Michelle Li ParadigmLast changed 12/4 5:04P EDT
Qualled to the TOC my senior year, am on the policy team at NYU now but haven't competed much
*UPDATE 11/25: I have honestly been really busy and out of debate this semester, so I might be a little rusty for Princeton. I taught at camp this summer and coached a little bit of SO, but I haven't done any topic research for ND. Take that however you'd like. I honestly don't really care what you do anymore as long as you do it well, but I've left my old paradigm up below if you have questions.*
*UPDATE 3/9: I have now taken the hot Cheetos policy off my paradigm. Rest in peace.*
Tl; dr: feel free to read anything. As long as you have warrants, don’t rely on your lingo, slow down on plan/interp/standard/etc. texts, make your links/abuse stories as specific as possible, weigh, and are not blatantly offensive (sexist/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.), we should be good. I like unique arguments of all "types." It is ultimately is your round, and you should go for your best/most comfortable arguments. I will take the route of least intervention. If you have any questions, feel free to fb message or email me!!
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org I’ll only flow along with the speech doc for names of cards, but won’t rely on it so that I don’t miss extempted args. Compiling the speech doc is prep but flashing isn’t (unless it takes you a suspiciously long time to flash).
People I coach: Hunter SK, Roslyn WB, Brookline AD, Byram Hills TD
Other conflicts: Hunter, Acton-Boxborough ML, Roslyn AG, Mission San Jose SC, Acton-Boxborough CX, Acton-Boxborough AV
Things (I say "things" because some of you think these are arguments but they really are not) I will not vote on, and will dock your speaks for:
-Sexual assault doesn't matter/rape good/some other version of that -- I will actually stop listening to part of/the rest of the speech if you say this.
-Any version of "oppression doesn't exist/is good" (this is not the same thing as extinction outweighs)
-Unnecessarily bringing up your opponent's private life as a reason to vote for you -- especially if the implications are homophobic/sexist/etc.
Misc. Defaults (very, very loose, and only apply if no one makes any arguments in round) and other stuff:
-Tech>>>truth. I also think the burden is on the debaters to point out misrepresented/powertagged evidence, so I won't interfere (this could change as I keep judging though).
-The more creative you are/entertaining the round is, the better your speaks will be
-You can ask questions after the round or send me a fb message/email about my RFD, but if you or your 100 coaches grill me aggressively, I will change your speaks to a 0 and walk out of the room
K’s: I’ve realized that I have a higher threshold and more preferences for K’s than other arguments, so don’t just read one in front of me because I used to read them. I read everything from identity politics to high theory throughout my career, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to explain your K in simple terms. I also want K debates to be more tech.
-Please know your K lit. If you botch it I will be sad :(, and you will also be sad about your speaks.
-I evaluate the ROB similarly to a normative FW debate. You need to be winning your specific ROB+offense linking back to it for me to grant you the K. This does not mean engage in Oppression Olympics — rather, tell me why combatting colonialism controls the internal link to liberating womxn, why analyzing media is key to the res, etc. Also, please don’t read a performance without justifying why that’s important in the ROB/somewhere in the method because I?? Don’t?? Know?? Why?? You’re?? Reading it?????? And will probably ignore it. If there are 2 competing ROB’s and both debaters pretend that that debate’s a wash, I will be frustrated.
-I think methods debate is dying because people don’t card solvency anymore. I’m more willing than you think to pull the trigger on presumption. AFF’s need to do something (this can be as vague as utopian politics or be hyper-specific to the topic — just don’t rant about how the world is horrible for 6 minutes.)
-Please have specific dis-ads to the perms (preferably ones that aren’t just generated off the links), and respond to each perm individually.
-I like brief overviews on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense
-One of my favorite authors is Denise Ferreira da Silva; if you card and run her lit correctly I will give you no less than a 29.5
Performance: totally cool with it. I read these and I like unique methods. Again, just warrant why it's important in the ROB. Trigger warnings are good.
Non-T AFF’s: go for them. Please have reasons as to why we should reject the res/interpret it differently. More thoughts on these in the “non-T AFF’s/K’s vs T/theory” section.
Theory: I really couldn’t care less about how frivolous the shell is, just slow down on interps and weigh standards
-I won't default any voters; you should be reading them. If you don't, I probably won't vote on the shell.
-Semantic I meet’s are, of course, cool :) but they don't trigger RVI's
-I tend to think disclosure theory is true, and will like you more if you disclose. That being said, if you win why disclosure is bad, I will vote for you. If you’re running disclosure theory, please have a screenshot in the speech doc/ready if I call for it.
T: I like T, I suppose, especially against non-T AFF's that don't do anything/arbitrarily say fuck the topic.
Non-T AFF’s/K’s vs. Theory/T:
-I don’t have a preference/bias as to which comes first; you should be doing this weighing.
-I really dislike generic fairness bad/theory and T are oppressive dumps. I would much prefer you interact with the standards or articulate why that specific shell is oppressive. That being said, if you do win an impact turn on theory/T, I will vote on it.
-The more specific your interp is to the AFF/K, the happier I will be, and the higher your speaks will be. I would also be much happier if you linked some parts of the shell back as offense under the ROB instead of excluding the entire K.
-I like these! I tend to find these to be pretty funny.
-I don't care if you're sketchy about them in CX.
-Please number your analytics
-Love creative/trolly a priori’s
-I will not be amused if you read these against a K AFF and go “haha! Oppression doesn’t exist!!!” I will give you a L0 (to clarify, I don’t care if you read these against K AFF’s, just don’t be a dick.)
Phil/FW: I’m familiar with the common LD frameworks, but don’t assume that I know your lingo !
-I’m extremely skeptical of epistemic modesty (and honestly not even sure how it really works ngl)
LARP: please please please weigh!!
-I think LARP debates can be really good but half of the time they're not :(
-I like unique plans/CP's/PIC's/etc.
-I've realized I'm kind of bad at understanding what CP's do (esp. if it's some other policy), so err on the side of more explanation
-Bonus points if your util fw isn’t just Bostrom/Goodin/Woller/Sunstein/Paterson/Sinnott-Armstrong/Bryant/Coverstone/Sinhababu/Yudkowsky
-Love plan flaw