Lai,+Debbie

Debbie Lai Notre Dame

I generally view things through an offense/defense framework. Impact calc is very important on everything, including theory arguments. I was a technical debater and am not a truth-seeker, which means there is a high premium on dropped arguments.
 * The basics:**

Although I like to reward teams that read high-quality evidence, I have found that it is difficult for me to justify evaluating all of the warrants in a card during the post-round if adequate in round extension and extrapolation has not taken place. On the flip side, I have difficulty remedying great in round discussion with no evidential support. This has manifested itself most clearly in debates where one team is extremely spotty with great quality evidence and the other is very convincing with poor evidence. I will admit that I have not figured out exactly where I stand (ideally there's a mix of the two), but if you are a team that depends very highly on one or the other, keep in mind that some adaptation might have to take place on your part.

These are my general defaults on arguments, but you should take everything with a grain of salt and remember that it's a debate, so you can always convince me otherwise:


 * T:** I don’t think in round abuse has to happen. I do enjoy discussions about what reasonability means and how it should impact the T debate. Impact calc here is also important. For example, if you lose that your interpretation is better for education, but they win theirs is better for limits, which comes first? I think the burden is on the neg to prove their interpretation is best, but this is really only a tiebreaker if the debate is incredibly unclear.
 * Theory:** Aside from conditionality debates, I do not think that CP theory is a reason to reject the team. Multiple counterplans are ok--but multiple conditional CPs in the 2NC are a little excessive. Intrinsicness and vote no are bad arguments, but I think it’s important to discuss the world of fiat or the role of the judge when answering these.
 * CPs:** My default is not to kick the CP for the negative after the debate if the CP proves to be a lesser policy option than the plan. I think that interpretations of counterplan competition are important when Perm: do the CP is introduced.
 * K:** Contrary to popular belief, I do vote on the K and do so fairly often. I think that alternative solvency is important. If the K is a linear DA, I need to understand why it links more to the aff than the SQ (though it is burden of the affirmative to bring this up). I do think that oftentimes K debates shift considerably over the course of the debate, and I am sympathetic to both aff and neg arguments that this is unfair.

I’d like to see framework discussions move beyond short analytics, particularly in two areas. First, I think that FW is a good place to do impact calculus for the aff. However, it is not merely enough to assert that your aff should be considered on the same level as or prioritized over the alternative. I want to know why that is true, and evidentiary support bolsters the credibility of the reasoning. Second, I’d like to see more theoretical discussions about the logic behind and implications of different interpretations (e.g. plan focus, judge choice, etc).

I do find "we need to escape the activity" platforms largely unconvincing. Although I am sympathetic to the cause behind these movements, I don’t think that this line of argumentation is the best strategy to redress these harms.

This activity is very important to me. If you act as if you aren’t invested (i.e. not flowing, or listening), my views on that will probably be reflected in speaker points. You don't have to be overly nice to each other, but I don’t like teams that I think are unnecessarily rude. If you have any questions, please ask.

Updated 1-24-10