Debated at Santa Margarita Catholic High School as a 2n/1a and briefly as a 2a/1n

5 Years experience on the National Circuit in Policy

Worked at the UTNIF this summer, so my experience on this topic only goes about that far.

I will do my best to limit the amount that my predispositions influence my evaluation of the round. The final two rebuttals should write my ballot for me, teams that accurately break the round down and are reasonable about what they are and are not winning will usually be rewarded with increased speaker points.

Evidence: While I place a premium on quality evidence, I believe that a smart analytic argument has the potential to gain equal traction to a solid piece of evidence. Quality always trumps quantity.

CX: I think that CX is incredibly important. I keep track of it and think that most debaters misuse their time and often forget to utilize arguments made in CX during their speech. I also think that debates can be won and lost in cx, so please utilize it carefully.

Theory: Theory needs to be well executed. Debates in which theory blocks do the arguing usually favor the neg. 

Non-Traditional Affs: I think that the aff should to be about the resolution. The aff’s relationship to that resolution is up for debate. I rolled with a Kritikal aff for most of my debate career, but don't assume that I know your argument as intimately as you do, because I probably don't. That being said, please make it clear what your affirmative is about, why I should care about it, and why you should win the debate.

FW: I actually enjoy FW debates and can easily vote for either side, the best piece of advice I can give in these debates is to explain what your vision of debate looks like, convince me to live in your world. 

Kritiks: Please don't run a kritik for the sake of running a kritik! While I really enjoy these debates, I do need clash and comparison of aff/neg worlds and what the alternative means. Also, I feel like high school debate often neglects the potential and actual weight of links as independent arguments and integral parts to each kritik.

CPs/DAs: I love a good, well-researched, specific strategy. The more generic your strategy becomes, the greater the chance of me assigning an extremely low risk to these arguments. 

In general, my philosophy is tech>truth unless i am convinced otherwise.

Be polite to everyone in the round, flashing isn't prep, time your own speeches/prep, don't say "conceded" when they didn't actually concede something, speed is fine, slow down on tags/cites, jokes will get you extra speaks, and have fun!

Excessive/intentional racial slurs, jokes in bad taste, misgendering, ableist slurs, and rudeness to your partner/the other team will result in lower speaker points.

Add me to the email chain please! joanna.chou2017@gmail.com

I'm a clean slate judge, which means that I vote based off what in argued in round and avoid judge interference as much as possible. For example, if your opponent says that "Clinton won the 2016 election" and gives me sound reasoning, it's your job to tell me why that's wrong or else it stays on the flow.

Which brings me to VOTERS. I only vote on what is fully extended to the final speech. Please make sure you do both LINK ANALYSIS and IMPACT CALC to tell me why you link into benefits and why those arguments matter. I love hearing likelihood, magnitude, irreversibility and time frame arguments in final speeches. ALWAYS remember, if you lay FRAMEWORK you must connect how your winning to that framework.

Make it easy on me when I flow. If I can't get it on the flow, then I can't really vote on it. Organization is key, if you SIGNPOST well it makes flowing and voting on your arguments so much easier. With that being said, spread if you really want to but I'll be honest I do have a hard time following it when you go full speed, so like stick to 50-70% (sorry, I didn't do policy).

Here's my background (for all you who are trying to determine if I'm lay or flow judge):

- 3 years HS debate, 1 year college

- Mainly Parliamentary Debate (first speaker) but also IX, IMP, PF, and Congress.

- 2x State Qualifier

End of the day, run whatever you want (pretty comfy with T, explain more on K) but have a REASON AND AMPLE EXPLANATION FOR EVERYTHING YOU ARGUE. Please don't waste time with arguments you know are only there to waste your opponents time and prove to me why your arguments, and later voters, matter. Remember, I'm clean slate judge so literally I will only weigh impacts that you tell me (so if you tell me your opponents cause global warming, if you don't tell me why that matters, then I won't assume that global warming is bad or that I know the effects of global warming). Work for the ballot.

Refer to Doug Miller's paradigm. 

*I'm not inclined to vote off of theory just because I understand it. I will only do so if there is crystal clear evidence of abuse/skew that you are pointing out in a well-constructed, thought-out manner. 

If you incorporate a different Goldlink reference into each speech I will no doubt, on the spot, give you double 30s. (Edited b/c too many teams just threw one random set of Goldlink lyrics into their constructives.)

Did PF for 4 years, ask specifics in-round. I haven't judged nor debated for the last four years, so feel free to update me on changes in practices / how stuff has changed since moving online.

1. Absent other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.

2. Quality of arguments > quantity of arguments (esp in the latter half of the round). I really value strategic decision-making. Basically, make choices for what argument to go for in the summary and weigh heavily.

3. I'm open to alternative types of argumentation if that's what you are interested in. Just make sure you can explain it well without relying too much on buzzwords.

4. Please don't misrepresent your evidence. It's your responsibility to ensure it says what you say it does.

5 years of policy

Northwood High 2013-2014

Santa Margarita 2017

University of Chicago 2022 (not debating)

Currently on a gap year, haven’t judged any rounds on this topic/worked at a camp so I’m not familiar with the topic lit/abbreviations. Might be rusty w/ processing speed, will let you know if I can’t understand what you’re saying. If there’s an email chain, please include me-nataliewang@uchicago.edu

My partner and I ran both policy and critical arguments in HS. I’m not very familiar with high theory, but I’m willing to evaluate it as long as you explain it/why it matters, just like any other argument. K affs and FW are both fine, but if the aff isn’t related to debate and/or the topic or the neg makes a good argument about predictability/ground/education etc. , I’m likely leaning towards FW.

Re: DAs/Ks, generic is fine but I love specific links. Make sure you’re doing impact calc.

I love a good case debate.

Although I had strong opinions about issues like competing interps vs reasonability or certain theory args in HS, I feel that the debate should be about the debaters, so I’ll try to ignore my predispositions when deciding. I’ll vote based on the args in the round. I do have some general thoughts though:

Detailed explanations > bad cards. Flashing isn’t prep unless you’re taking a really long time. Judge kick is fine. Zero risk usually isn’t a thing. Condo is usually good especially if it’s only 1 or 2 CPs. If you say dispo good, make sure you have a good definition of dispo and why dispo is better for debate. Tag team CX is fine but don’t overdo it. Dropped args still need to be explained. Specifics are good. Abhorrent arguments/slurs/insults are bad and your speaker points will reflect that.

Be nice, have fun, make good args. Feel free to email me if you have questions.