NSDA Taiwan Members Invitational
2024 — Taipei, TW
Debate Judge Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideChattahoochee HS '21
University Of Kentucky '25
Add me to the chain: jaredaadam@gmail.com
Top:
I will pretty much vote on anything and lack many ideological predispositions with a few exceptions. I try to be as least interventionist as possible so please do judge instruction that explains to me why you have won the debate & the implications of the arguments you are going for.
Send a card doc after the debate has ended. I'll read the cards you think are important, but I tend to think the quality of evidence comes secondary to who did the better debating.
Debate is a communication activity, I will flow what I hear, not what is in the doc.
Theory:
I prefer to judge substantive debates over trivial theory arguments. Anything that isn't conditionality is a reason to reject the argument not the team. I lean NEG on condo, and would only prefer you go for it if either a. the neg severely mishandles it or b. it's the only winning option. I will not vote on blimpy theory arguments that aren't developed or articulated out earlier in the debate.
Non-resolutional theory is a non-starter.
Counterplans:
Judge kick is my default unless told otherwise.
Huge fan of them, I love me some solvency offense & AFF specific counterplans.
I am okay for counterplan competition, but the more egregious the counterplan, the lower the threshold it is to win the CP is illegitimate.
Disads:
Good
I think the interest rates DA is cracked. Though I haven't judge that many debates on this topic, I do not understand why some variation of an econ DA is not the 2NR in every debate.
Kritiks:
The best kritiks are ones with links to the plan. If you want to just rehash some theory about the world, without contextualizing it to the plan, I am not the judge for you.
Topicality:
I would prefer you read & defend a topical plan. Impact turning framework is more persuasive to me than extending a counter interpretation.
Impact Turns:
Good
Misc:
- tech > truth
- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed
- Bigotry will not be tolerated
Associate Director of Debate @ KU
Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016
Quick pre-round notes:
I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.
The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.
I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.
More info:
1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.
I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.
Argument issues:
Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.
Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.
Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.
Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:
Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning
Demeanor issues:
Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.
Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.
Any questions, ask.
Debate Background
I am new to the debate scene in Taiwan. Previously, I served as a lay judge for novice and intermediate debaters in the Boston Debate League (BDL).
Biases
As a teacher, I enjoy the challenge of having young people influence my mindset while I listen to various viewpoints, especially when those viewpoints champion change or address injustices in the world.
Judging Style
I consider myself a blank slate, allowing debaters the opportunity to engage in the power of speech that is informed by evidence and the art of persuasion.
Debate Background
I took a college course on speech and debate, and understand the general guidelines and styles of debate. However, I have no personal experience in competing nor judging a debate tournament.
Biases
As a person that holds liberal beliefs, I tend to take a pro-choice stance and show empathy to relatively lower status groups. I value justice, equality, and harmony when it comes to controversial topics.
However, I ultimately try to maintain an open mind to new opinions when they are presented and supported by valid sources and data.
My judging style
I value concrete references and data sources. As well as logical, concise, and structured responses to questions that are being asked. In my opinion, a good response should include a main argument/rebuttal, examples or data that support the claim, and a closing/summary statement of the stance.
hi! I'm Emma :) my pronouns are she/her/hers, and I'm a junior (class of '25) debating with ADL and attending TES (for those of you in Taiwan). I'm in my fourth year of CX, but I also do some extemp, world schools, and PF on the side. feel free to email me at eyhchuo@gmail.comfor any questions!
Smart Debate (SD)/Public Forum (PF)
it's difficult to lay out reasons in exact bullet-points for what you should do for me to vote for you (because they depend on the substance and technical debating in different rounds), but here are a few things I believe in which help me judge:
1 --- tech over truth. if you tell me the sky is pink and the other team doesn't tell me otherwise, I think it's true for the sake of the debate round. that being said, I will not vote on that argument alone without you telling me why it matters, which leads me to:
2 --- framing/judge instruction. I need to know how you want me to evaluate the debate --- i.e. which arguments you think matter and why they matter + why you think, under that framing, your arguments matter more than your opponents' arguments. to explain that, you need:
3 --- well-explained link and internal link stories. you need to tell me what your arguments mean for me to vote for you and even make a decision at all! also, if I don't know what your arguments mean, it's likely that I won't understand the ways that you're using an argument (e.g. if you say that your contention A answers their contention B, but not tell me what contention A means, I won't understand why contention A can be used to rebut contention B, which means that I'll probably still give **close to** 100% risk to contention B.). finally:
4 --- impact/why your story matters. you should try to do impact calculus to tell me why your arguments matter more than your opponents'. this way I can decide between two different stories from two different sides.
+ I absolutely LOVE smart link and impact turns so if you can win on that you’re amazing but even if you don’t end up winning on it I’ll give you some extra you’re-a-smart-person speaker points
Speaks
usually I give out speaks within the 27.5-29.5 range; if you get higher than that, you are extraordinary. am literally hailing you you are my favorite speaker ever I tell all my friends about you keep up the good work you are a literal boss. if you get lower for that, it's most likely just because of discriminatory or disrespectful behavior that I do not and will not tolerate in any instance. please please just be nice.
if you're in the bottom half of the 27.5-29.5 range, my suggestion would be to practice your speech more and be more confident in it because it was probably great; speak louder & read clearer. if you're in the top half of this range, congrats! keep it up! for more detailed comments about speaks though, you can always ask me through email, in person, etc.
Others
I do NOT tolerate any discriminatory behavior (racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, or being rude to your partner or opponents). I'll do my best to make this a safe space because what really matters is that you get a place to speak about your ideas --- so please do reciprocate by being nice to everyone.
thanks for reading & enjoy your debates! :)
Coach @ Asian Debate League
Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017
Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021
Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com
My biases:
I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.
For K's I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.
I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.
I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.
I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.
Status quo is always an option=judge kick
How I judge:
I am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.
I listen first and read your evidence second. If you are clear, this distinction shouldn't matter. If you aren't clear I'm not comfortable reading your blocks and cards to fill in the gaps for you.
I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.
For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)
I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.
I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.
**Pronounced (Kay-pen)
Hello debaters! I'm Maricruz and I've been involved in debate (especially in college) for a couple of years. My experience includes MUN & Parly Debate.
When evaluating debates (and with crossfires in particular), please address the oponents points directly and have fun with the clash! Also I will encourge you to be very clear making it easy for me , other judges and the opponents to understand. Regarding my evaluation criteria, I prioritize the adherece to the topic, a logical sequence and the public speaking habilities. I believe in expressing your ideas with your own words, can lead to an effective persuasion and defenitley shows understanding of the topic.
I particularly appreciate direct arguments during CX's [, and I tend to be persuaded by how the oponents specifically address the topics. For me, the speaker performance it's the key to succcess! Some factors such as clarity, organization, strategic use of time, and engagement with opponents' arguments. After rounds, I typically provide feedback regarding the topic and I will definitley provide some tips for the next round.
In summary, my paradigm revolves around your hability to express ideas and clarity. I look forward to judging your debates and providing valuable feedback for improvement!
1. My experience in debating
I do not have any formal debate experience, however I've debated with people on online platforms like Quora.
I have studied Geology at University of Texas at Austin, however currently I work in various mechanical engineering work, and I also fix/build acoustic guitars.
I prefer to work with my hands, such as welding, machining, fabrication, and other creative activities (just not art).
I have some experience in working with CNC machines.
While I know the UN has various functions, I also believe their resolutions to be mostly ineffectual and are mostly just to "raise awareness" without any real teeth behind them. If the UN passes a resolution it's up to member states (mostly the US) to enforce them. This leads to situations like Saudi Arabia being on the UN Human Rights Council even though the country has very poor human rights records (such as extensive persecution towards LGBT, religious persecutions, etc.). It's mostly for countries to act like they're doing something while not actually doing anything about it. The famous picture with a guy with a UN helmet standing in front of "involved in Africa" about sums up how useful the UN is in ensuring world peace and rule based order. Essentially there is no "world police" and so when it comes to international issues, it's the wild west, and even treaties are not always followed or honored, depending on the political climate of the day.
I believe climate change is a major issue and nuclear power is our greatest weapon to fight it, however humanity is collectively too scared of it to consider it.
I look up to inventors like Thomas Edison and Nichole Tesla as well as various innovators like James Watt, Rudolph Diesel, and others who use their engineering skill to better mankind.
As far as how I judge, I look for clarity and concise and compelling arguments. I look for various fallacies and will remind you to avoid using them. Regardless of your views, I expect debater to know what they're talking about and why they believe their view is right. I also welcome them to consider various counterpoints before coming to a conclusion.
I have taught public forum debate for a few years.
I prefer quality arguments over quantity. Not a big fan of spreading, so spread at your own risk.
I like cases that have a consistent thread/narrative throughout. I also think pathos and rhetorical skills deserve a bigger place in PF. These sorts of things impress me.
Happy debating~
hey Im Ryan, add me to the email chain: rynhium@gmail.com
About
- FHJH class of 2028, staying up late to judge due to time difference in Taiwan
- 4 years of SD/PF (IMF), 4 years of policy (Water, NATO, fiscal, IP) @ Asian Debate League
Top
- CX is always "open," it's never "closed," but there should be a primary speaker for the two CXs to avoid speaker point penalties
- I give high speaks unless there's behaviors that will undermine the activity (shady disclosure, swearing, clipping, rude gestures, interrupting) or if I find you are not actively engaging in the argument (not flowing, gaming, using debate time unwisely)
- Don't steal prep, timer keeps running until the doc is sent - according to Jimin Park at Kansas for every second of prep stolen they'll hit your fingers with a hammer once, this means no typing unless it's speech or prep time otherwise it's cheating
- I prefer not to judge death/extinction/suffering or personally related debates, and will try my best to not intervene in the debate (unless I really have to)
- Best condo and democratic agonism K team coached by Gabe Esquivel
- I only flow what I hear, not what is sent on the doc - keep close to the mic and slow down for online debates
- Debate is an environment for training research skills, developing critical thinkings, and a fair game - Both substance and performance as an individual or team are important
Background
I am a Guatemalan journalist specialized in Creative and Cultural Industries from Taipei National University of the Arts. In my previous job in Journalism in Guatemala City, one of my major tasks was to interview political, artistic, economical and cultural figures from diverse backgrounds. I have participated in interesting and relevant debates held in press conferences, in which arguments play an important role. In consequence, I have become a keen listener to these events. Likewise, I have myself been part of academic conferences and presentations held in Taipei National University of the Arts, in Taipei, Taiwan, where I presented academic research and sustained my arguments in front of an audience and a jury of professors and experts in cultural and creative fields.
Additionally, I have participated three times as guest lecturer for the TaiwanICDF 2023 volunteer training course: "How to share Taiwanese culture with foreigners", in which I listen to students present different topics and provide them feedback in order to help their rhetorical development.
Judging Style
I take objective evaluation and equatable treatment seriously. I judge each debate based on the arguments that are being presented, not on my personal opinions. Each participant has to be treated equally, regardless of their background. Likewise, I try to keep an open mind on the ideas that are being discussed and listen carefully. In order for me to keep track, I rely on my notes to later recall important points from the debate.
All participants will be adhered to the same rules and format from the event, without exception. In this manner, a respectful interaction and conduct are expected from both myself and the participant. The way in which I provide feedback is very honest and direct, aiming to provide a constructive critique. I do believe in cruciality of positive reinforcement and will not dare to kill the spirit and bravery of any participant. I do not wish to cause conflict nor make anyone feel unmotivated.
I do pay attention to the way in which the arguments are being presented. For example, if the speaker is being clear and truly understands the topic. In my perspective, effort is noticeable and as I judge I will greatly value it.
Director of Debate at The University of Michigan
General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.
Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.
Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.
Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.
Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.
Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.
Seasonal voting record:
ADL
UMich 25
email chain - debatekkjk@gmail.com
Tell me 5 reasons why we should debate - bonus points
haven't read too much into the topic - be sure to explain your warrants and argument
CX
Don’t copy paste evidence in the email body, send it in a separate doc
Disadvantages:
Hardly went for any DAs throughout my high school but I do like debating/learning/ judging them, so you do you. Tell me why your impact outweigh, if not why it turns their case. Do have links (multiple links are awesome)
Counterplan:
Explain the mechanism of your counterplan and why that is better than the 1AC. Tell me how you solve case, throwing out the terms CP solve case doesn’t mean anything. Have a net benefit so that your CP solves more and I’ll probably vote for the CP. I’m not the biggest fan of theory arguments. I would be willing to vote for them but you will have to do an insanely good job at explaining why it is bad and the impact of violation. Line by line still applies to theory arguments, so do that.
Kritik:
I'm probably an average judge for kritiks. I went for cap with a destituency alt most of my neg rounds in high school. If you are going for a kritiks please do explain them. So explain exactly what is the aff doing that you are criticizing. I prioritize analytics over reading a bunch of cards for kritiks. Yes, literature is important, so still have evidence to pry our advocacy but it shouldn’t be all just cards. Framework on K: tell me what the role of judge should be and how I should utilize my ballot.
Topicaility:
The neg team should have an impact and tell me exactly why the aff team not being topical does influence the debate. Tell me the violation, how and why they violate your definition.
All Debates
My General Paradigm
In my view debating is more like a game. It must be fair, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of the game will be played in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.
Flowing
I prefer line by line debate, but I don't have a problem resetting the flow if the new organization makes sense. Overviews are helpful, but please apply your arguments. A dangling overview is just an introduction. If you don't apply overview arguments to the flow, don't expect me to. Also, please do not machine gun your theory arguments. They should have a warrant and enough explanation to give me time to flow effectively. 2-3 complete sentences will usually get the job done.
Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.
Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel obliged to. I prefer that debaters help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. I view truth vs. tech to be a false dichotomy; truth and tech are two different aspects of a debate and both weigh in my decision. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.
Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.
Debate background-I have been doing debate for about 6 years. I have done Public forum and Policy debate but mainly focus on PF.
How do I judge?- I would like you to write out my ballot by doing impact calculus PLS WEIGH. If you do this then you will have a higher chance of winning. I don't really care what arguments you have, just don't make it confusing. I don't like evidence debates because how credible your evidence is doesn't really change that much. Its how well you can argue them. Make sure you extend evidence to back up your claims.
Speed-Speed is ok but just make sure your opponents can understand. ngl I don't like spreading in pf so try not to.
Speaker points-If you are clear and at a good pace you would probably get high speaks. You should also sound confident in what you are saying. But if you interrupt speeches and insult your partner or opponents your points will be affected. Being racist, sexist, etc will make your speaks go down to the lowest there can be.
Crossfires-I like an interesting crossfire where things aren't just explaining. Crossfires won't be flowed so if you make a good point, it won't count unless you bring it up in a speech. Don't bully your opponents, if they can't answer your question then you already got what you wanted.
Info
I am Gina, in the round you can call me Gina or judge I don't really care.
I have done pf for a bit and now currently doing JV policy.
Email me if you have any questions.
Email: ling28@ma.org.tw (btw this is my school email so please write something appropriate).
PLEASE DO NOT ASK HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE LEFT EITHER END THE SPEECH EARLY OR KEEP GOING
In the debate
I am ok with fast but if you are reading fast you have to be clear and understandable or else I won't flow it.
You can read your own researched arguments, but you have be sure you understand them (And you explain it in summary and final focus so you can win on that if you want to).
For crossfire you can chose if you want it to be opened or closed but your opponents have to agree.
In cross please don't ask questions like is your author reliable or explain all of your contentions it is useless questions and giving the opponents chance to explain their arguments to the judge.
You should be clear in rebuttal of what contention you are rebutting to, like now rebutting to things, argument, or something close to that or I might think you dropped the argument.
Please do impact calc in final focus and also weighing, it is important to me!!!
If you didn't extend it in the summary then don't extend it in the final focus or I won't count it.
I will also time you but please try to time yourself.
I am one of those judges who mainly votes on dropped contentions so remember to not drop any contentions!
If your opponents dropped something don't just say they dropped this actually explain it and how you win on it.
Also I LOVE debaters signposting (basically just saying moving on to extending this contention or moving on to rebuttals) it will make the debate easier and the judge will be easier to follow or flow your speech.
Smart debate:
I love impact calc in final focus
Be clear
Signpost
Don't drop arguments
Ask good crossfire questions
Public Forum:
Explain your impacts to me
Impact calc in final focus
Don't drop anything
Be clear in signposting and talking
Persuade me with impact actually explain it
WEIGH!!!!
Speaks
- If you are being rude or annoying or inappropriate speaks -3.
- If you don't speak clearly -2.
- Swearing -1.
- If I really like your contention then + 0.5 speaks.
- If you speak clearly +1.
- If you are being nice you will most likely get high speaks.
Good luck :)))
Sarah Maeng she/her
Currently a 7th grader at Taipei American
Email chain: 66checkmymails@gmail.com
Instagram: @sarahmaengg :)
Top
No tag teaming CX - I wanna see your individual skills without one overpowering one another.
People I take inspiration from:Brandon Chen, Mckenzie Engen,Kevin Lai, Kelly,Jimin Park,Lily, Gabe,Tharm,Jet
(Partially inspired by Micah)
Good luck debaters!
(Written on 4/21/23)
As an Environmental Engineer, I am committed to building a sustainable world where economic growth considers every natural cycle in future planning. It is crucial to acknowledge the finite nature of our planet's resources and the threats to the continuation of life posed by their excessive use. We must strive to achieve economic development that addresses global equality without sacrificing our natural resources.
I aim to see in every participant an awareness that community growth is possible through environmental consciousness. Every argument needs to be solid and supported by a multidisciplinary approach to offer real solutions that provide sustainable outcomes.
Andrea Moreno - She/her
Gonzaga '25 - 2A/1N
Juan Diego Catholic High School '21- 2A/1N
Add me to the email chain: andream060403@gmail.com
TLDR: Happy to flow and listen to all arguments, but I have more research and skills toward critical topics/debates. With that being said, I rely heavily on the flow and vote on arguments that are warranted and clear at the end of the round. Please tell me why you won at the end of the round. Make it clear to me what you want me to vote for in both the 2NR and 2AR *JUDGE INSTRUCTION*. A lot of my decisions will come from that.
Substance:
Affs- I’m good with anything. My experience is running big stick policy affs, soft left affs, or a K aff.
K affs are fun. Personally, I would like it if they had an advocacy statement or plan but anything is cool with me. This doesn't mean I won't vote for framework on the negative.
Read more on case. If you're not winning solvency on the affirmative, I can definitely be persuaded to vote negative on presumption.
Topicality-
Explain the world of your interpretation and how they violate vs. the world of their interpretation and how that impacts debate both in the round, tell me the specific reason you can't read your DA.
Ks-
K teams that do good line-by-line refutation will be rewarded with speaker points more than teams that have 4-minute overviews. Don't assume I know all the big words that you are going to throw at me.
Tell me what the world of the alt looks like.
Make sure the link story actually makes sense.
Disads/CP's
I love a good DA/CP debate. If the CP solves the aff and avoids the net benefit it's pretty easy to vote on it. For the aff give me specific scenarios of the aff that the CP can't solve. I love multiple solvency deficits in the 2ac. If the DA outweighs the aff TELL ME WHY!! Be clear on the impact calc, and why the aff will clearly trigger the impact of the da scenario.
Additional comments-
be nice and have fun!
this is your debate round, not mine, don't let anything on here influence what you read in front of me
if you have any questions before the round just lmk or email me.
Email chain: lily.coaches.debate@gmail.com
About:
- Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
- Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
- Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).
Top:
- If I can tell that you are not even trying to flow (eg you never take out a piece of paper the entire debate, you stand up to give your 2NC with just your laptop and no paper), your speaks are capped at 27.
- Please don't call me "judge." It's tacky. My name is Lily. Note that this does not apply to saying "the role of the judge."
- In the words of Allie Chase, "Cross-x isn't 'closed,' nobody ever 'closed' it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross examinations if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties."
- I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
- I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
- High schoolers are too young to swear in debates.
- Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
- If you are asking questions like "was x card read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
- The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
- Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.
Framework:
- I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
- TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.
Topicality vs policy affs:
- Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
- If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" < debatability.
- Case lists are good.
- The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.
Counterplans
- When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
- As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
- Conditionality: I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.
Disads
- Read them
- Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.
Ks
- I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are
cornyunpersuasive. - I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR.
- Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
- Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
- Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
- Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.
Lincoln-Douglas:
- If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
- I do not think permutations are cheating.
- An argument is a claim and a warrant. If you say something that does not contain a warrant, I will not necessarily vote on it even if it's dropped. In the interest of preventing judge intervention, please say things that have warrants.
- Most neg theory arguments I've watched would go away instantly if affs said "counter interpretation: we have to be topical."
- RVIs are not persuasive to me. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.
University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19
he/him/his
Coaching for the Asian Debate League and Taipei American School
Based in Taiwan, so the time difference will affect my judging. This means you need to have more enunciation and clarity than usual.
TLDR:
---very low econ knowledge
---very bad for K AFFs, fiat Ks, process counterplans, and technical T arguments
---decent for other policy arguments and Ks that are DAs
________________________________________________________________________________________
TLDR:
---Not the greatest flow, likes creativity, more likely to care about macro-issues than minor technical drops, avoid jargon/acronyms, will vote on args that promote sedition
---Fully-developed strategies that clash tend to perform better in front of me.
---I think have a higher bar for what constitutes a 'complete argument' than the average college-aged judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion.
---My debate beliefs are malleable. This paradigm might make me seem like an old person (true, though), but good debating can remedy my predispositions. Good ev helps too.
---Largely persuaded that:
(1) incomplete args in the 1NC justify new responses
(2) net benefits should be verbally stated in the 1NC
The justification for both of these will be below.
________________________________________________________________________________________
General:
Positives
1---Respecting your opponents (CX, pronouns, don't mercilessly bludgeon less-experienced debaters), be ethical, etc.
2---Efficiency. In your speech, during prep, emailing, down-time. etc. If you don't need 10 minutes of prep for the 2NR/2AR, don't take it.
3---Taking debate seriously. Pay attention, flow, try. But also, have fun! We are all invested, so let's make our debates worthwhile. Ad-homs are bad and not arguments.
4---Research (evidence matters, but so could spin). Vertifical proliferation is better than horizontal proliferation of arguments. Also, likely won't vote for death good.
5---Ethos and Clarity. I am a bad judge for teams that just spit into their computer at 300 WPM at 65% clarity. Lowkey think that debaters that are slow (while being smart, technical, etc.) are *****chefs kiss***** I should hear every single word you say. Please enunciate and recognize that debate is also a communication activity instead of a block-perfecting competition in the 2NR and 2AR. If you are a team that has rebuttals prescripted without any plans of contextualization (such as asserting things happened when they didn't), then please email me your 2NR/2AR blocks, and I will assign your speaker points during the 1AC and vote against you.
6. Organization---speech docs, cards, wikis
Negatives
1---Lack of analysis. You should have framing arguments, judge instruction, contextualization, and argument development.
2---Debates that make me litigate things outside of the debate.
3---Vagueness. It should be clear what your AFF does, what the plan means, what the counterplan does, what your highlighting of evidence means, and what the tags of your cards are intended to communicate. I am likely more amenable to vagueness arguments than most judges.
Misc
I kicked the AFF in a decent chunk of debates I was in. I do not think this influences my judging but my AFF (and NEG) debates would sometimes look really different than a lot of people.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Policy:
Topicality vs. Policy AFFs
T versus policy AFFs was one of my least favorite arguments. It isn't ideological, but I spent most of my debate career debating with 2Ns who were obsessed with it, so I just never really thought about it. I find most T debates dry but I understand the strategic necessity of them. My aversion stems from 1NCs that lack a violation and then debate becoming late-breaking.
To improve my VTL when going for T, internal link explanation is important. 2Ns have seemed to forget that there ought to be a reasonable explanation about how we get from the violation to zero NEG ground ever. Both teams should have more debating about what the interp/counter-interp debates would look like. Assertions of topic biases or quality of generics should be explained with warrants. I am not the ideal judge for a technical T argument.
For some reason, I find ground arguments more compelling than limits/precision. Not sure if this will affect my judging, but I've always thought that limits arguments were hyperbolic. Big topics feel good if the NEG has robust strategies to counter them. When evenly debated, plan-text-in-a-vacuum is a tough sell for me.
Disadvantages
The optimal 2NR is a DA and the case. Counterplans are for cowards. I'm not as big on the modern Politics DA as most Kansas debaters but it's okay. I would prefer not to judge debates about intrinsicness tests.
AFFs teams should have offense on the DA. NEG teams should try to have real "turns case" arguments outside of "nuke war is bad."
Counterplans
I'm mostly AFF-leaning on theory arguments. I'm not wedded to these beliefs, but I have some predispositions. I am not a huge believer in conditionality. This is not a free invitation to go for condo in the 2AR, merely an observation that in-depth debates are better.
My least favorite genre of argument as a debater was the process counterplan. Again, I understand its strategic utility and will judge the debate neutrally. I'd prefer a 2NR that is about why the AFF's bad. Competition debates are dry. Comparative evidence between the AFF and the counterplan's process demonstrating functional competition could make me hate your counterplan a little less. I am also a less qualified judge for complex competition debates.
Case
I am a good judge for presumption and giving a low weight to the AFF advantages. The 2AC and 1AR get away with murder on the case, so the NEG teams should use that to their advantage. This is an area where good debating will be rewarded with nice speaker points.
Soft Left
I enjoy soft left AFFs but framing contentions need to contain offense. ________________________________________________________________________________________
Critiques:
Ks vs. Policy AFFs
I'm better for Ks on the NEG. I will award specificity, especially backed with evidence. I will have a hard time voting on critiques that lack interactions with the scholarship and thesis of the 1AC. If the NEG reads a K impact turn to the AFF's advantage, that is likely the best strategy in front of me. Or, have a robust framework justification with turns case arguments. I seem to care a little bit more about performative contradictions/linking to your own K than some (not for theory reasons). The closer your K is to a soft-left impact turn, the better. I am willing to vote on non-extinction impact-turns (example: heg is racist/causes violent interventions---bipolarity is preferable).
K AFF vs. T: USFG
I have voted both ways but am a bad judge for you/find most AFF offense not intrinsic to T. Explain what debates over the AFF interp would look like. I always thought framework debates were thought-provoking and helped me think about debate. Explain what debates over the NEG interp/TVA would look like. I am open to voting for either fairness or education. I am a believer in research about the topic, so the closer your AFF is to being about the topic, defending a theory of power, being a substantial shift from the status quo, and defending material action, the better. Any lit bases outside of bio power, colonialism, settler colonialism, capitalism, and IR need more explanation.
________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Incomplete Arguments
I am mostly compelled that the 1AR should get whatever it wants in response to incomplete 1NCs. Debates are increasingly rewarding blippy 1NCs, causing debates that are worse to judge and I believe judges ought hold the line on what the debate community constitutes a complete argument. If a 1NC DA shell lacks uniqueness, then why should the 2AC be burdened to make link turn args as to how they reverse the deficiencies of the status quo. The logical conclusion of "you have to answer everything" would mean the AFF would have to read impact d to random floating impacts, which is absurd.
(2) Net Benefits
Whatever the net benefit of every advocacy is should be specified in the 1NC. This is low-cost for the NEG and would improve debates/AFF strategy. CX doesn't remedy this because NEG teams take forever to answer, which is unfair for the AFF because the 1A could be asking good, substantive questions. Instead, I have to listen to the 1N say "everything is a net benefit... wait... <>...then the 2N takes 15 seconds to decide and then lists net benefits to analytical con con, states, the one card Security K, a card-less 15 plank advantage counterplan, and a process counterplan. This take might seem extreme, but I believe it is the least arbitrary and most efficient way to resolve net benefit shenanigans (a time limit feels weird). For most counterplans, they are only complete arguments if they have arguments about solvency AND competition in the 1NC. Counterplans that rely on DAs to beat the perm and complete, so it seems logical that the NEG should be responsible for this. Lastly, I want to award bold strategies. The clearer the net benefits are, the better AFFs will be at straight-turning and NEGs will read better DA + CP combinations.
Washburn Rural '22
KU '26
Assistant coach for Washburn Rural and Greenhill
I will judge solely on the technical debating done and will avoid intervening. As I judge more debates, I continue to vote on arguments I vehemently disagree with, but were executed well on a technical level. The only requirement for all debaters is that an argument has a claim and a warrant. This means a few things:
- I will decide debates based on my flow, but do not care whether you go for the fiat K, politics, or warming good. The main caveat is my bar for an argument is claim and warrant*, the absence of the latter will make it easier to discount or refute. I would prefer strategies reflective of the literature with good evidence, but debate is a game so you do you.
*If you say only "no US-China war" and the other team concedes it, that is functionally meaningless. If you say "no US-China war, interdependence and diplomacy" that holds more relevance if dropped, BUT not as much as you'd think given it was not a complete thought. The logical progression of this example is that you should fully flesh out your arguments.
- I will read evidence out of interest during the debate, but it will not influence my decision until the debaters make it matter. This can be through establishing a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and then naming certain authors/relevant cards for my decision. If a metric is never set, I favor better highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness. Argument made analytically can hold similar weight to evidence if warranted and smart.
- The last thing that will boost you chances of winning is clear judge instruction. Flag your clear pieces of offense, dropped concessions, and say where I should start my decision. This also means when extending a claim and a warrant, explain the implication of winning an argument.
- I will not vote on anything external to the debate such as personal attacks, receipts, prefs, or ad-homs. Ethical/external issues should be settled outside of the debate.
- The only caveat to me deciding technically and offense-defense is cowardice and cheap-shots. I will not vote on hidden-SPEC and am very willing to give new answers. Similar ones like floating PIKs also probably don't meet the bar of a complete argument. If there is uncertainty make it a real argument...
That said here are some of my debate thoughts that could shape your strategy:
- For K-AFFs, it makes far more sense to go for a form based impact turn, rather than a content one or a counter-interpretation.
- For framework, contextualize your offense and defense to the debate/case you are debating or just go for fairness.
- Performative contradictions, when going for the K/the 1NC is multiple worlds, matter a lot to me and probably implicate your framework arguments.
- The fiat K/interpretations that zero the 1AC make more sense to me than trying to make causal links to the plan and huge alternatives because the perm double bind becomes truer.
- I have never seen an AFF reasonability argument on T that I found persuasive, I can obviously be convinced otherwise, but it seems like an uphill battle.
- My default is no judge kick/I will not do it, unless explicitly told to.
- Non-condo theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument not the team.
- Absolute defense, zero-risk, and presumption are most definitely a thing.
- AFF intrinsicness arguments on DAs have rarely made sense to me.
- Establish a metric for competition and have standards. I would like to see a counterplan that competes on the unique resolutional mechanism, rather than certainty and immediacy.
Things that will boost your speaks:
- Flow, i.e. correctly identifying dropped arguments, strategically going for dropped arguments, writing/typing when the other team is speaking, etc.
- Debating off paper and being less laptop dependent such as giving the final rebuttals with only paper.
- Having fun, debates are more fun when they are light hearted and you seem like you're enjoying it.
- Fewer off and a more cohesive strategy.
- Strategic and funny cross-exes. Most cross-exes are FYIs and reminders, don't do that.
- Down-time moving faster such as sending speeches out, starting cross-ex, etc. Asking for a marked doc when it was only two cards marked will annoy me and marked docs don't include cards not read. Just flow pls...
Miscellaneous things include:
- Keeping your camera on during online debates makes them more bearable.
- I will clear you twice and after that I will vote against you for clipping/stop flowing your speech, but for educational purposes I won't halt the debate.
My Background
I debated a few times in college while studying a bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering, however this is my first time as a judge. I am currently a student in National Taiwan University pursuing a master´s degree in Industrial Engineering.
Biases
As an engineer I like in-depth arguments with solid technical or theoretical warrants so in that case Tech > Truth. I consider myself a mild liberal in politics with a center-right position for economics. However, my political and economic point of view will not affect my judging if I listen to a well established argument. For me it´s on the opponent to prove that the argument is false. I don't care much about feelings as about facts
Personal Preferences
The most important thing is to be polite to your opponents.
I would like you to go down to one or two arguments for conclusion.
I sometimes struggle to hear if you don't speak loud enough. Try and be very clear during your speech where you are on the flow. Any speed is ok for me, please don't over do it, though.
Debate Background
New to debate, this is my second competition as a judge.
Biases
As a medical doctor, I tend to take a pro-life stance based on values such as: justice, non-maleficence, autonomy and beneficence. When faced with a difficult decision, the values of justice and non-maleficence prevail over autonomy and beneficence.
Although I consider myself a conservative, I have no problem accepting a new opinion if it is supported adequately.
My judging style
I expect all competitors to be persuasive in their speech, while also supporting their cases with evidence and presenting it with credibility.The more I empathize with the situation, the more likely I am to be persuaded.
Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com
Coach @ ADL and Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019
______________________________________________
Summary:
--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide helpful feedback for any arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. Currently, my full time job is to teach and research the high school topic.
--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.
--Quality of an argument matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.
--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.
--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.
--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.
______________________________________________
Policy:
Topicality vs. Plans
Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.
Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.
Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.
Counterplans
Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.
Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.
I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.
AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.
Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.
Disadvantages
DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.
The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.
Case
A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.
If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.
______________________________________________
Critique:
Topicality vs. K AFFs
I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.
Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.
In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.
Critiques vs. Policy AFFs
I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.
Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.
I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.
I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.
______________________________________________
Ethics Violations:
I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.
I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.
If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.
If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.
My General Paradigm
I believe in creating a fair and respectful environment where all participants have an equal opportunity to present their arguments. I prioritize clarity, coherence and adherence to debate rules in my assessments. While I appreciate creativity, and style, arguments must ultimately be grounded in evidence and logic to sway my decision.
Flowing
Flowing is the backbone of effective debate adjudication. As a judge, I meticulously track the progression of arguments, rebuttals, and responses on my flow sheet. Clear and organized flowing enables me to accurately assess the clash between opposing positions, identify key issues, and make informed decisions about the outcome of the round. I value debaters who facilitate flowing by signposting, providing clear transitions between arguments, and offering concise summaries of their positions.
Speed
While I appreciate debaters who speak with clarity and precision, I prioritize comprehension over speed. Debaters should aim for a pace that allows judges to follow their arguments without sacrificing clarity or coherence. I encourage debaters to adjust their speed based on the complexity of their arguments, the preferences of their audience, and the expectations of the tournament format. Debaters who can effectively balance speed with clarity and strategic use of time will earn my admiration and respect.
Decision Calculus
My decision-making process is guided by a comprehensive assessment of the quality of arguments, rebuttals, and overall performance displayed by each item. I weigh the strength of evidence, logical coherence, strategic execution, and persuasive rhetoric in determining the winner of the round. Decision calculus involves identifying and prioritizing the most impactful arguments, assessing the extent of clash and rebuttal, and evaluating each team's ability to effectively support and defend their positions. I aim to render fair and impartial judgments that reflect a thoughtful analysis of the debate dynamics and the merits of each team's case.
Style
Style encompasses a wide range of factors, including delivery, demeanor, language use, and non-verbal communication. While style can enhance the persuasiveness and engagement of a debater's presentation, substance remains paramount. I appreciate debaters who employ stylistic elements, such as rhetorical devices, storytelling, humor, or passion, to effectively convey their arguments and connect with the audience. However, style should never overshadow substance or serve as a substitute for rigorous analysis and evidence-based argumentation. Debaters who demonstrate versatility, authenticity, and adaptability in their stylistic approach will earn my admiration and recognition.
Conclusion
My goal as a judge is to foster a positive and intellectually stimulating debate environment where participants can learn, grow, and hone their advocacy skills. I welcome constructive dialogue and collaboration with debaters, coaches, and fellow judges to continuously improve the quality of debate competition.
Hiiiii I'm Bernice :) you can call me either Bernice or judge, no difference for me.
I've done debate since third grade, and I'm in seventh grade as of 2024 spring semester, so it's 4 years for me. I did policy for one year, currently in JV.
email for any questions of round/topic/anything
email: bernice100207@gmail.com
*speak clearly, clarity is more important than speed always in every debate
*dont ask for the rest of the time during debates just finish what you have to say. If you really want to know, time yourself and keep track of the time yourself. I only time the speech for smart debate students.
*read cards either from class or your own, but you need to be familiar with it (if you're not familiar with it, then just don't use it cuz it will eventually make you contradict yourself -> maybe losing the round)
*crossfire open/closed doesn't matter to me in smart debate as long as both teams agree
*be clear with questions in the crossfire, don't ask for explanations, question their weak points in the card or argument
*clarity is super important in rebuttal speeches or else I assume you drop it
*impact calculus - super important because it affects my decision by weighing the impacts
*keep extending on your arguments in the summary speech during final focus, either just don't bring it up again or extend
*I vote on dropped arguments & impact calc.
*if your opponent drops something, extend on it during your speeches & why dropping the argument impacts your side
For smart debate, talking about impact calculus is very important for me because it decides whether or not you bring more effect than your opponent. Include all magnitude, impact, possibility, and timeframe in impact calculus. Each contention needs to be answered if possible, it gives you a much higher chance for winning. The biggest impact in debate is human extinction, so if you can relate it with your contentions/arguments, then go for it. Also do signpost (basically saying your moving on to the next contention/argument cuz it's easier for judges to flow).
For public forum debate, impact calculus in final focus (really do it), it's very important for decisions of the round. Each contention or argument needs to get answered, don't drop arguments. Explain on impact calc. not just saying that your impact is bigger, give reasons!
Speaker points:
inappropriate word/language or simply being rude -3
unclear -2
swearing/roasting your opponent on stuff that's not about the topic -1
speak clear +1
good arguments & good impact calc. +0.5
I normally give high speaker points as long as you're nice and polite :)
TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will try to make the correct decision. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Do not say death is good. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for higher speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun!
Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Will start prep if you are taking too long. Please take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.
AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Terrible judge for non-resolutional K AFFs.
CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.
T Things: Don't blaze through analytics or at least send them out. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.
K Things: Agree with JMH: policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. Don't understand nor plan to learn high theory literature. No good in K v. K. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.
PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Will not vote on frivolous theory or philosophy tricks. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.
Nice People: Debnil. Both Morbecks. Michael B. Cerny. Steve Yao. Delta Kappa Pi.
Mean People: Eloise So. Gatalie Nao. Chase Williams. Kelly Phil. Joy Taw.
Patrick
-he/him
-kcis
-Novice policy debater (moving to jv)
-5 years of debate experiences
-Feel free to call me Patrick or judge in rounds, no specific preference
-Quality over quantity
-Be mature during debate rounds. Any racist, sexist, homophobic or fat phobic jokes will not be tolerated.
-Take debate rounds seriously but have fun
-Tech over truth, if your opponents say the earth is flat and you don't say anything, your opponents win the round.
-Look at your judges during speeches and especially crossfire.
@patwang06113@gmail.com
Generally:
Debate is a like a game with strategy and tactics
-Be loud and clear, so I can flow and you can get high speaker points, its a win-win(That doesn't mean you can't speak fast)
-Be respectful to your opponents, your partner and your judge. If you call your opponent dumb etc, that will make me extremely upset and mad resulting you in getting very low speaker points.
-Be confident, deliver your speech like you mean it, be convincing and always trust yourself
During rounds (For SD and PF, good luck :))
-Again, quality over quantity, more contentions doesn't mean you win!
-I like to see cards and arguments not provided in the packet (usually means you've done research and you are extra familiar with the card)
-Explain your arguments! You have to provide clear connection of each argument and impact. For ex: War causes radiation leak is slightly vague instead a better explanation would be war causes radiation leak because nuclear warheads will have a high probability on having radiation attacks
-Flow down your opponent's and yourselves' speech so you don't drop anything
-Dropping, when your opponent drop your evidences, point that out and tell me what that means
-Rebuttals and extensions! Give clashes on why that argument is bad. For ex: If I say dogs are purple, you have to tell me why I'm wrong. Give extensions to defend your arguments and to strengthen it. For another ex: In chess, when your knight is hanging, you need to use another piece to defend it. This is equivalent to a debate. PS. Make sure you don't contradict your points and do not make your argument structure messy.
-Crossfires, ask good questions and be efficient when answering.
-I like brief impact calc in summary, just briefly. Also, clash clash clash!
-Feel free to take prep time whenever you want, don't be embarrassed.
-Death, homicides are never good. -3 speaks if you say their good.
-Weighing! Not only do you do impact calc, you also have to do impact comparisons. For ex: We win on probability because climate change is happening now! (That's impact calc) We outweigh on probability because climate change is happening now however our opponent's impact of cyber-attacks have low probability because of...
-I love impact debates! They are extremely fun! Always do impacts! (PLEASE)
-Counterplans are a bit complex for novice smart debaters but counter plans do spice up the debate.
-Give orders/directions/signposting! (Though it's not necessary, it adds up your speaks and makes the debate less confusing for both your judge and the opponent.
-Links! Links are a bit complex for smart debaters but I do love it when you explain your arguments by saying why the plan causes this!
-Don't be sad when you lose because some may say that the goal of a debate is to learn, improve skills and to have a good time!
-Don't ask about what contention did you read or asking about please explain your argument.
STAY ON TASK PLEASE
Speaker points
25-27: You were rude to your peers.
27-27.5: You spoke quietly and unclearly
27.5-28: Good speeches but could improve on confidence and quality
28-29: You were amazing! You gave good explanations, rebuttals and impacts! Keep up the work!
Above 29: All jokes aside, you made me speechless because of how good you are at rebutting, strategies, debating, answering, impact weighing etc!
Anyways thank you for taking time to read this and I hope you have fun during your debates! Glhf! :)
1. What is your debate background?
- Debated in in-school debate competitions (middle school)
- 2004 IASAS Original Oratory contestant for Taipei American School
- HSNU English Debate Coach 2015-2018
- CKHS English Debate Coach 2017
- Taoyuan Wuling Senior High School English Debate Coach 2018-2020
- Yan-Ping Senior High School English Debate Coach 2020-2021, 2024
- Taiwan High School English Debate Regionals/Nationals Judge 2018-current
- Co-founder of Education Legion education team
2. How do you judge?
I am deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters. My basis for evaluating evidence strength is the OCEBM (Oxford Classification of Evidence-Based Medicine). In other words, expert opinions and case reports do not sway me unless there is a specific and necessary reason to mentioning such kind of evidence, or is coupled with other stronger pieces of evidence. Failure to do so would make me more critical about the presented evidence that the debater(s) strives to put into use to tie into their assertions or claims.
Link your logic together and do not scatter like a shotgun shooting its pellets from long-distance. It is your responsibility to engage not only with your audience but also the judge(s). A messy beginning and unclear crossfires/cross-examinations make it hard to delineate or see what is going on from one or both sides, which means every part of the debate counts.
Do not bring up new arguments during the summary/final focus (PF) or rebuttals (CX). New evidence is allowed, but at this point it would be kind of late to do it.
3. Please explain other specifics of your judging style.
Even though I have no problem keeping up, I am not a fan of spreading. The purpose of debate is communication, not word blasting. If you abuse your education advantages that give you better language mastery and/or preparation time, to pummel less privileged teams, it will impact negatively on your speaker points and the outcome if it interferes with the debate.
Sportsmanship and basic mutual respect must be adhered.
Kritik should be used only when necessary.
Counterplans are fun as long as they are clear.
What is your debate background?
I am new to debate and this will be my first time judging.
How do you judge?
I will be judging with an open-mind and making fairness a top priority. Irrespective of if I agree or disagree with your arguments, I will be listening intently and making my assessment based on the fact provided. I want to hear your thoughts and I encourage you to share your ideas and perspectives to allow for research, learning, and reflecting.
My judging style
- I prefer layman's terms instead of overly technical jargon
- I will take some notes as you are making your arguments
- I value argument over style
I'm from Seattle, Washington. I graduated from the University of Washington with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology. I have no prior judging or debating experience.
Experience: I'm new to judging debate tournaments, however I debated casually in high school (PF and LD) in Washington State.
Expected conduct: Debate can be a stressful and overwhelming experience. I get it, I've been in your shoes before. To make this as low-stress as possible, I expect everyone to be courteous and friendly. No ad hominem attacks, of course. Assertiveness is good, but I do not appreciate aggressiveness nor arrogance.
Things to keep in mind:
- Effective communication doesn't need to be fancy. Don't try and impress me with technical jargon, advanced theory, and wordy explanations. I value conciseness, simplicity, and efficiency.
- I'm new to judging and generally unfamiliar with debate, so don't assume I know any theory. Speak clearly. Don't speed.
- I will do my best to take notes/flow during the debate. Signposting would help me with that.
Background: I'm a recently graduated software engineer from the United States. I'm pursuing a Master's degree in information networks in the Fall.