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

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!

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.

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