ADL SD PF NCX Tournament
2023 — Taipei, Taiwan, TW
Debate Judge Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidei'm sticking to a 10 second synopsis of my thoughts because my paradigm keeps getting deleted so i don't want to spend 208320840 minutes typing a whole paragraph:
policy:
email: mirab2508@gmail.com
pf:
- everything in the final focus needs to be in the summary
- don't just read 2 arguments against your opponents arguments and proceed to read a bunch of new contentions in your rebuttals. the rebuttal is responding to what the other team said, it's not a time to read new contentions unless you finished answering their stuff.
- be nice pls
Coaching at Asian Debate League
Debated for 4 years in policy at Boise High School
Email:connordennis@u.boisestate.edu
How I judge:
I am strict about clarity, please read clearly during your speeches. I will ask you to slow down if I can't understand you. After two requests I'll stop flowing. I'm less strict with novices on clarity, but I will always encourage debaters to slow down and read clearly.
I flow the full debate and I generally put more importance on rebuttals and final focuses.
Dropped arguments usually don't decide debates for me, especially for novices.
I enjoy it when debaters go beyond the evidence and produce compelling speeches based on their own words. However, if the arguments in the debate are unclear I will reference evidence to help make my decision.
Courtesy is very important to me. Treat your opponents with respect. I may vote against you if rudeness or bullying takes place in your speeches.
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!
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~
SD/PF
---warrant comparison
---impact calc
RFD
---map out the debate for me
Taipei American School 25’
-Don't be rude
-Weigh y’all’s impacts and show me why y’all are more important.
- The 2nr’s and 2ar’s should basically be the RFD’s
-I'm lazy so I wont do anything thinking for you, make the impacts obvious and explain clearly
-have fun bc debating is fun :)
he/him/his | ADL; FPS'26
Hello! I'm currently a high schooler at Taipei Fushing Private School in Taiwan. I mainly do CX debate and am currently in my 4th year of debating CX, but I previously did around 3 years of PF
*This paradigm was inspired by Tyler Prochazka, Gabe Esquivel, and Lily Ottinger's, meaning if you don't understand anything I wrote here, reference their paradigms :D*
General
T/L
I'm open to any argument, but please make sure that your arguments are supported by warrants, even if it's theory. I will not consider your claims without warrants, even if they are conceded. However, if the opposing team fails to challenge a poorly warranted claim, I will assume it to be true unless it's nonsensical.
Make sure you do clash between arguments. This means you answer your opponents' arguments, do line-by-line, and set yourself up for your strategies in your later speeches. Evidence comparison and impact weighing are good. Explain why your arguments are better than your opponents'.
Tech > truth, meaning if you have a card that backs your statement, it only matters to me if you impact it out for me in terms of why that means I buy your argument.
Quality > quantity, meaning develop strong, lasting arguments instead of running a bunch of weak ones. Despite that, I still respect any choice you find strategic but be prepared to defend your choice!
Clarity > speed. You can go as fast as you desire, but if it's not clear or if I can't understand it, then I won't take it into account in my RFD
Frame the ballot! State how the RFD should be written if I were to vote for you. If you do not provide any ballot-directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD based on my understanding of the arguments presented. Therefore, it's in your best interest to provide clear instructions on the RFD.
Make sure you time yourself! I will still time them but it's wise to keep track of how much time you have during your speech.
CX
T/L
Cross-x isn't explicitly "closed," but each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties.
Please do not be racist, sexist, violent, etc in a way that may be hazardous to someone in the debate. I would prefer not to judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments in a debate.
Speaks range from around 26.5 to 29, but I have and will give higher or lower speaks depending on how the round goes.
Please disclose 30 minutes prior to the round. Shady disclosure practices are discouraged.
Topicality
Caselists are very important.
The presence of other NEG positions is not a defense to a ground argument. The AFF being disclosed is not a defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.
I default to competing interpretations, so do a lot of clash and evidence comparisons
Disads
They're great!
Impact turns are underrated.
Counterplans
I will NOT judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise.
Conditionality seems to be necessary for debate, but I agree that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not good. Increased condo usually leads to worse debating, but do what you need to do. I don't lean on any side, particularly for this.
I'm open to any theory arguments as long as you develop clear warrants for them.
PICs are fine.
Kritiks
Not a heavy K debater.
Framework needs warrants and specific impacts to them for both AFF and NEG. Provide judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose the framework interpretation. Weighing the AFF against the K is reasonable in my opinion.
Read specific links to the AFF if you're NEG.
Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The NEG can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
Planless/K-AFFs
I hate them with a fiery passion, but you're free to run them if you'd like. I'd probably lean on NEG, however.
T-USFG is a great strategy. I especially like TVA arguments with solvency advocates or examples of SSD. Make sure to explain why your impacts outweigh theirs.
Presumption is also a great strategy against these types of arguments.
SD/PF
In general, make sure you clearly explain your arguments to me. Do line-by-line and impact calculus. I personally value magnitude the most, followed by probability then timeframe, but how you structure and place your arguments is up to you!
Hi I'm Jordan Y. As of right now I am in 6th grade.
I have been doing policy and PF for 1 year.
PF tournaments: 4
Policy tournaments: 7
I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.
When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.
If you are running critical/performance arguments, please be familiar with the argument and able to intellectually defend it. My personal preference when I debate is usually policy-oriented discussions and my personal bias is that switch-side policy debate is good, but I don't let this inform my decision in the round. At the same time, I think that non-traditional forms of debate are an important component of the community and have an important message to broadcast, and as such, I have voted for performance affs in the past.
The following is a preference and not a requirement. It is common for me to judge teams running non-traditional forms of arguments and personally be unfamiliar with the literature base. Thus, it is probably in your interest to ask if I'm familiar with a non-traditional argument prior to the round unless you plan to explain it extensively in the round. An argument is inherently less persuasive when the messenger also does not fully understand it, and the debate is probably less educational for everyone involved as a result. In general, I think you should be familiar with any argument you read before you deploy it in-round, but I've found this is more frequently an issue when high school debaters deploy the critical literature base. If I don't think you are familiar with your argument, I won't hold it against you in my RFD (although it will inform my speaker points), but it will probably influence whether you are able to effectively deploy the argument on the flow, where I will vote.
Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the RFD should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.
(Credit to Tyler Prochazka for the awesome paradigm)
"Made by Jordan Y 5/11/2020"