Li,Michelle


 * Lowell HS '13**
 * UC Berkeley '17**

I am a recent graduate from Lowell HS and debated for 4 years both as a 2N and a 2A. I am currently attending CAL but am not debating. In short, I'm okay with anything but I like certain arguments over others, meaning I'll have a higher threshold for you to meet for the arguments I like less.

- My favorite debates tend to be DA and case because case is too often ignored. Although a good CP debate is also enjoyable. - I like the concept of K's but wasn't much of a K debater in high school and tend to give leeway on framework. - I'm not much of a performance fan and feel the need give room the opposing team on framework and T. - I have a higher threshold on T and theory. They better be blatantly violating something or you better be really good. - Speed is fine. Be clear.
 * __ Short Version: __**

I can tell you what I think debate should be and all my history but no one cares about that. Instead, I will tell you how to win my vote.
 * __ Long Version: __**


 * Performance:** These kinds of debates provide me with amusement and I give props to any teams that can do this well but for the most part, these aren't the debates I enjoy judging. I feel a lot of desire to find room for the opposing team if they run framework. I have a high threshold when answering framework arguments and "no link - we don't actually do any policy" will not suffice.Basically if you're a performance team, I should never be a 1 on your prefs.


 * Kritiks:** I think K's are an important part of the debate strategy but you better understand your K if you're going to run it. Throwing out big words and terms will not get you anywhere. I believe that every good K debater can describe their kritik in elementary school language and still get the point across. There must be an alt of some form and you must win it. I will not vote on the non-unique disad. If you can't change anything and they can't either, neither side wins. My favorite K is Capitalism and I'm not much of a fan of language K's. I very rarely buy into fiat is illusory unless it goes completely dropped in the debate but you can win a root cause argument to their impacts quite easily. This is not my favorite 2NR strategy but don't kick it if you're winning just for my preferences.


 * Counterplans: ** Almost all counterplans are fine. Things like Consult, Delay, etc. are questionable and theory should be in your 2AC but are not intrinsically illegitimate in my eyes. I enjoy agent CP's, case-specific counterplans, and advantage counterplans. I believe the block should be used to indite the 1AC and read specific solvency evidence and not generic solvency blocks. I do not have a strong feeling on either side of counterplan theory or even counterplans in general. Read them, win them, go for them, or don't.


 * Disads: **By far, this is my favorite debate argument. They can range from a very simple, expanded case turn to a complicated, far-fetched DA. I love politics. Politics theory is viable if well explained. On the neg, defending the educational utility of the politics disad is a good argument. You can win a turns case and easily win a round. I don't have a strong opinion on any other disads. I do believe that 100% defense against the aff is a thing and if you win that the affirmative has no net benefits, I will vote neg.

**Case:** I probably find case to be more important that other judges, Defense on every advantage you can't solve is necessary and lack of can cause a loss if the affirmative team runs it correctly. Well-researched case can be hard to answer and should be a good chunk of focus in the block. Again, if you win 100% defense, I will, willingly though probably unhappily if you couldn't win any offense, vote on presumption.

**Topicality:** I am not a big fan of T unless they are truly violating the resolution. Of course you can win on T in front of me. But my theory on T is clear: quality over quantity. Quickly spreading through T blocks that shouts words like limits and ground repeatedly won't win you a T round if the affirmative team has a single good answer. I also tend to default on reasonability and, more often than not, T becomes a washed up flow.

- Condo is normally fine no matter how many off's you have especially if there is less than three which means dispo is a no no because it's normally a lie. - Severance perms are bad. Intrinsic perms aren't as bad but can be bad. - Multiple worlds is okay. - Floating PIK's are normally bad but not a reason to reject the team. - "Reject the argument, not the team." almost always works - Everything else is debatable
 * Theory: ** Theory is a valid argument but I very rarely vote on it unless it goes dropped or there is a clear violation. Some predispositions I have:

**Speaker points:** Be smart and know what you're talking about. Make smart arguments even if you don't always have evidence. Ask smart questions and think on your feet. Don't be mean. If someone is mean to you, call them out. If you make me laugh, you'll get higher speaks. Don't stress and focus on winning your arguments.

There you have it. But remember, don't change the way you debate for me. If you're good at what you do, keep doing it and you'll have a better chance of winning than if you do something I like badly. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round or email me at michelleli101795@gmail.com. I'm nicer than I look. PS. I apologize in advance if I look bored or like I'm not paying attention. I swear I'm listening. I just have that kind of face.