Cheng,+Diane

I debated for four years at Lynbrook High School in San Jose, worked at the OSDI debate camp for two summers, VBI for three summers, and coached LD at Cupertino High School. I used to judge frequently at circuit tournaments in the Bay Area, but it's been a few years since I last judged. I can handle moderately fast (not super fast) speaking, just make sure that you enunciate. I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but not more than a few times, so pay attention and slow down and/or enunciate better if necessary. A few guidelines for winning my ballot, in no particular order:

At the end of the round, it can be difficult to figure out which arguments matter and how much they matter if the standards debate is muddled. "Standard" = some measure by which I am supposed to adjudicate arguments, usually referring to the value/criterion framework or burdens analysis. Don't just explain why your standard should be used; also give reasons why your opponent's standard is bad (unfair weighing mechanism, doesn't link to value/resolution, etc.). Going along with that, make sure you impact and weigh arguments to a standard.

I will not vote off of unwarranted arguments. That has two implications: 1) Don't make unwarranted arguments. 2) When making extensions, be sure to reiterate the warrants and impacts of your arguments. I am not going to do the work for you... so be forewarned.

In general, I prefer arguments that are more fully developed over one-sentence answers (which are often read off of a block). I really like positional debating - it makes rounds more educational and interesting to listen to.

I love crystallization. I dislike rounds with a lot of unresolved / un-impacted / un-weighed arguments in the round that I have to sift through to make my decision. Please write my ballot for me in your last speech.

I am not a fan of arguments that are phrased in a confusing way in the constructive and magically become clear in later speeches. I would prefer not to have to call for your case after the round to make sure I understood it properly. At its core, debate is about communication. If your argument was blippy or unclear in your constructive, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt in later speeches.

There isn't really anything I won't vote on (except unwarranted arguments, as mentioned above), so feel free to run theory and nontraditional cases. Just make sure your argument makes sense and tell me how you want me to adjudicate theory arguments relative to the rest of the arguments in the round. Specifically, if you assert that an argument should be a priori, give a substantive reason why. My average speaker point is a 26. You will get extra points for clear crystallization, especially decision calculus in your last speech.