I was an APDA (college parliamentary) debater from 2014-18. Between 2016 and 2022, I coached PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and some other speech events.

Three years coaching PF, 4 years debating British Parliamentary. I prefer socialist, people-centric advocacy. If you are spreading, make sure that you are still actually articulating the words in your speech. spreading is fine, but if it becomes inaudible then it makes 0 sense for me to flow the small chunks that I am able to catch. Spreading in this fashion is a tactic typically used to hinder an opponents ability to flow and keep up but it also has an adverse effect on the judge's ability to actually judge what you are saying. Ensure that you are linking your arguments back to your framework. Framework should be a rubric of sorts your team claims that needs to be fulfilled in order for you to win. If you would like to challenge evidence, I will look into it once the round is complete so all teams should have the non-redacted version of the sources they are using for their cards.

I was formerly a 4 year PF debater at Stuyvesant High School, a 4 year PF coach for Hunter High School, a 4 year APDA/BP debater in college, and the Director of NSD PF for 3 years. 3 things to note:

1. I don’t need defense in first summary if 2nd rebuttal didn’t answer it and you extend it in final focus, but I do need defense in 2nd summary if you intend for that response to factor into my decision. All offense must be in both summary and final focus.

2. I give relatively low average speaker points, as I will award an average PF speech a 28.

3. Do not be afraid to grill me after the round if you think I have made a mistake in evaluating the round in any way. It will not sway me but it might teach you something and i really don’t mind at all.

i do deb8

Weigh your impacts please

APDA: I'm an APDA south judge. I strongly believe it's the debaters' jobs to make the round clear and adjudicable for me. What this means: (1) make the case clear and get all fact claims out of the way in POCs or else I won't adjudicate on them, (2) don't just beat arguments, weigh!!!!! When I adjudicate I will defer to well-warranted weighing, but if both teams just tell me "this is the most important issue in the round" without any reason that's the case, you didn't actually weigh.

If you run IR in front of me please run it well

High school debate: I'm not big on true spreading because honestly my thoughts can't keep up with what you're saying, but I don't mind debaters speaking at a fast-but-conversational pace. I care a lot more about the strength of your warrants than who reads more/better cards but I'll obviously take evidence into account. I'm fine with jargon but I will be annoyed if you aren't respectful of an opponent who isn't familiar with it. I am most impressed by clever/creative arguments and turns. I have a pretty structural style of judging debate so try to hit all the arguments because I will pick up on drops if they're weighed properly. See my APDA paradigm for more on my feelings toward weighing lol

High school IE (are paradigms a thing here?): Your speech can be entertaining but if it doesn't fulfill the purpose of the event (e.g. being funny in HI, being persuasive in OO), I'll probably knock your ranks and speaker points down a bit.

Updated for Princeton 2018

Email: paveldtemkin@gmail.com

Debated for:

PF: Princeton HS, NJ (2012-14)
APDA: Rutgers University, NJ (2015-2018)

Coached for:

PF: Stuyvesant HS, NY (2014-15)
PF: Bergen County Debate Club, NJ (2018-present)
APDA: Johns Hopkins University, MD (2018-present)

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

I'll be as non-interventionist as I physically can be, sometimes to the point of mind-boggling obstinacy. If you explain every step in the link-chain I will be happy, if you don't you won't be happy.

Speed: Moderate. May ask you to CC me on the email chain.

Framework/Theory/Kritiks/T/DAs: Fine. Please be clear, especially in the very first links and the very last impacts.

Philosophy: I studied analytic philosophy, so I'll be very familiar with that literature, in particular metaethics and epistemology. I have read some continental/critical stuff, but have less familiarity.

Literally do not care what you do in a round.

Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

In all cases, I will call for the evidence and decide for myself. I will sometimes call for evidence in round, after a team asks to see it during prep; do not be alarmed, I'm doing it to discourage abusive misquoting.

Speaker Points

I tend to be fairly low-speaking. What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

Please don't make me think I'm in a policy round. 

My name is Waiho Zhang, I debated policy debate for Brooklyn Technical High School for 3 years.

**Quick Version**

I mainly debated kritikal arguments in high school. My literature basis is very expansive, from race based arguments to pomo white people. However even though majority of my debate career was grounded in Ks, i've also read a fair share of policy arguments so feel free to run them in front of me, I will make my decision accordingly.

*******Long Version*****

Ks: I love kritiks when they are ran well.  I'm familiar with most kritiks, my literature basis is pretty expansive. Please have an coherent link and impact that stems beyond "state bad." I would prefer you extend the ALT into the 2NR but its option, I believe the job of the NEG is to prove the AFF is a bad idea, if you have an big enough link that the PERM doesn't resolve I'll most likely vote you up. Impact calculus is very important, don't forget it, tell me why K outweighs.

Performance: I dig it, just make it meaningful so it doesn't look like you put it into your AFF to take up space.

Framework Vs. K AFFs: I vote on framework 50 percent of the time, prove why your model of debate is better. I feel like the best strat is to go for arguments that push fairness, limits, and ground with education impacts along with topical version of the AFF is the best option. Going solely for state solves in the 2NR is fine but not preferable.

DA, CP, PICS: Love them, give me a link and do impact calc. I think PICS are legit, IDK

Theory: Impact it out, I will vote on it if you go for it. Please spend time, don't make it blippy.

***

Watch your language. No racist, homophobic, sexist rethoric please.

***

Policy vs. K: I will vote on stuff that go hard right, as long as you do nice impact calc and help me frame my decision. I'm not one of those judges who won't vote on shit cause I THINK its wrong. Example: I will vote on heg if ran well, i think its a decent argument, just watch the way in which you run it.

:) Good luck and have fun.