Ha,+Vivian

Vivian Ha Edina High School '11 Trinity University '15

About me: In high school I ran both policy and critical arguments. In college, I've had tournaments where every speech was neolib bad, but I'm working back to a more diverse strategy. I'm not as well versed in the more esoteric lit (Lacan, Bataille, Baudrillard etc) but cap, fem, security and the like are fine. And I'm not saying don't run the other stuff either, you just might have some more 'splainin to do.


 * The Michigan camp relevant version*** - Run what you want, I'll work with you on it. You're at camp to prepare yourself for the year, whatever that entails.

Basics: Please try to do this stuff, because believe me, you don't want me doing work for you.
 * Tell me why what you're winning matters
 * Tell me how I should evaluate the round
 * Make comparative claims about the other teams evidence and arguments
 * Speed is good, clarity is better, efficiency is best
 * Favorite generic 2NR strats from most fave to least fave (I'm being super super honest. Respect that by doing what I want)
 * K (if you can get a somewhat specific link, I'd be happier)
 * Impact Turning the whole case
 * Politics/Case
 * Politics/Process CP
 * PIC with internal net benefit
 * Topic specific T
 * Yeah, you can win on a cheap shot, but you'd better go all in on that sucker. It's not a cheap shot if you're not taking the risk.
 * I default to competing interpretations on framework and utilitarian calculus until proven otherwise
 * Be nice or else. I am reluctant to give exceptionally good speaks to people who are mean to their partners/the other team. Being offensive is not funny. Nerdy jokes are.

Case Debates: They're cool. Try to say the full name of technical terms in cards once before you switch to abbreviations at the beginning, I should catch on in a few rounds.

Counterplans: I have no inherent biases against counterplans. Consult NATO can definitely solve the aff if all they're extending is the lie perm and you're saying it destroys credibility. That said, there are definitely good theoretical arguments that can (and probably should) be made as to why the neg shouldn't get process counterplans, international fiat etc. and if you make those objections coherently and with some substantial degree of analysis, I'll evaluate them.

Disads: Ok, it's only fair to be completely honest. I kind of have a mental block about disads. I can read them and read them and read them and still not understand what's going on. Especially straight up heg. If you're talking about proxy wars and regional perception, make sure I'm flowing furiously or you'll be in trouble.

Ks: Yes please. The more specific the links and the better the explanation of the impact, the happier I'll be. I guess your K doesn't have to have an alt, but invest time in convincing me of that. The non unique DA often doesn't outweigh on timeframe/magnitude.

Theory: Kind of addressed under counterplans. Condo is pretty good. I can probably be persuaded that it isn't, but honestly if they pull a Seth Gannon at finals of the NDT (11 off), chances are they wont all mesh great and some of them won't link too well/solve the aff and should make it easier for you to answer. If you think something is theoretically illegit, call it out, but also do your best to answer the substance. If you're prepared but you still don't have answers, than maybe that proves abuse and you should tell me so.

T: Tread carefully. I'll default to reasonability. Please please please invest some time in explaining why your interpretation solves the relevant standards better. You don't have to spend as much time on impact work if you're both going for education. But if fairness outweighs education, then you should definitely talk about impacts.

Performance/Non-traditional: Lucky for you, I'm not super tech focused. Definitely go for it if it's what you do. On the other hand, I find the arguments "perm: revolution + material action" and "they make debate unfair and that's bad" rather persuasive. You do have to do more than just say those words if you're hitting one of these arguments, however.

Speaks: 27 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments.

Paperless: Good stuff. I'm not a "running clock" prep person, but be very clear when I should stop my timer (I'm not going by anyone's time but my own) and then be very very quick about getting your speech on the flash drive and passed around or I will be angry.