Alice Huang Paradigm
Last changed 2/11 11:49P PST
I want to say that I am Tabs, but my experience has made me realize that no one is actually Tabs. Every judge has his/her own preferences, and every judge has a slightly different way of evaluating rounds.I have listed a few of my specific preferences below.
I have been both a K debater and a traditional policy debater. However, throughout my debate career, I tended to go for the K, the Cap K in particular, more often than not.
T- I default to evaluating based on reasonability if no frame of evaluation is presented. However, if one team argues for competing interpretations, the other team must explain why reasonability would be a better way to evaluate the round. Blippy Ts aren't enough to win a round in front of me. In general, there must be proven abuse and an extremely well fleshed out T argument that is specific to the affirmative case.
Theory- I most likely will not vote for a team on just theory alone unless there has been proven abuse. Also, if you're trying to win on theory, please go all out on theory in your last speech.
Ks- If you're running a K, please know what you are talking about. You must be able to explain the K without having to look at your cards, and you must contextualize your K according to the affirmative. I love Ks, but I hate Ks that are terribly run.
CP- I absolutely despise conditions CPs. They are plan-plus and usually just become a muddled mess. Advantage CPs with specific net benefits are great. Agent CPs are fine as long they are warranted.
DAs- Do your thing. Know all parts of a DA. That is all. I love a well carved out politics DA.
Full Judging Record