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

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.

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

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 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.

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!

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!

Debate:

I have participated in debate for more than 6 years, including public forum, LD, and Policy Debate. I am open to all kinds of arguments and speed.

Clarity outweighs speed. Quality outweighs quantity.

Just a reminder, the purpose of debate is not only to present your arguments but to engage with your opponents.

Speech:

I have experience doing speech as a kid and experience of being a speech judge.

Keep mind of the time management, clarity, and volume.

Competition is never about only about winning and losing, its more about what you've learned.

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.

1. Debate Background

Having debated since 2013, I have done a variety of types including policy, public forum, and parliamentary. I have competed in multiple tournaments such as, but not limited to: TOC China, NJFL USA, and NSDA China. I have made it into eliminations for the majority of my tournaments. Moreover, I have also judged in the TIUC and multiple other tournaments.

2. How I judge and judging preferences

I am a flow judge and will make my decisions purely based argumentation, but be aware that your delivery will significantly affect your speaker points too! I am fine with spreading but please make sure that you are clear and pause and/or signpost before new arguments to make yourself easier to follow. I will not clarify any arguments with you, so if you are unclear (mumbling, etc.) and I do not catch you argument, it will be your own loss!

Please remain serious, respectful, and polite towards everyone throughout the debate, particularly during crossfire. Other than bad delivery, rude behavior will negatively affect your speaker points as well. This includes, for example, continuously talking over your opponents non-stop and not giving them a chance to respond. Its not dominating, its just avoiding clash/debate. Also, please do not cover your face with your paper/laptop. Its hard to be convince someone without looking at them!

As for argumentation, I do not have any particular preference for any type of argument. However, comparisons (e.g. impact calculus) and clash is very important to me. A judge will vote all arguments/impacts to be equal unless you give them a reason why they should prefer your argument, regardless of how absurd your opponents argument may be unless there is a certain framework I am put into during the debate. Its quality over quantity. It doesn't matter if your opponent proves 10 different impacts if you can prove that your one impact outweighs their 10. So debate analysis (weighing different arguments) and of course, clash (disproving your opponents arguments, etc.) is extremely important for me.

Please also note that I do not vote based on crossfire and will not flow it. It does not, however, mean that the crossfire is unimportant. Crossfire is a chance for you to expose your opponent's weak points or to set up traps for your opponents to fall into to which you can use against them at a later speech. However, no matter how great a point you made in crossfire, please do not assume that I will vote upon any of it unless you bring it into your main speeches. So make sure you do that if you do make a good point.

Finally, please don't steal any prep time or make any new arguments in the final focus, as I will simply start your time or disregard the new argument.

Be confident and good luck!

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.

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

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.

I am a tabula rasa judge and I prefer to go down my flow without having to think twice. That is, explain your impacts to me explicitly with a complete set of claims, warrants, impacts. Label all your arguments or I will not flow down what I hear. I cannot stress the importance of sign posting- it makes everyone’s job easier.

Speaking style matters to me, please do enunciate and stir away from sounding monotone- your delivery may be the final key to winning a close round. I don't mind speed, but make sure your opponents are able to keep up with you. Dropping arguments and kicking them without notice or one not recorded down my flow is considered a conceded argument. While I strictly prohibit bringing up new arguments in summary and especially final focus, I am not against extensions to an existing argument. Ultimately, my conventional decision is decided by what is written on the flow- all else is disregarded or invalid within that round.

Framework debates are fine with me- but you need to tell me 1. why it is worth spending time on 2. Why your clashes is justified against theirs. If you don’t see the point in going down on framework or don’t know how to proceed with one- disregard it.

I come from a Parliamentary background- so please address me in the debate, I listen to catch phrases such as “even if...”, “on a micro/macro scale”, “judge”. Surprise me.