Lin,+Scott

Scott Lin

I debated at Bellaire High School for 4 years, currently debate at Northwestern University.

A few things at the top:

1) First year – I’m new to judging and my views on some issues will probably change through the course of my debate/judging career. I will try my best to keep an accurate flow.

2) Work – I think debate is an activity that rewards research and effort. That being said, just because you have more politics updates doesn’t mean you win. I will, however, try to put in an amount of effort that is proportional to the effort that I see put into the debate.

3) Disclaimer – Despite what you see below, you can still read what you’re more comfortable with. You’re probably more likely to pick up my ballot reading a position that you’re better at than trying to adapt to my preferences to views on debate. But, these arguments should still be impacted or explained. And, even if I say that I like or am receptive or whatever to certain args, I expect the same level of analysis for these to be considered an argument. If you win, I’ll vote for it. I can be persuaded that competing interpretations are good/bad, that something has zero-probability, that certain theory issues are reasons to reject the team.

I read disads and counterplans and case in high school and probably am reading these positions in college – this is my comfort zone. I like specific strategies a LOT. I like politics disads. I read states and some other PICs whenever I didn’t have the goods on a team. And, by the end of the year, I had some type of offensive and defensive case args prepped against every major AFF. The flipside to this is that if you like the K, I’m probably going to need more explanation of everything. Things like “cede the political” made a lot of sense to me most of the time. I also hated when teams pulled all kinds of cheating shenanigans in the block. Not that I will intervene to stop the K trickery, but if you’re called out on it, I’ll be receptive to these claims.

I think aggression has its place in debate – sometimes it’s appropriate, sometimes it’s not. If you think you’re more of a douche than average, be conscious of where your douchebaggery level is and when you use it. I understand the frustration that you might have when debating against a stupid arg or a team that is on a much, much lower level than you, but you don’t have to throw a ragefit at the other team for me to get that you’re better. Volume is very rarely an issue – my high school partner was really loud. Quiet people just need to make sure that I can hear you. These are issues when it comes to speaker points and how well I’m able to flow you.

On this same note, I have an anecdote. There was this one round in high school where I didn’t go for ASPEC even though that was clearly the better strategic option because I was scared of getting bad speaks in a round I could easily win. I think that your strategic choice also factors in speaker points. If a team spends 10 seconds on ASPEC and overcovers your specific PIC and net benefit, I don’t think I would give bad speaks just because you went for ASPEC. This also means that if you have to do the same amount of work to win going for ASPEC as you would going for your specific strat against a team, I’d probably reward your specific strat.

Theory issues – condo/dispo is usually okay (neg leaning), PICs are okay (neg leaning), word PICs questionable (aff leaning), Consult/Condition more questionable, object fiat not so okay (aff leaning), States (not sure why you would be reading this on milpres topic but) questionable (neg leaning), international fiat questionable (neg leaning). I think RANT args make sense against most theory arguments except condo/dispo but, refer back to the disclaimer.

I’ve never judged a performance debate before. I’ll try to be open about these sorts of things. I think that at least you should have some relevance to the topic. I’m not sure if trying to flow these types of things are a good idea but I’m still going to try.

I really don’t like cheating which include things like card clipping, ev fabbing, lying, prep time stealing, ev stealing, or just any unethical type of behavior. I will slay your speaks and depending on what you’ve done, might slay your record.