Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

Email: change1@mca.org.tw

Put me on the email chain, I won't be flowing off the doc though; I only flow what you say.

I started debating from elementary in Public Forum and then I did policy for 2 years and competed in the NJFL in the US and the MS ToC. I'm doing LD now as a K debater in US tournaments.

I vote on what's on my flow, if something is dropped, I won't evaluate it. Therefore please make it organized and easy to flow. I'm a tech>truth judge, I'll only vote on what you told me to, so please IMPACT EVERYTHING. I'll be very sad if I have to vote for the losing team because you didn't extend your impacts or warrants. EXPLAIN EVERYTHING, don't just tell me that being racist is bad, explain what happens when you are racist in a debate round.

PF

It's mostly the same as policy, but no plans and definitely no theory.

Speed: I'm fine with speed (if your opponents are) just stay clear. I'll say clear twice and then I'll stop flowing by the third time.

Time: time your own speech and prep time. Your speaker points will be busted if you go overtime or steal prep.

Speaker Points: Clothing has nothing to do with debating. You can show up in a T-shirt and flip flops and your speaker points won't be affected. Be courteous and organized and you'll get a 28 easily.

for those that don't understand what I'm talking about below, don't worry, you're probably fine

Framework: let's be honest, PF is just slower/mini-policy. I default util and CBA, but I'll vote with any warranted method. Please clash with the other side's model, don't just tell me what your's is, tell me why the other side is wrong.

Kritik: If you can run the Kritik as a linear DA, I'll happily vote for it. No alternatives because advocacies aren't allowed in PF.

CX/LD

Policy: The bread and butter of debate. I'm down with voting on policy args, just extend them properly.

PIC: I dislike word PICS, although you might have a harder time winning PIC

Topicality/Theory: I'm not a big fan of theory unless there's in-round abuse. I don't like frivolous theory, but I'll vote for it if the other team doesn't say anything. I default reasonability and drop the debater. If you run theory, you better go for it; time skews just wastes everybody's time and takes away from the content of the debate. HOWEVER, I'll happily vote for it if you have a good, pragmatic impact.

Framework: I love a good framework debate despite me being a K debater. If it does turn into a framework debate, please clash; I've seen too many rounds where people just say their own framework but doesn't tell me why the other side is bad. I default Util.

Kritik: I love Ks but they are pretty difficult to explain. I'm familiar with Model Minority Myth, Cap, Semiocap/Baudrillard, and Afropessimism, but I not deeply versed in the literature, so please give a fire rebuttal/final focus that explains what the arg is clearly.

Speed: I'm fine with speed (as long as your opponents are ok with it too) but if you aren't clear, I'll say "clear" twice, I'll stop flowing if I can't understand what you're saying afterward. Please sign-post.

Cross-fire/CX: I don't flow crossfire/CX, but it plays a pretty big part in my decision. Try to use it as a time to gain ethos and set up arguments. Be aggressive, but not rude (it'll come out of your speaker points). I love trap questions (and when people call them out) and I'll reward high speaker points for it. You better know your own evidence when you go into crossfire though, your speaker points will be destroyed if you read the wrong evidence or don't know what it says.

Speaker points: I don't care what you wear or if you stand or sit. I'd honestly be fine if you all came in with shorts, t-shirts, and flip flops. Speaker points will be evaluated based on organization, Cross-fire/CX.

For those that actually read my whole paradigm, I'll boost your speaker points by .2 if you whisper Taiwan No.1 at the end of your speech.

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

Please be organized.

No speed.

I like weighing & impact calc.

I don't flow crossfire. if it's something important bring it up in your speech

I have debated in high school for 4 years and judged students for 3 years now. I do mainly parliamentary and public forum.

I was exposed to policy debate very early in my high school years more than 30 years ago. Since 2008, I have coached countless number of students aging from grade 2 to grade 12, both in Los Angeles and Taipei.

I am a flow judge and will base my decision purely on your argumentation.

Speed is okay for so long as you slow down to emphasize your tags clearly.

I appreciate all types of Kritik and counterplans and believe debaters should debate out the rules of debate, not me.

I appreciate polite and respectful debaters; so, please persuade me with your logic, not your rude demeanor.

chengkev@berkeley.edu - yes I do want to be on the email chain.

Background

Competitive - Qualified to the TOC once my junior and attended to about 4-5 national tournaments my junior and senior year. I am most familiar with K debate as I spend the majority of my career in such arguments.

Bronx specific: I am not familiar with policy debates especially on a topic I am unfamiliar with. This does not mean you should not read K arguments just to adjust to my preferences, please read what you are confident in reading.

General - I'm a freshmen at UC Berkeley intending to study Data Science and Economics.

Philosophy

I am not a big fan of theory/tricks/phil arguments. This is partially "due to the incomprehensible speed/clarity at which these arguments are usually deployed" (Koo) and the level of stupidity some of these arguments are. I find reasonability persuasive if impacted out well.

Tech>Truth, conceding arguments hold great weight.

Ethics and other challenges

If you call out the other team for card clipping or an ethics violation please provide sufficient evidence. Recording rounds are a good idea if you think your opponent is likely to clip cards.

If someone says something ridiculously racist, sexist or anything along those lines, they will almost always be dropped.

If you believe your opponent mis cut evidence, please provide sufficient proof of such sort before calling an ethics violation and present them to me immediately.

Framework

I've had to deal with this argument a lot in my career and find it sometimes persuasive and other times not. If you are going for framework please do these things:

1. Engage with the affirmative's response to your shell. I hate pre-written framework speeches that don't specifically answer the the Aff's offense.

2. Give clear examples of why the Aff's model of debate is bad. What types of Affs would they allow that would make it impossible for the negative to prepare. Why is your scope of the topic the best control of limit.

3. Have a clear impact to framework and explain why that impact outweighs the 1AC's impact and their offense on framework. I.e. if the Aff says framework is a form of exclusion, either say that form of exclusion is good or provide sufficient work on the TVA and explain why the impact to fairness (for example) outweighs exclusion.

K Affs

1. Please know your Aff like the back of the hand. You don't have to have every line memorized, but if someone asks you about an author it would be best if you already knew what the author said.

2. Have a purpose. K Affs can't just say x problem exists in the world, what is the tangible solution you are going to provide and what are some solvency advocates.

3. Don't give nebulous or shift answers, it confuses me as well.

Ks

I am most familiar with arguments related to afropessimism, settler colonialism and capitalism.

I went for Ks almost every round in my career and find them to be helpful in my own intellectual growth and strategical purposes as well.

Please be familiar with your literature and be ready to defend it from every angle possible. If someone asks you something very fundamental about a literature and you are unable to answer it, you will lose great ethos points.

Make sure the link is articulated VERY CLEARLY. The link debate is usually where i spend the most time in the 2NR as it is often the only part that is directly about the 1AC. I expect coherent link stories with impacts fully flushed out. Don't go for too many links.

Aff*

The permutation is powerful and you should use it. Try to explain why the 1AC offers a better strategy to combat the problem the K proposes or why the risk of the 1AC doing good outweighs the risk of it triggering the K's impact.

Please also attack the theory in itself. Most Ks make a lot of structural claims that have alot of opposing literature, but people refuse to engage in them.

Experience/Debate Background: I have been doing PF for around six years as a first speaker. I also did some policy and WSD.

Judging Styles

- Speed: I'm fine with speed as long as debaters make themselves clear and understandable. However, if debaters spread and I can't understand them, I would automatically drop the argument.

- Speaker points: Speak openly and confidently. I judge on how well the speeches are, so remember to be loud and clear enough to earn yourself high speaker points. Respect your partner and the opponents. I deduct speaker points for rude behavior.

- Arguments: I judge the quality of arguments and how well debaters explain them. When it comes to rebuttal, I prefer debaters to explain the arguments rather than just reading cards. Remember to weigh arguments and explain to me why you deserve the ballot.

- Flow: I am a flowing judge. The debaters are more likely to win if they weigh the debate with arguments for me and clearly explain why they outweigh their opponent. I do flow during crossfire.

When I look at the flow for decision, I start with the final focus, so it is important that debaters clearly explain their arguments and weigh. Make sure to tell me why you deserve to win with strong and convincing reasons.

I debated in middle school and high school. I started off in public forum, then switched over to policy. I competed in tournaments in Taiwan, US, Korea, and China.

I'm more focused on your arguments than the way you present them. Give me a reason why you win. Don't bring up new arguments in the final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If you feel that you made a good point in the crossfire, you'll need to repeat it later on in one of your speeches.

I'm fine with speed; be clear.

Make it easy for me to understand why you won and you will most likely win.

For policy, I'm a member of a jury. I've had an introduction and instruction, but I enter the case with an open mind. The prosecution must prove to me why to condemn the man (the SQ) with evidence, logic, and the overall benefit to society. The Neg must show me, using the same, that the SQ is better or that a proposed alternative, such as a CP tops the AFF plan. If it's nearly equally, I'll go with the Neg on the assumption of Inherency. The SQ represents the thinking of a vast number of people; just as, if it's close, we're not going to condemn a man to death.

For LD, we're standing by the side of a railroad track. The two candidates are trying to convince me to vote based on their platform, which includes a policy, which I assess based on its practicality and morality. As the common person, I'd listen to their logic and, of course, they'd need evidence, but in the end, I'm deciding on right and wrong as much as practical issues.

For PPF: I'm watching a television show, Two sides are debating a policy issue, and they're trying to convince me, the viewer, of their position. Obviously, to prevent me from turning the dial, they'd have to be more entertaining than policy debaters. Still, however, as a learned watcher of a political talk show, I'd want to hear evidence and sound logic to convince me which side is more right.

for pf

- frontline (respond to their responses) if you're second rebuttal

- extend with warrants (reason why your argument is true) or it's not extended

- if you want it in final focus, talk about it in summary

- i wont vote on disclosure

- dont be a jerk

Any seamless reference to Avatar the Last Airbender will receive an additional +.25 to +.5 speaker points based on how much your reference is the quenchiest.

email: mckenzie.engen@gmail.com

I debated policy on the U.S. national circuit throughout high school and college, and was ranked 5th nationally in college. I coached a nationally competitive high school, taught at the Stanford and Claremont debate camps, and am currently teaching for ADL. Anything goes - speed, Kritiks, whatever. I judge off the flow and I expect you to write my ballot for me explaining why you won. Be nice to each other and remember, this is not a game - how we think matters.

in terms of experience, i've done pf, cx, world schools, and parliamentary debate for two years of high school

speeches

- you can spread, but please articulate and add me to the email chain (fang.darrenf@gmail.com)

- your narrative/story should clear and extended throughout the round. however, i'm tech > truth, so anything that's dropped i will consider as agreed on by both teams

- please weigh and tell me how to evaluate your arguments (write the ballot for me!). absent debate to the contrary, i default to voting for the advocacy that is likely to accrue the most net beneficial util impacts upon consideration of its hypothetical implementation. unless i'm told to do otherwise, i use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to compare arguments

others

- i love Ks.

- the more specific the CP is to the aff, the better, because it drives competition

- please be nice during cross! (no shouting please). i don't flow cross, so if it's important, bring it up in your speech

I competed in college parliamentary debate, and have 5 years coaching public forum debate in Beijing, Taipei, and now back in the United States. Under my tenure in Beijing, we won the NSDA China National Championship two years in a row.

I am a flow judge. I expect debaters to provide evidence for their arguments and responses, but if they do not, it is the responsibility of their opponents to highlight a lack of warrants.

I do not flow crossfire, so any significant information gained in crossfire should be brought up in later speeches.

I am focused on content over style, but do believe there is a necessity to communicate major issues clearly and convincingly when the debate is coming to a close.

I am okay with spreading, as long as the debaters are speaking clearly.

I've coached and judged LD for several years, at the local, regional, and national tournament level. I teach AP Language and Compositon in my 'regular' lfe, and bring my educational background with me wherever I go.

Debate to me is ultimately about 2 things: logic and communication. I consider these aspects as having equal weight. if you offer a plethora of well-formed points but do so in a frantic, mumbling, or otherwise ineffective matter, I will not score you well. Similarly, if your debate is all style and no substance, you shouldn't expect to do well with me.

I coached secondary school students in debate in Shanghai, China. I also competed myself in courtroom mock trial debate activities in secondary school in the United States.

I judge on overall presentation of debaters and consider both arguments and delivery. I consider any and all arguments, as long as they are well-supported.

As for speed, as long as it is natural, you should debate at a speed comfortable for you and your individual personality and demeanor.

Kritik and counterplans are welcome.

I started doing debate when I was in 6th grade, but only started to take it seriously in 7th grade when I started Policy Debate. I switched over to public forum debate in 11th grade. I have competed in tournaments in the US, China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

I'm a flow judge - make sure to be clear though. I'm fine with speed, and I love kritiks and CPs.

I mainly judge on stock issues, focusing on topicality, significance of harm, inherency, solvency, advantages over disadvantages.

Jonathan Hsu

Debated in middle school and high school; experience with policy and public forum.

Flow judge, focus on argumentation and clash over reading pieces of evidence.

I'm okay with anything; speed is fine if you are clear.

I have been debating competitively for around five years now with experience in PF, CX, LD, and a little bit of WSD. During these years, I have competed in up to 15 tournaments all around Asia and the United States.

I’m a flow judge and will therefore focus primarily on your content. I’m ok with speed and spreading; presentation and delivery is not as much of an issue as long as you are clear in what you’re saying. I have a background primarily in CX so I enjoy arguments along both the lines of your regular policy-oriented topics as well as ones that are more critical based. I don’t have strong preferences in terms of argument types, so feel free to run whatever you think you can best debate.

That said, some debaters take this as an invitation to run all the arguments that they know applies to the topic—try not to do this for the mere sake of running more arguments. Quality and depth outweighs quantity. (Don’t let this discourage you. If you think you can defend all your positions effectively, by all means, run them!) This should answer most questions regarding my stances on kritiks/theory/cp etc. Run them if you can explain them extensively and use them strategically. One thing I will say is that I think framework is an area of argumentation that debaters should use effectively. I’ve seen that a lot of debaters tend to drop them after their first speech. Engage in the fw and write my RFD for me in terms of what my decision should be based off of in the round.

On the same subject matter, be clear in how you want me to weigh the debate; otherwise, I will default to my personal judgement in deliberation. Quick note on final focuses: don’t bring up new arguments. I will not take new arguments into consideration. Try to focus on your extensions and analysis in this speech. Engage in your opponent’s points and create clash.

Lastly, please be respectful to everyone in your debate room. Feel free to approach me before the round if you have any other questions you would like to clarify.

Good luck with your debate!

Experienced- I did PF for almost two years from grade seven, but started debating smart debate when I was grade 4 (for three years). I have judged ADL smart debate tournament.

1. Speaker point- Clear speaking and politeness are important. Respect your partner and also the opponents.

2. Speed- spreading is fine as long as everything is clear and understandable.

3. Argument- I look at the argument the most, and mostly make decisions based on the argument you make. I prefer debaters explain the arguments rather than reading cards.

4. Flow- I am a flow judge. Debaters are more likely to win if they tell the judge how to weigh the debate and why you outweigh opponents.

Most importantly, I determine the winner based on what you say, but not how you say it.

History: I've done PF debate for a while now, and recently branched to LD. Understand the basics and most important parts of debate, but please be nice about it.

Belief:

Y'all be nice to each other, any offensive comments/argument will not be tolerated. -1.00 Speaks for stealing prep, -2.00 for serious offenses.

Framework is greatly appreciated, and I will value the pro/con or aff/neg based on the framework, so have fun debating on FW ;)

K's is fine with me, I'm totally chill with you reading it as long as you EXPLAIN and ARTICULATE about it so I can see why I should add that to the balance.

Theory... oh boy... I'm totally find with theory as long as it's GOOD and not HALF-ASSED because I seriously don't want to listen to things that not only does nothing, but also wastes my time.

CP is a good neg strat, and I'll greatly accept it if you explain it in the context of the resolution.

DON'T FORGET TO EXTEND YOUR OWN CASE... SERIOUSLY... DON'T FORGET TO... IT MESSES ME UP....

WHY YOU NO GIVE ME ORDER... :3

Conclusion:

I'm legit fine with everything as long as you EXPLAIN and LINK IT BACK TO YOUR CASE

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.

I am an amateur judge with previous judging experience in NSDA Taiwan 2017. As a financial advisory professional, my daily life is to interact with regulatory authorities, legal counsels, and top executives of multi-national firms.

I believe that Public Forum, as its name stands, is a debate catering to general public therefore the debaters should try to make their arguments easily understandable by everyone in a persuasive manner.

Persuasiveness is how I judge which team wins and which speaker outperforms. It will be evaluated from three perspectives:

* Your sense of logic. Present your big picture i.e. major arguments that can be reasoned clearly and substantiated by direct evidence as well as provide your big arguments why the opponent side is wrong.

* Your passion/self-confidence so to demonstrate that you truly comprehend the topic and strongly believe in your side rather than merely reading out from your written speeches. Good impact arguments need to be made via your explanations rather than via lengthy quotations from evidence cards. Impact should also be realistic from a social standard point.

* Lastly, please establish and maintain your credibility throughout the debate; do not make false accusations, distort evidence or deny things you have obviously said.

As PF is a joint team effort, I respect the fact that team members may want to help out each other; therefore, do not worry about the disparity of individual team member capabilities as it should be preceded by your overall performance as a team.

I may or may not flow, because as an amateur judge I prefer to give you my full concentration listening to your arguments and observing your presentation. Please speak at your normal speed as your goal is not to confuse your opponents by speaking fast but to convince your audience with solid logical reasoning.

Good luck everyone!

As far as my judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as you should know what you need to do).

Public Forum

Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.

First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.

Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.

Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.

Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.

Speed – spreading is okay but hopefully you're not doing it in PF. Clarity > speed, always.

Policy Debate

Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.

Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.

Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.

Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.

DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP

CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.

Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.

Include me in your email chain: benson_lin@brown.edu

(work in progress)

Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.

Good luck and have fun!

1. What is your debate background?

Coaching and teaching CX and LD.

2. How do you judge?

I judge solely on argumentation quality. Having more arguments does not mean you have better arguments. I expect debaters to effectively weigh relative impacts in a convincing manner. Crystallize and write my ballot for me!

3. Please explain other specifics about your judging style

I am a human being with innate limits for sustained attention. I consider spreading to be a cheap tactic and a totally useless life skill. The onus is on debaters to communicate clearly and persuasively, which demands using a reasonable speaking pace.

I think kritiks are very interesting but are generally reductio ad absurdum arguments. I am more convinced when critical theory is used to underpin an aff or neg philosophy, thus grounding evidence-based contentions.

I strongly encourage debaters to use competitive counter-plans.

6 years PF coaching experience. Science major in University.

•Technicality: take care to explain to me why I should vote for you-- provide coherent links & impacts

•Crossfires: I enjoy a good show.

•Speed: no spreading please :) I want to understand every word.

•Do judges even follow their own paradigms?

I debated PF and a little LD in middle school and high school.

Flow judge. I care about quality of evidence. I like clash.

Please don't spread. I'm probably fine with anything else.

Michigan PS

Michigan PP

Michigan PD

kellyphil2020@gmail.com

Tech trumps truth. I will strictly default to the arguments on my flow and refrain from injecting my biases into the debate. That being said, I will not treat 'ad homs' or issues that occurred outside of the round as arguments. They will not be evaluated.

If you have an ethics challenge, stop the debate. Do not treat it as a case neg or argumentative strategy.

Unless instructed otherwise, I will judge kick CPs.

Email: tynews2001@gmail.com

I participated in four years of policy debate in high school and I debated four years at Western Kentucky University.

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.

I did public forum for 1 year and policy debate for 4 years (2 years in MS and 3 years in HS). I mainly ran kritiks when I debated, so I'm fine with every kind of arguments as long as you can explain them. I'm fine with speed as long as you are being clear.

Debate: 1. You need to extend impact in your last speech or else I can't vote for you. Remember to do impact calculus in the last speech. 2. Don't forget to connect the dots in your last speech, tell me exactly how you win the round. 3. I'll listen to the cx, but if the points don't make it into the next speech then I won't count it.

Speaker points: 1. Don't be rude, remember to be nice to your opponents. 2. Organization of the speeches is important - especially for the rebuttals 3. Please explain what your arguments are, clear warrants = good speaks and more likely to win

October 2022 update: I am unfamiliar with the 22-23 high school topic and this will be the first time I judge this resolution - please keep this in mind before you spread through your blocks :)

Conflicts: ADL. My pronouns are He/Him. Add me to the chain: junxuan.ethan@gmail.com

Stolen from Dylan Willett: I am in Taiwan which is at minimum 13 hours ahead of the tournament I am judging so make sure to start off at a pace where I can adapt to your speed and speed up progressively through the speech because I might begin the debate a bit groggy.

I will judge the debate based on the flow. That said, I'm not too familiar with high theory Ks, but I will try my best to adapt to whatever argument style presented in the debate. 

I lean negative on most theory arguments. I lean AFF on T, and I find reasonability a very persuasive argument when argued well. Please don't let this dissuade you from going for T - good debating can overcome most of my preferences/biases.

I won't judge kick the CP unless the 2NR tells me to. Impact calculus is very important. The Cap K is a very good argument if your link explanation goes beyond "state bad".

Debate Career (PF)

Stanford Tournament 2018

Luthern 2018

HSTOC Silver Division 2018: Semi-Finals

NSDA China 2017: Octa-Final

Debate Career (Policy)

MSTOC 2018: Semi-Final

NSDA Taiwan 2018: Champion

NSDA US 2018: Champion

NSDA open seasoner (Varsity) 2018

overview :

I find that while judging, if the debaters can isolate and clearly articulate alot of the nexus questions of the round, it becomes easier to judge, regardless of any predilections. While I try to adopt the ideology of a 'tabula rasa' I find that its not entirely successful. Some arguments can be more persuasive to me than others, and I will try my best to avoid any intervention on my part, and I feel that you as a debater should do what you feel is best. If you have good cards to substantiate your args that goes a long way and matters for me. Explain how you want me to evaluate the debate.

Topicality:

I like T when its debated well. That means good impact analysis, good explanations of standards and how I should evaluate each team's vision of the topic. I usually err on the side of competing interpretations/view the debate through a lens of offense/defense, but I can be persuaded otherwise by the affirmative. A good reasonability argument is about the neg's burden to prove the aff doesn't meet any good interp of the topic, and that the aff is good enough. interps of reasonability make next to no sense to me.

Theory: I resolve these debates much like topicality, and I am admittedly a little neg bias on a lot of these theoretical questions. The impact level needs to be clearly articulated, especially by the affirmative if you want my ballot. I feel that counter interpretations are largely self serving (not a reason to not make one) and that interpretations on theory debates are much more persuasive when your offense is centered around your interpretation, which I feel has become largely lacking (ex. teams read the same conditionality block regardless if they have read one or four conditional options). I believe strongly in technical debating, but a conceded blimpy theoretical objection won't be a reason to reject the team, but will just reject the argument if the theoretical objection is well argued and explained. This is because most of these scenarios are were arguments are not made.

Framework:
I think K affs tend to lose more of these debates when they adopt a middle ground perspective in which they try to do something with the topic but not affirm the entirety of the resolution. It makes it easier in my mind for neg teams to win that the resolution is compatible with the aff's offense and that resolutional debates are good as the aff is already half of the way there. I think teams are more successful at impact turning framework, and making reasons why only the aff's model of debate is beneficial than by making more defensive arguments like you could have read your aff against us on the neg, or that you get certain ks.

Common arguments that don't resonate with me a ton is that the aff is a prerequisite to topical engagement, or that it is a starting point. If that is true why not have 4 minutes of the speech explaining your prereq about how we should change our relationship/understanding of the resolution and then use that to inform a praxis? I think K affs tend to win more of these debates if they are about not a starting point to resolutional/topical debate, but rather if the aff is about prerequisites to how we understand debate as an activity and how we need to change that first.

I prefer these debates to clash about what model of debate is best, to conduct impact comparison, and to tell me what matters and how to evaluate certain arguments. Debate it like a t debate with violations, standards, and impacts.

Counterplans:

Love them. The more specific to the aff the better and helps drive competition.

Disads:

There is zero risk of a disad, and it happens. I am not persuaded by 'there's always a risk. I feel that the impact level of disadvantages (as well as advantages) are way to often the focus of the debate, and I find that debates about a solid link defense/turn or internal link defense can win a round more often than other things.
With that being said, I feel that a disadvantage with alot of explanation of how it accesses case, why I should prefer it, and why it comes first are persuasive, but I don't feel that its an automatic negative ballot if the 1AR just drops them because they sat on another argument on the flow. The status squo I feel has become a debate that is less willing to be had and I think that a good case/disad debate can be very strategic at times.

Kritiks:

If you want to win the K in front of me, make the debate about the aff, and contextualize it, or I think it is easier for the aff to win a perm. Doing this doesn't necessarily mean reading new aff specific cards, but it does mean doing the work to contextualize your generic 1nc args to the specifics of the aff.

I prefer policy arguments other than kritiks unless you can give a great overview with a decent link.

1. you can speed up

2. dont steal prep

3. i dont flow cross

4. read anything you want just do it loud

5. be nice to ur partner

I have debated in high school for 2 years and I also have coached elementary and middle school debaters. I mainly debate in PF and world schools formats. I judge debates based on the overall presentation but arguments are valued more compared to delivery or strategy of arguments. I feel fine with any speed and i feel fine about kritik and counter plans with no particular preference. It all depends on the quality and the analysis of arguments.

1. My background

• Debated (policy debate) for two years in high school in New York, USA.
• In college, I didn't continue competitively in debate but did "persuasive speech."
• 10+ years of coaching/instructing/judging debate in secondary education to students and fellow teachers. (Mostly in policy debate, but also some public forum and Lincoln Douglas)

2. How I judge.

• It is true that I deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters to an extent. (see below)
• I primarily focus on arguments and logical reasoning/connections.
• The delivery primarily only is an impact if it makes the arguments unclear to the listeners (myself or the opponents).

3. My judging style and preferences.

• Any pace/speed should be okay as long as the speaker is clear and loud enough (I'm not a fan of debaters racing through a preprepared speech thoughtlessly while being barely comprehensible).
• I'm not a big fan of a Kritik approach but will accept it if there is enough of a clear, logical connection created by the speaker. (If you use one, you had better be really good with having it connected and possible/believable.)
• I attempt to approximate the estimate of the “AVERAGE INFORMED CITIZEN.” (A simple "blank slate" is not an average citizen, so I do somewhat weight points according to the arguments being reasonable. However, you are also not debating against my knowledge of a topic.)
• I enjoy hearing counter plans and original ideas but don't like it if a counter plan is remarkably similar to the affirmative plan (has only minor differences/changes).
• I DON'T LIKE SPREADING! I would rather have a team choose their best arguments instead of trying to win by just having a large number of minor points that end up being dropped. (If you have a lot of points, that is not a problem that is, if... lots of points are dropped by your opponents, but you can defend the parts challenged are defended instead of quickly dropping them (when challenged) that would convince me that you are ready to defend the other points that were dropped. However, if you spread and then repeatedly drop your own arguments (when challenged), that would lead me to believe that you are only trying to win via numbers alone.)

Additional notes...

• I am dyslexic... if there is a lot being said, I might not be writing/typing because it can be distracting from what is being said, but I am keeping mental notes. (Being dyslexic means that it is a bit harder for me to write and listen simultaneously.)
• My notes are sometimes messy because they are only intended for me.
• I prefer to give immediate feedback instead of long detailed written reports but will write up the more major things in a feedback report.
  
  

Email: Nathan.in.Taiwan@gmail.com (ONLY use my listed email if you need it to share evidence or in debate email chains)

I write this to be as accessible as possible, with particular consideration for young children:

I set up Taiwan Debate Union and has coached half a dozen countries to international competitions within the parliamentary debate circuit. I have been ranked highly in national circuits (won three national championships in Thailand and a national inter-varsity in the UK), regional competitions, as well as numerous international competitions. I've also trained numerous schools, universities and national teams.

95% of my debate achievements (as a debater, judge or coach) is dedicated to parliamentary debate. I can't pretend to say that I particularly embrace the "debate-speak" around any of the debate styles (including parliamentary). I don't like jargon, so in all cases, here is why I consider to be the role of the judge: I deliver a win to the team that is the most convincing, as an individual of relatively average comprehension of a specific motion at hand and also determined to leave the majority of my personal preconceived notions and values at the door.

Therefore, it is not a judgment of what I find the most convincing, but what was most convincing as it had occurred in a specific debate.

Therefore, broadly, here is how I see debate (and the engagement thereof in debate):

1. Arguments are assertions until analysis is provided. Strength of the argument increase proportionally to a) extent of analysis - which could be defensive, thus rebuttals against rebuttals, for example, and; b) the importance of that argument to the broader context of a debate.

2. Following that, it is possible to win an argument and still lose the overall debate. Pretty straightforward, I would think, given that you must always prove a) something is true, and; b) that it being true has some kind of importance.

3. I am agnostic to judging styles in a vacuum. I care about style only to the extent that it helps make your argumentation more or less persuasive, and on the basis of whether or not it improves accessibility to, and understanding of, your argument. If you are able to draw on emotive prowess for an argument, then that style counts. If your style makes it significantly difficult for me to understand even what you are saying, then of course it works against you. I don't care about style for the sake of it. But I don't deny its importance, either.

4. I am agnostic to evidence that hasn't be proven to be important or linked back to a specific proposal by the debaters. Numbers are just numbers, for example. Unlike what people say, numbers don't speak for themselves. Not even the most impressive stats. If you don't tell me why it is both a) relevant, and b) important, then it's merely tangential.

5. It seems interesting that so many other judges talk about "flow". That's not a terminology I find relevant. I take notes as much as possible (with my own adapted shorthand, as it common with my circuit) to cover all points so that I have the ability to review and pursue meticulous comparisons for issues that end up being closely contested by two teams. Prove that your logic is strong, relevant and consistent - there doesn't need to be much window dressing by debaters nor judges. I assure you that I have judged some of the most competitive rounds in the parliamentary circuit which require an insane amount of note taking and justification after each round. In fact, for my circuit, it is mandatory for judges to provide feedback and they can even be scored on that basis. We are therefore motivated to follow main ideas through the debate and weigh them throughout a debate. For that reason, your concern, as a debater, shouldn't be about how I take notes. Just focus on proving your point in the debate and everything else will naturally follow.

6. Assertion of an assertion is also an assertion. That's my pet peeve with many debaters (including many experienced debaters).

You are welcome to get in touch with me at any point during the competition, assuming I am available, to ask for feedback.

Wen-Yu Weng
Taiwan Debate Union co-Founder

Throughout high school, I was a competitor in Public Forum debate, and have coached Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas Debate since my days as a teacher in the United States and now in Taiwan, for a dozen years now. I have judged at dozens of high school speech and debate events throughout college and as a teacher and coach. Also, I've coached and judged Policy Debate the past 6 years.

As a judge, I look for a few keys:

First, the sources matter! Also, especially if the claim is grand, I believe in "stacked evidence;" that is, the grander the claim or the more unbelievable the evidence you are using, more than one legitimate source should be cited.

Second, I do believe in common sense logic. Evidence is not always needed if a claim seems realistic or reasonable, yet if challenged by your opponent, evidence helps, and avoid fallacies, especially the amateur ones like Slippery Slopes and overgeneralizations. Avoid absolutes and extreme language, like "always," or even "often" unless your evidence suggests that the language is appropriate because of the data.

One last thought on PF evidence and contentions: Quality of evidence, and of your argument in general, matters more than quantity.

As for Policy, If a Kritic is called, I expect to see the opponent provide a real defense of the evidence, re-clarification of the argument, or simply a statement claiming that the Kritic is minor and should be overlooked. For those teams who like to use Kritic as a strategy, I truly hope it is used strategically, and not always by default.

I love counterplans even more than Kritic; I appreciate originality in CPs, but you must present enough for it to make sense.

Last but not least, I expect crossfire to be respectful in all debate formats. If you ask a question, the opponent must have the opportunity to answer the question fairly. I will grant extra time in CX if need be to allow opponent (especially if their English level is lower) to come up with an adequate answer or ask that the question be restated. Simply because your opponent cannot answer according to your question (especially if it is not clear, or is overlong and complex) does not mean you "win" that question.

Also, if I hear knocking from you or your partner as you speak, I will deduct speaker points.

1. Debate Background

My name is Curtis Wu, I've been doing debate since I'm in elementary school, currently a grade 9 student. I've debated smart debate and public forum , in which I know the format of each debate.

2. How do I judge

a) I'm a flow judge, I will try to flow the whole debate.

b) I judge based on the impact calculus (Impact, timeframe, etc.), and the arguments itself.

c) I care about how the arguments were arranged, all of the arguments must have some connections to the framework.

3. My judging style:

a) Speaking clearly is important.

b) It is important to answer to every arguments.

c) Important to point out reasons why you win the debate.

d) I don't have side preferences, BUT it is IMPORTANT to delivery your case fluently.