Northwood '22, UCLA '26, she/her

Email chain: alufang88@gmail.com

General

Competed for 4 years in high school and went to the TOC senior year (omg) if that matters. Tech over truth. I honestly don't have many opinions about debate because I don't think about debate that much anymore, so everything below is very subject to change. I think spin is more important than evidence quality (to a reasonable degree), but I will most likely default to reading important evidence after the round if both sides have no evidence comparison or haven't structured the debate so that x piece of evidence doesn't matter. Similarly, I will (obviously) intervene if forced to due to lack of argument resolution by the 2NR/2AR but I will pick the path of least intervention. Make my decision easy for me :)

Disclaimer: I'm a first-year out and clearly still working out my judging preferences/ideologies/etc., and probably unsure of how to determine debates sometimes. If that makes you upset...sorry..........I will work hard to make the debate still educational for you and a reward of the work you've put in!

JH 2022: I haven't judged any rounds on this topic, have no clue what the popular (or niche) arguments are, and don't know any topic-specific terms/acronyms.

Novices: Don't worry about anything on this page; just remember to have fun and be nice to each other :)

DA

I will probably never assign 0% risk to a DA unless it is blatantly wrong (ie. running the 2020 elections da). I think these will be easier to win in front of me if you have a CP paired with it that solves the aff (but obviously not impossible without). I don't LOVE generic links that don't say anything or barely mention the aff and bad ev, but I kind of get it. Still, my threshold for this kind of DA getting ended in cross is pretty low.

CP

I lean neg on condo and will judge kick for you. International fiat, private actor fiat, object fiat counterplans seem illegitimate. All other counterplan theory stuff I feel like I can be easily convinced either way.

K/K affs

I do not understand and do not like pomo!! Same for death good arguments. Please strike me if any of those are your main arguments. Mostly everything else is all equally fine (as in I wasn't a K debater and won't know your lit base that well but can probably at least still grasp it in a 2-hr debate). The way I judge K affs vs. anything else debates is more up in the air than anything else in this paradigm, so I would appreciate clear judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR the most here. I don't like generic "state good/state bad" links/arguments and links of omission.

T

Making this debate feel like a DA debate (with impact work, link work, etc.) is what will make it easiest for me to judge. I don't know how receptive I will be to arguments about what was read at camp, what the topic looks like so far, etc. but seriously go ahead and try anyways.

Case

I really like good case debating, knowing your aff, all of that stuff. You can skip the case overview and go straight to line-by-line in the 2AC :)

Misc.

You can stop prep before sending out the email chain but just keep everything reasonable. Clipping is bad :( Clarity on analytics is super important, please please please slow down so that I can understand all your smart strategic arguments and explain it back in my RFD :)

I won't vote on any arguments about out-of-round actions or that the general framework that allows us to debate is bad (ie. time limits, speech order).

Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)

Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com

LD and PF paradigm at bottom

TL;DR

Debate is a game, do impact calc, I'm more familiar with Policy strats, clipping is bad, and clarity on analytics is important. Tech determines Truth.

F'23 Update: I'm only vaguely familiar with the topic (~15 rounds judged) so if you start using fancy econ jargon I might get lost, please slow down on analytics, especially in the T debate.

General

Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.

DA/CP

I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links are ok too if you can spin it well enough. Condo is probably good, int'l/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.

K

I'm pretty familiar with a few Ks but don't go for that many of them, barring things like Cap and Security. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.

Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism

Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason)

T

I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.

Nontraditional Affs

I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 2 or 3 times), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.

Theory

Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.

Speaks

• being creative, strategic
• clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
• efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
• if you're funny
• clear signposting!
• i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)

LD

I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.

Public Forum

I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard

Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.