General: I debated for four years on nat circuit at Harker. I'm open to any sort of argument, but here are my defaults:

Theory:
- If your A strat is to run a bunch of theory spikes/presumption triggers every round and do no topic prep, don't pref me :D I will not vote on frivolous theory.
- I'll still listen to any shell you read, especially if there is legit abuse in the round. Well-executed plans good/plans bad, pics good/bad, etc. are fine.
- I default to competing interpretations and drop the argument, but I'll vote on whatever is decided in the debate.
- RVIs are fine.

Fmwk/Philosophy:
- I ran mostly util and policy style arguments, but you can read whatever you want so long as you justify your framework fully and explain how you (and your opponent) can weigh under your standard clearly
- Just because you win framework or ROB doesn't mean you win the round - weigh your links
- I'm not very compelled by skep - its probably defense

Kritiks:
- Run them - I think they're the most educational part of debate, but if you read a rather uncommon K (i.e. something other than Cap, Fem, Racism, Anthro, etc.) make sure you explain them in english and not esoteric philosophical terms.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is about learning and having fun while learning, not just trophies :D

About me/TL;DR:
I'm a third year Econ/Stats major with a minor in Human Rights, which means I think analytically and care about the world. It also means I have a lot of things to do, so don't waste my time; make the debate interesting and conclusive.

I competed in circuit LD for two years with Presentation High School in San Jose, CA. I was almost exclusively a util debater, but I can follow other philosophies if they are commonly known or explained clearly. Make the round resolvable if you want to be happy with the decision. That means weighing, clear extensions, and a conclusive framework/theory debate. The more you weigh, the more likely I agree with your view of the round.

Don't be rude. Debate is a forum for intellectual argumentation, not a place for you to expel your anger. I've seen a lot of sexist rounds in my time, and I'm not here for it. Have a good time, learn stuff while you debate, and we'll all be happy with the outcome of the round.

+0.5 speaks if you show up to the round early. -1 speaks if you're late.

Sharing cases:
Using e-mail chains to share cases is faster and has fewer technical issues than flashing. If you e-mail evidence in round prior to speeches I'll give you +0.5 speaks.
Flashing is part of prep time. I don't like prep stealing. Your prep doesn't end until you hand your opponent the flash drive.

Speaker points:
i) I heavily weight to incentivize clash and punish unethical actions in round (at my discretion)
ii) I’ll tank your speaks if you read things you didn't share with your opponent pre-speech and will probably not evaluate the arguments.

Theory:
I have a high threshold for the links between interp, violation, and standards. If you read standards cut from an old block I’m probably not voting on them. Theory is always competing interps unless you either explain how I evaluate reasonability and/or win intervention good. 1AC theory pre-empts need to be re-contextualized in the 1AR based on the exact nature of the violation in the 1N. These are my starting points and thresholds on some interps. I’m free to add interps to the list at any time. I'll only vote on an RVI if you're also winning the theory debate or justify why you shouldn't have to be IN THIS ROUND.
I have a VERY high threshold on these interps:
- Neg must read competing ethic
- Affirmative Ethic Choice (AEC)
- Neg interps must be checked in CX
- Aff may not defend implementation
- Neg must defend squo
I have a fairly low threshold on these interps:
- Aff must defend a topical action
- Neg must clash with the aff in some way (rejoinder)

Speed:

I have seldom come across JV debaters who spread too fast for me to understand; however, I have been off the circuit for a few years, so things might have changed and y'all might be incredible now. I highly doubt it. If you do choose to spread, do it clearly and send me your case so I can follow along (that does not mean that I will flow everything in your doc; if I don't hear it being said, I won't flow it). I will say clear a maximum of 2 times per speech, but if I've already said clear and you go back to being incoherent, I'm tanking your speaks. It's in your interest to make sure I catch all your arguments, so chose quality over quantity (you should do this anyway, but it rarely happens).

If I say clear, I've probably already missed an argument and I'm not going to struggle to find it. Even if I have your case, I need to distinctly hear at least a few keywords/taglines from each card to flow it.

I believe content should dictate speed. You can probably read util at top speed in front of me, continental philosophy at 75%, and analytic philosophy only slightly faster than conversational pace. If your position is based on many short links you need to slow down so I don't miss or misunderstand any of them.

Extensions:
My threshold for extensions is fairly high; clearly say "extend x" or talk about x for a really significant portion of your speech (I prefer the former). You don't need to extend dropped arguments in front of me. You only need to weigh the impact of the dropped argument against other impacts in the round. If you don't bring the impact up to weigh it in your final speech, I won't evaluate it for my ballot.

Evidence:
The only time I typically call for evidence is if there is a dispute about the evidence itself (what it says). This means one debater challenges the content of a piece of evidence and it is defended. As above, if I miss something from your evidence I will not help you by looking for it.

Paradigm

I don’t vote on arguments I don’t understand or that aren't warranted. That said, I prefer util or K debates (with specific links and impacts) as I both understand them better and find them more resolvable. I start the round evaluating comparative worlds as a policy-maker post-fiat and an educator pre-fiat. There is some wiggle room on how I evaluate impacts here, but you shouldn't be reading truth testing in front of me. It will be very hard to win both because I'm not compelled by the paradigm and I don't think LD is the right forum for analytic philosophy.

Presumption:
I presume a lot. A LOT. This is not because I like presumption arguments, but because I so seldom watch rounds that I feel are resolvable. Here is a guide to how I evaluate arguments, which typically terminates in presumption:
- if there are qualitatively different impacts under the same FW that are not weighed I won't evaluate any of them
- if there is an impact that is only quantitatively different between the two sides, I will evaluate the bigger/smaller one based on what the impact is
- I don't do qualitative weighing because it's intervention, but I feel the ability to count is a reasonable task for a judge.
- if each debater is winning one impact calc metrics and they are not compared I won't evaluate either
- if there is a warrant and counter-warrant to the same argument without comparative weighing I won't evaluate the argument
- Same rules for FW, if each person is winning some arguments and they are not compared, I probably presume
- I start off presuming neg for positively worded "ought" resolutions. If the negative reads an unconditional CP or alt then presumption flips aff.

Please don't do these:
- calling defense turns
- claiming your opponent dropped something he/she didn't
- asking me my preferences and then choosing to not adapt
- Claiming a single issue is sufficient to vote when it isn't (I won't vote just because you won the value debate)
- claiming there are rules in LD, and that your opponent is breaking them (this is what theory is for)
- abuse claims (theory) without warrants (standards) and impacts (voters)
- being shifty in CX to avoid clash

Hey my name is Kat and I debated for IHHS for 4 years till my graduation in 2014.

I qualified to both NSDA nationals and the ToC, so I'm comfortable with speed or lack thereof.

I was mostly a traditional util debater and was not terribly fond of Ks, but will obviously listen to anything except flat ontology.

Kesha references in your speeches yield higher speaks, as does overall polite behavior and smart, clever strategy.

Theory, T, Plans, are all good. I've been out of the community for a year or so, so I'm not super aware of current trends - just something to be aware of.

I also competed often and to varying success in congress, extemp, and other I.E.'s and have judged pretty much every event in existence at this point.

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!