This is my eighth year in the speech and debate community. I competed for four years in high school, three years in college, and this is my second year coaching at Wilson High School. I'm familiar with all forms of high school debate, but CX debate is where I feel most at home. I believe each type of debate is unique and should be treated as such - if you want to do policy debate, do policy debate!

I expect policy Affs to uphold the resolution and critical Affs to link to the resolution. I admittedly have a bias for real world policy cases, but I'm willing to vote on the K if it's ran well. I have seen critiques ran well on the college circuit, but yet to see one convincing enough to vote on while judging high school debate. Flashing does count as prep time; when the flash drive is out of your computer I will stop the timer. Prep time will not be taken for your opponents to open up the file. Tag-team CX is not allowed and if competitors repeatedly do it then speaks will be docked. I have two thoughts on topicality. There's 'legit' topicality and then there's 'its's another argument' topicality. If it's obvious the Aff isn't topical I will have a bias for the Neg's topicality arguments. If it's obvious the Neg is running topicality just to throw it out there, I'll treat it like any other argument. Speed is fine. Just slow down on the tag/cite.

Tell me how to vote in the final speeches. (What I should value / what matters and why.) If no framework is given, I generally default to utilitarianism.

I did a variety of debate in high school, and did a small amount of parli in university. I currently coach PF debate.

I am basically open to any type of argumentation, from extremely standard debate to perfomace kritiks and beyond. However, I will need you to fully explain arguments in a clear way for me to accept them. I know just as little about West Africa (or what ever the current topic is at the time of your reading this) as I do the intricacies of a specific critical theory argument, so clear explanation is key.

Although I was better with speed while I was debating, my ability to comprehend spreading has definitely gotten rusty. If you do go fast, emphasize key warrants and tags so that they stand out. Unfortunately, if you go extremely fast you will probably lose me.

Please be decent and kind.

I am a junior at Smith College, double majoring in quantitative economics and psychology. I debated in Public Forum for four years in high school. I have judged multiple tournaments in China and in the states.

In terms of preference, I normally focus on clashes in the round and the use of weighing mechanisms. Explicit weighing would be useful. Debaters should also be able to explain the logic of the evidence they used instead of simply listing it to prove their arguments.

I do not encourage being aggressive during the crossfire.

I look forward to seeing debaters' ability to identify logical flaws in their opponent's case and connect their analytical response with their prepared evidence in the rebuttal. Reading blocks without any engagement cannot win the round.

NHSDLC PF:

1) Give me a framework with a warrant. Don't mention it then drop it later on. I will vote on it if you use it with purpose and as a weighing mechanism.

2) I LOVE a good line by line rebuttal. You can't do that if you don't flow. Flow.

3) I won't vote on blocks if they don't actually match what the opponent said. It actually hurts you. FLOW.

4) I won't flow arguments made in crossfire. Ask questions to find the clash. "Are you aware that *argument*" doesn't count as a question. Neither does "*argument* so what do you think about that?"

5) If you want good speaks you need good round control. This means knowing where the clash is and where it isn't, and using that to your advantage. It does not mean screaming. Screaming over someone won't hurt you either, it just wastes everyone's time.

6) If you have a pre-written summary and FF before the round even starts you can forget about high speaks right away. Blocks are for expediency, not for speech replacement. Know the arguments, know the clash, and weigh. I hate verbatim pre-written speeches--it isn't your coach's job to debate for you. If you didn't flow a single thing and are reading things someone else wrote, don't say its unfair that you got average speaks even if I picked you up.

7) While I appreciate the gesture I don't want to shake hands. You guys aren't good enough about using soap after using the bathroom. To be fair, neither are my adult colleagues.

I started to debate in 2017 as a high school freshman and accumulated extensive debate experiences which were but mainly in Public Forum. I ranked 10th in the national debate ranking list in China and had won various awards in tournaments. As I graduated from high school, I began my judging career in 2020 as a college student and have since then judged more than 200+ rounds of public forum debate (both online and on-site). Overall speaking, I have judged and debated on a wide range of resolutions, social, political, economic, etc.

My judging philosophy is rather simple: Rule of Logic. I deliberate my decisions with a number of factors: argumentation (logic), quality of evidence, impact evaluation, and debating style (eloquence). (ps: evidence before impact for quality of evidence might decide if impacts are real and solid; for example the methodologies in which the research in your evidence was conducted clearly influences the relevant data)

I don't have a particular preference about speed since English is de facto my native language, or nearly, but debaters must speak with clarity (don't let speed compromise your content) otherwise i might not be able to understand and thus fail to judge your arguments.

I have 6 consecutive years of experience in PF debate since junior year in middle school. I am an active member at northeastern university debate society since fall 2018; member of Harvard debate council since 2016. I have coached public forum debate for two years since summer 2018. And I have taught both middle and high school students enrolling in international school in mainland China, including students from British Columbia Academy, Shanghai American School, Western Academy Beijing, International School of Beijing, etc.

Judging PF debate, I evaluate more on your weighing in the impacts on a particular data/ evidence you and your opponents brought up in a round. I do not like to have four people speaking at the same time when it's grand-crossfire, if that happens, I will not take notes from either side. I can flow speed but I also prefer you to speak/ pronounce everything accurately and present your contentions with concrete evidence and supportive logic.

1. I hate speakers asking "do you have evidence on that" all time. If you do challenge your opposing team for evidence on a particular argument, explain to me why evidence in this case matters.

2. If you give a road map/ speech mapping, I would not time you. You can go as specific as possible. I would prefer you use signposts in your speech because that would make it easy to follow.

3. If you compare framework, make sure why yours is superior than the opposing team's. I do not need you to refresh both frameworks for me. Same thing when you weigh impacts. I don't want you to repeat what you and your opponents said. Always make sure you explain to me why yours is better in order to win my ballot.

4. I would not apply what you mean unless you mentioned the technical terms. For example, if your opposing team DROPPED an argument, make sure you mention it.

Shortcuts:

speed √

weighing √

summary and final focus √

check cards √

time for yourself/ opponents √

exceed time for >10s √

shouting in crossfire X

cutting speeches ("no no no"/ "answer my question please"/ "let me..."/ "what I was saying...") X

speak too loud/ low X

disrespect X

personal attack [ABSOLUTELY] X

Both slower speaking pace or a faster one are working for me. Frameworks are crucial for me to evaluate Public Forum debates. I would prefer well-developed arguments over many arguments that are not as developed. I prefer evidence with logical analysis compare to the arguments that are logical but lack of sufficient evidence. If both team can try to calm down in the crossfire and present efficient and useful questions, it will be my pleasure to judge them.

As a judge, I expect the debaters for each round to:

1. Have mutual respect to one another. Do not try to dominate the crossfire.
2. If you present a framework, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it.
3. Manage time well - it is an important element and quality that I look for, so use your time well. Please be sure to keep track of your own time.
4. Prepare to give quality evidence and explain them well - once you have stated it, follow through with it. Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card), and weigh impacts and links.
5. Support your claims with warrants - when you throw a claim out without a warrant I will disregard it.
6. I appreciate the creative approach and use of theory or other strategies but be sure you have enough time to follow through with it. Often time I see many great unconventional approaches, but the majority of them failed to deliver the full effect.
7. At the end of the day this is a communication event -- it's your job as the debater in the round to persuade me that the arguments you're winning are important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please add me to the email chain if one is being used in the round.

E-mail: purplewenqiying@gmail.com