Dave Arnett

Director of Debate, University of Kentucky

27th year judging

Updated September 2023

Go ahead and put me on the doc chain davidbrianarnett@gmail.com. Please be aware that I do not read along so clarity and explaining your evidence matters a lot. Many debates I will ask for a compiled document after the round. I reward clear line by line debating with mountains of points and wins.

Better team usually wins---X---------------------the rest of this

Team should adapt---------------X----------------judge should adapt

Topics-X----------------------------------------------Topics?

Policy-----------------X-------------------------------K

Tech--------------X-----------------------------------Truth

Read no cards----------------X---------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality bad-------------------------------X---debate should be hard

Nothing competes------------------------------X---counterplans are fun

States CP good--------X------------------------------States CP bad

UQ matters most----------------------X-------------Link matters most

Line by Line-X-----------------------------------------Flow Anarchy

Clarity-X------------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Lots of evidence--------------------------------------X-lots of really good evidence

Reasonability--------------X---------------------------competing interpretations

29 is the new 28---X-----------------------------------grumpy old guy (true for other reasons but less so on this)

Civility-X-------------------------------------------------My Dean would cancel our program if they saw this

Dr. Rachel Williams

I teach Public Forum debate and public speaking at Global Academic Commons.

In a Public Forum debate, I look for strong arguments supported with strong evidence presented in a clear manner.

I would define a strong argument as one that relates to the resolution at hand, is well-organized, and clearly states your position, using solid logic and reasoning. Quality, well-explained arguments will trump a mere quantity. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support your claims, and well-chosen, relevant evidence will strengthen, though not replace, arguments.

Effective persuasion requires credible, unbiased, strong supporting evidence. In your speeches, this includes proper citation of any evidence used, and this must include source name and date. You should use direct quotations of your evidence and must have it available when asked.

Clear communication is a consideration. I will weigh arguments only to the extent that they are clearly explained, and will discount arguments that are too fast, too garbled, or too jargon-laden to be understood.

Be clear, confident, and respectful!

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.

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

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.

Throughout high school, I was a competitor in Poetry. I have judged various speech and debate events for the past 6 years in the United States. 2018 is my first each as a coach in Taiwan.

As a judge, I believe:

Sources matter! Make sure your informational foundation comes from your most credible source. When looking at your evidence, remember quality over quantity.

Respect matters! I will give more time in CX to allow an 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.

Speed matters! I would rather a speaker slow their speech and pronounce ideas clearly than speed through everything in order to seem knowledgeable. Again, quality over quantity.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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 do not judge debate very frequently: most of my debate experience comes from running the Parliamentary Debate Society within the school at which I teach. Prior to that, my previous experience of debate has been in the UK, when I coached a team for the English Speaking Union’s London Debate Challenge; it should be noted that the nature of parliamentary debate in the UK is rather different from US college debating.

I have an academic and teaching background: I have a PhD in political history, taught politics and philosophy at university for six years, and have taught history and English for the last thirteen years, both in a London state school and at Taipei European School. For the last six years, I have been heavily involved with MUN conferences.

I enjoy engaging with arguments in depth, and have no problem with arguments that come from an epistemological or ontological perspective. I am always open to hearing interesting and original arguments.

Debaters should be aware that I get irritated with the overuse of jargon and common presumptions. I will also appreciate teams that speak at a pace that allows their listeners to engage properly with the logic of their points, rather than making it an exercise in fast listening.

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?

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.

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.

2019 Update:

Debate how you want. I'll judge too the best of my ability. I'm familiar with most any K argument (most familiar with Deluze, Queer Theory, Anti-blackness, Semiotics, Affect Theory) - I run them on the AFF and NEG. I cut quite a lot of politics updates for my teams and on occasion a tricky PIC. I think debate is not only a game but it also has many social implications. I coach for the Asian Debate League - I've coached for Blue Valley North, Debate Kansas-City, and Barstow. I currently debate for the University of Missouri-Kansas City where i'm a senior. Debate, have fun, and make sure i'm on the email chain "brennan.schartz@gmail.com"

My debate background:

Debated (debating) in 5th-8th grade (one year in elementary and 3 years in middle).

I have done a year in policy and 3 in public forum.

My Personal Preferences:

I do not care for the presentation of a debater as long as it is reasonable and the arguments are well-constructed. I do however, care for the clash of arguments and if there is none, I will compare the impacts of the arguments using the arguments the two teams have provided.

My Judging Style:

I will be able to flow most arguments as long it is at a reasonable speed, if I cannot flow down the arguments I will raise my hand indicating that you are going too fast. I am open to any argument (counterplan, Kritik, etc.) as long as it convinces me to believe that this ties into the resolution at hand.

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".

I debated in high school and college.

I judge based on the logic of the argument.

Has the debater used material other than the material supplied by the contest.

I’m both a public forum and policy debater. I’ll listen to and vote on pretty much anything - including kritiks, theory arguments, or framework. Write my ballot for me and clearly articulate your impacts. Please remember to provide warrants, compare impacts, and refrain from power-tagging needlessly. I don't tolerate clipping of any sort. If a team wants me to look at a specific piece of evidence or call another debater out on something, that desire needs to be explicitly expressed within a speech or during the round. You can speak as fast as you want as long as you're clear.

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.

Despite being fairly new to competitive debate at the high school level, I have also previously done debate and other similar activities in both middle and high school. As a judge, I am more of a flow judge as I base my decisions on the argumentation presented by the two teams. This could into the amount of critical thinking, evidence, research, and response but also the impact, logic, and unity of those arguments being presented. However, I still believe that delivery is important, as speaking clearly and at the right speed is crucial for the points to be understood. In terms of Kritik counterplans, and other factors, I do not have a specific preference as they do depend on the debaters themselves. It'll be fine as long as if they are reasonable and can positively contribute to the arguments and case as a whole.

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 am a high school debate coach. This is my first year in this position. I do not have any previous experience judging competitive debate. I do have extensive experience with Model United Nations, and Mock Trial, however.

I did not debate in high school or college.

I would prefer it if teams did not spread, because I think it brings down the level of the debate, overall. That said, I will do my best to accommodate all speaking styles. I recommend that all debaters not lose sight of the importance of speaking persuasively and really selling the impacts of their arguments.

What is your debate background?

- debated in high school for approximately one year

How do you judge?

- I am a flow judge and base it on argumentation

- don't do much spreading and deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters based on the heir persuasiveness of the arguments and the delivery of each speaker

3. Other Specifics

- not experienced in spreading

- counterplans are OK if it is viable and beneficial to the team

- overall persuasiveness of argument especially at the end of the round very important

TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will make my best effort to make a decision that makes sense. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Do not say death is good. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for higher speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun!

Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Will start prep if you are taking too long. Please take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.

AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Very bad for non-resolutional K AFFs.

CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.

T Things:Not the best so don't blaze through analytics. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.

K Things: Agree with JMH: policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. No good in K v. K. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.

PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Will not vote on frivolous theory or philosophy tricks. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.

Nice People: Debnil. Both Morbecks. Michael B. Cerny. Steve Yao. Delta Kappa Pi.

Mean People: Eloise So. Gatalie Nao. Chase Williams. Kelly Phil. Joy Taw.

1. My Debate Background:

Debated in University: 2012-2014, British Parliamentary Style

Debater: The 3rd United Asian Debating Championship @ MMU, Kuala Lumpur, Asian Parliamentary, 2012

Debater: Asian British Parliamentary Debate @ BIPED,Jakarta , British Parliamentary , 2012

Debater: 2013 IDEA-GUET South China Debate Tournament , British Parliamentary

Panelist: The 4th United Asian Debating Championship @ ADMU,Manila , Asian Parliamentary , 2013

Judge : National High School Academic Debate Tournament, Public Forum

2. How do I judge?

My judgment based on argumentation, principle and logic. I will also focus on the structure of the debater’s delivery. Meanwhile, teamwork and engagement is important.

3. Some specifics

- Fast speed is acceptable but it should be clear

- Counter plans play an important role in debate, but it is not necessary. It should depend on the debaters’ own logic.

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 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.