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.

janisechiang135@gmail.com

experience:

• done SD, PF, and Policy for the past 6 years
• National WSD 3rd Speaker
• Co-President of TPDSA

general (x = where I lean towards)

• Clash-x-------------No Clash
• Tech---x------------Truth
• Impact Calc-------x--------Impact Comparison
• Speedy-----------x----Conversational
• Flowing CX--------------x-Not Flowing CX (there are exceptions)
• Signposting (please do it) - i.e. let me know where you are going in your speech

notes for PF and SD

• I like it when there is a narrative i can follow
• speak up because if you are too quiet it technically doesn't count on my flow
• don't be rude to your opponents
• please have warrants -- i will not just accept your arguments just cuz you have an author
• extend what your 2nd speaker says
• hopefully your final reflects the summary
• remember that you are a partnership, not an individual person
• don't assume that your judge knows nothing and try to stick to the truth

policy

• If you are gonna do theory, please make sure you understand it
• Same thing with Ks -- also note that my ability to judge these are very limited
• Please give a road map
• Though I like to be included on the email chain, expect me to vote off what I got on my flow and not what I got off the speech doc (I have no issue admitting that I simply couldn't hear what you said and hence could not vote for you)
• let's not spread analytics or theory ←_←
• condo is probably good
• I <3 aff-specific DAs---impact calc/comparison---card indicts/rehighlightings---topicality

Hello my name is Prince Dennis Jr. I am currently 14 years old in the ninth grade of Taipei American School. I started debate when I was in fifth grade, back then I was someone who argued a lot but never had a specific main point. From debate I learned the ability to make well reasoned and well thought arguments with a specific main point. I believe I am a flow judge. I know that there are a lot of shy people that are good debating but bad at presenting themselves well so I am not harsh on body gestures, eye contact and all those things. As long as I can understand your argument and I can hear you most of the times that is good enough for me. I like speed, I like it when one can finished their arguments fast. But I don't like it when someone speaks so fast that no one else in the room can understand what they are talking about.

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.

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

Jonathan Hsu

I'm a sophomore cxer at westwood.

I will listen to all arguments, do whatever you want.

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.

I am a parent judge. I really like good speeches that come from the debater themselves rather than being read off from their computer. I also really like good clash in a debate. Pay attention to what your opponent say, and try to answer them. Do not be rude. I don't care much about eye contact, but watch out for your articulation. In Cross Fire, when you don't understand the opponent's question, ask to REPHRASE their question rather than REPEAT it- that will make me stop taking you seriously. Try to answer as best as you can do, rather than saying 'I don't get your question.' Show your manners. Say hi, bye and thank you.

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.

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".

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

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

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.

gnawyar@gmail.com

he/him

I am currently a policy debater at Taipei American School and at ADL (1A/2N)

I prefer tech over truth

I’m fine with any arguments as long as the warrants are clear

Impact calculus and evidence weighing is helpful

Your goal in the final speeches should be to write the ballot for me

I don’t factor presentation into my decision

Go as fast as you want- but make sure you’re clear enough for me to flow it

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.