Assume that I don't know anything about the topic being discussed. Use warrants in your argumentation. Tell me a story on why you win and compare your impacts. I prefer a conversation versus a policy based debate.

Be clear, confident, and respectful!

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am Mia from Taipei European School, and I have been debating for 3 years. I am more of a flow judge, who judges mainly by the arguments (not the cross-fire). I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters - i.e., arguments + delivery.