate" context.

Also, if you are making multiple pre-standards arguments or one sentence blip arguments, I will not vote for them unless I have them flowed in the first speech. So if you are speeding through a ton of one-liners, pause between them; or if you want a higher chance to get my ballot, don't utilize that strategy in front of me.

When I am confused, it is obvious. Watch my face and you will have a very clear sense of whether or not I am following your argument.

If you have any specific questions/concerns, ask me before round.