Policy Paradigm

Ultimately, I judge the round how it is debated. I'm open to most arguments and will vote on anything that is clearly extended, warranted, and impacted out. However, there are some caveats, which will be listed below.

First, I have rarely voted on kritiks. I don't necessarily hate the argument, but I just haven't found it persuasively articulated in a way that would make me reject the aff. Policy making framework and the perm are pretty persuasive arguments for me. However, do your thing, and if kritiks are your thing, go for it, just make sure to explain and impact it out very thoroughly and specifically.

Additionally, I flow on paper. This means that I probably can't keep up with you if you go insanely fast. Sorry, but it is what it is. Figured I should just tell you that so you're not disappointed. I'm not saying go slow, but just be careful.

I generally default to a policymaking paradigm, meaning offense needs to be presented to win the round. There have been exceptions, and I have voted on case defense when a 100% solvency deficit exists, but that is rare. I can be persuaded to change this outlook, but an argument for why I should vote neg on presumption when the neg wins case defense should be presented.

Disadvantages are good, expected, and encouraged. The links and internal links are generally the weakest part of a disad, so the aff should exploit this, through either evidence or analysis.

Counterplans are a very strategic option in front of me on the neg. On the aff, make sure that you impact out your perm and how it would function - "perm do both" means nothing to me if that's all you say. If the neg wins that the CP solves case, any risk of a DA means I go neg, so make sure that you have a solvency deficit to the CP and/or offense on the NB if you're aff. I'll evaluate CP theory how it's presented and don't really have strong leanings on most theoretical issues.

Case - Solvency is generally the weakest part of any affirmative - make sure you exploit this on the neg. Offense on solvency is good too. I have no problem at all with the neg reading disads on case and calling them solvency turns.

Topicality - I generally default to competing interpretations but could be convinced otherwise. I love a good T debate. Make sure to go a bit slower on T than other arguments, as it's more difficult to flow.

As a general note, I hate tagline extensions. Please do more than just "extend ______ argument," even if it was dropped. Likewise, make sure you extend everything you need to. Blowing up an advantage in the 2AR doesn't really get you anything if the 1AR didn't even talk about that advantage.

Any questions, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am most familiar with a traditional LD case structure (value, criterion, contentions), but if you want to go a different route, I'll listen. I'll vote on any argument that is well-warranted and impacted out.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

Experience: 4 years as a high school policy debater

Coaching: 2 years as a head coach (PF and LD), 1 year as an assistant coach

Judging: I’ve judged all forms of debate over the past 10 years with a focus on LD the past 5 years

I vote based on the debate presented and which arguments the debaters choose to close for, for example if you drop an important argument I will have to disregard it for my decision, when going for framework please make sure you also focus on the application of the framework on the contention level.

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.