My personal debate experience is around BP and APDA formats of debate. I have judged and debated BP for 3 years and have done so in APDA for 1 year. I have been instructing PF for 1 years having judged in multiple ADL tournaments

Arnold Arnez

arnoldarnez33@gmail.com (if you want to start an email chain)

I like Ks, alot, like ALOT

In all seriousness, no matter how minimal it is, I do have a serious Paradigm --> But for a quick peek cause you're speed-ranking judges:
if you run straight up heg and/or econ, and politics DA and Japan CP stuff, on either Aff or Neg, I am not your judge and will fall asleep during your 7th nuclear war scenario card.

If you run Middle of the Road Policy Affs, Kritikal/Performance Affs, Ks (Pomo, Race, Fem, Cap, Academia, etc.), PICs, you should rank me high. If you fit the latter section for commie and hippie K debaters, you can keep reading below. If you run FW, I'm looking for specific debates concern FW.*

Now Serious Paradigm

But first, be coherent when spreading. If that means slowing down, do it so I can flow better and actually know if you made an argument. This means read tags/taglines and authors slowly.

Now with that said; I have debated for all 4 years of high school at Brooklyn Tech and so I love Kritikal arguments like I love free food (just saying). But, I prefer you read an argument that you understand rather than have you run an Afropess K that you asked your only black friend to send you so you can make me more willing to vote for you (Thsi means you can run FW if you're better at it than Ks). If you burn the instant you walk into sunlight, you probably shouldn't be winging it with a new K about PoC for the ballot, unless you have invested time into reading the literature. For my literature base, I have mainly run Indigenous based Kritiks (and Cap K and Academia Ks) so I will be more ciritical in terms of my RFD to anyone who runs these arguments, but also understand your arguments far better. However, you should not be throwing up buzzwords like an infant witha bellyache, I want you to clearly explain these arguments, cause no one understands these outside the round, and that's a problem in general with debate as a insular community. Be good at ROB and ROJ, cause framing the debate is as important as your K offense. Also I like line-by-lines, easier to understand and to evaluate your arguments.

If you run perfromances, you should be good or expect me to sleep like a bad parent at their kid's 4th grade piano recital. If it isn't done well, isn't continued into later speeches (like atleast a for 15 sec), or add any offense to your case, don't use it cause you're wasting your time and making yourself sound really corny.

If you run Middle of the road, we demand that the state help [insert opressed group here], I have no problem and really like to see these types of arguments when they can prove empirical examples of the state working.

*I will vote for T/FW, no matter how many kritikal debaters hate it, if you have a specific/unique spin to your FW file. Do research on how gov't policies can actaully mitigate harms of anti-black violence, or how the state can actually be a force against heteronormativity. Your research matters and it will reflect on your speaker points, so don't just pull Steinberg and Freely in 1874 cards out of your ass as your go to cards and expect me to find you very convincing. But if you are really good at FW, and can smack any team around the northeast who eats Wilderson and Judith Butler for breakfast, then  make me a potential judge cause I'll vote you up (but I will get bored).

On theory, just be good at it and be comprehensible in your explanations. And you should make it the focal point of your last speech if you want to win.

On speaker points, you should not be dick to your partner, do not say bigoted slurs against anyone, bring your own timers, and use the bathroom before and after the debate. Also don't use coaching staff to intimidate the other team, you make yourselves look douchey and I will think negatively towards you. Preferebly prep outside if you have 20 coaches huddling next to y'all. Also, if someone says problematic language to [insert opressed group here] and it's made into a voting issue, it's not an automatic reason to vote you down (unless it's impacted well enough), but it's terrible on your speaker points and you should apologize (profusely).

I don't care if you are [insert oppressed group here] talking about your opression as long as you know your argument and can explain it well, cause I will not vote you up if you suck and you will not get sympathy from me just cause I'm a PoC. 

Also crack a few jokes or puns, I laugh pretty easliy and it will keep me awake and raise your speaker points.

That's All for my paradigm

Now go prep, Go, why are you still here, this was a long Paradigm, and you have 20 other judges you procrastinated on, and you still haven't started your HW and you have SATs really soon. What's wrong with you, you have like, a life, I think. Go outside, hang out, don't be a lazy slob and go do something fun. You're a masochist if you're still reading this cause you know you have a million other things you have to do. It's literally the day before the tournament and you still don't have your aff blocked out at all. Damn you're screwed. I have an essay I need to finish but instead I worte this Judge paradigm. Hope you're happy. I miss Harambe, too bad he was just a gorilla.

I come from a parliamentary debate background (high school & college) and have judged at PF tournaments sporadically for the past 6 years. The most important thing to me is weighing: tell me the most important point in the round and why it is the most important, not just why you won it.

Please explain terms (assume I don't know what something means) and avoid jargon!

To begin with my background, I am a long time debate alumni, founder and president of my high school team as well as the last president of the CUNY Debate Society. I've been teaching debate for years. I've judged nearly everything under the sun in my near decade of experience, including PF, Parli (Parli in several forms), LD, Speech, Congress, Policy, and probably more. That being said, my "judging preferences" are rooted in my first and true love, parliamentary debate. For those of you who have done parliamentary, world's debate, and/or APDA/BP, you'll know parli debate emphasizes logical linkages far more than I'd argue it's more popular counterpart, PF, does. Accordingly, as do I. If you'd like that winning ballot from me, I cannot stress this enough: reason out your warrants and your impacts, and for the love of all that is good in this world, please please please weigh your arguments. This does NOT mean forego all else things, especially as they are emphasized in whichever format I am judging your round for (e.g. if this is a public forum round, of course you should use good, solid, well-cited evidence and it will dock you points if you don't have them). But the logic behind your arguments should also be sound and well developed (as in you should be able to explain them and how they clash with your opponents' arguments at length without citing more sources unnecessarily) and you are almost guaranteed to win your round if you are the only team weighing in the round. More likely that not, I will NOT drop your speaks for how you speak or your presentation (your content will always be 10000% more important to me than the presentation and I know a lot of us come from different backgrounds which means there is no "one-way" to be a good presenter. Make the effort though; I'll know if you're not making the effort). Also, on a lighter and semi-joking note, please don't spread unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary. I can keep up, but I definitely will not want to.

E.j.chen256@gmail.com

I was an APDA (college parliamentary) debater from 2014-18. Between 2016 and 2022, I coached PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and some other speech events.

I’m a senior at Fordham University where I compete on the American/British Parliamentary circuits.

Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Don’t sacrifice clarity to try to get more on the flow.

Please signpost as much as reasonably possible.

Try to avoid theory arguments, as I think they bog down the debate given your time constraints. I will only vote on theory if I have no doubts that in-round abuse has occurred. I would much rather adjudicate based on the substance on the flow.

Clash and weighing are essential. This means not just extending your arguments, but telling me why they specifically defeat that of your opponents.

Three years coaching PF, 4 years debating British Parliamentary. I prefer socialist, people-centric advocacy. If you are spreading, make sure that you are still actually articulating the words in your speech. spreading is fine, but if it becomes inaudible then it makes 0 sense for me to flow the small chunks that I am able to catch. Spreading in this fashion is a tactic typically used to hinder an opponents ability to flow and keep up but it also has an adverse effect on the judge's ability to actually judge what you are saying. Ensure that you are linking your arguments back to your framework. Framework should be a rubric of sorts your team claims that needs to be fulfilled in order for you to win. If you would like to challenge evidence, I will look into it once the round is complete so all teams should have the non-redacted version of the sources they are using for their cards.

I was formerly a 4 year PF debater at Stuyvesant High School, a 4 year PF coach for Hunter High School, a 4 year APDA/BP debater in college, and the Director of NSD PF for 3 years. 3 things to note:

1. I don’t need defense in first summary if 2nd rebuttal didn’t answer it and you extend it in final focus, but I do need defense in 2nd summary if you intend for that response to factor into my decision. All offense must be in both summary and final focus.

2. I give relatively low average speaker points, as I will award an average PF speech a 28.

3. Do not be afraid to grill me after the round if you think I have made a mistake in evaluating the round in any way. It will not sway me but it might teach you something and i really don’t mind at all.

Background (updated 9/29/23)

General - I graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 2018 with majors in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Math/Stats and a minor in Africana Studies. I am currently a student at the Tuck School of Business and in a combined MD-MBA program with the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (class of 2025)

Competitive - 5 years of circuit policy (2009-2014) at Centennial High School (as a part of Capitol Debate, yes they used to do policy mainly believe it or not) being coached by Daryl Burch. 2014 TOC Champion in policy. I debated 4 years of American parliamentary (APDA) and British parliamentary (BP) at Johns Hopkins University (2014-2018).

Coaching - I have not been in any coaching capacity since the start of the 2020-2021 school year (med school will do that to you). I've judged 1 tournament a year for the past 3 years (2020-2023) and have not worked at a summer camp since 2014.

Philosophy (updated 9/29/23)

If there is a chain I want to be on it - mkoo7000@gmail.com

I do NOT open speech docs until the debate ends, speaking clearly is key and if I can't understand you, I will just discount the arguments rather than opening the speech doc.

I have very little clue what the topic is, please assume I don't know common acronyms/terminology related to the topic.

In 90% of rounds, I submit my ballot within 3 minutes of the final speech ending. Here are the major implications:

- Clarity (in speaking, organization, and explanation) is my first priority. The main reason I've realized I submit my decisions quickly is not because the round is lopsided/underwhelming in quality, but because of the degree to which I value communication during the round. The team who communicated their story into my head while I am listening to their speech usually prevails over the team who may have had a warrant that I barely flowed while struggling to keep up with their communication. I will be actively deciding who is currently winning and exactly what I think the other team has to do to undermine that as the round goes on, thus leaving most questions answered in my head as the final speech ends. I concede that there is potential for error in my approach, but I figured that I would rather reward the more persuasive team rather than digging through and examining each and every technicality.

- My substantive preferences are very fluid. I have debated and judged almost every type of substantive arguments at the highest levels of high school competition so my real preference is to do what you think you do best. But as nobody is truly a blank slate, I have some explicit preferences and substantive decision-making quirks clarified below for both LD and policy.

- Cards are only read when their quality/warranting are explicitly contested. The corollary to this is that warranting explained during the speeches will always trump the existence of a card that may answer those warrants in my decision-making process.

- I put a heavier emphasis onto the final rebuttals in my decision-making process.

I am a STICKLER for timeliness during rounds

- Efficient and proactive conduct in evidence exchange and round preparation/conduct will be rewarded with speaker points.

- Flight 2 - I expect the first speech to be sent and ready to spoken, immediately after my RFD from flight 1 ends. I encourage/expect you to set up in the room as soon as the final speech ends (or even before in between speeches) and will not perceive the disturbance as rude.

- For LD especially - specifying which parts of speech docs your opponents did/didn't read requires prep time and is NOT a courtesy I am willing to allow during dead time. Please do not flow off the speech doc and flow the speech proper. However I will be sympathetic to clarifications after unclear speeches.

General Substantive Preferences (all formats)

- Impact comparison/explanation/tangibility is the first thing I sort through when making an RFD.

- Tech>truth - protection must be WARRANTED or probably won't be evaluated.

- If the best arguments are deployed on both sides, I lean neg (55-45) on whether a K aff gets a perm - the best arguments are usually nowhere close to being deployed.

- If you're going to go for the K, you better talk about the case and explain the implications for winning framework in the 2NR.

- I consider framework and the alternative to be 2 sides of the same coin. I think either can make up for a weakness in the other.

- Solvency advocates for CPs will make me neg leaning on theory/competition. If the solvency advocate is in the context of the aff, it will make it very hard to persuade me that the CP is theoretically illegitimate as I think the value of research/education incentivized by these kinds of CPs vastly outweigh any fairness concerns.

- For policy, very neg leaning on conditionality (up to 2), barely aff leaning on 50-state, international, and object fiat, really don't care about anything else.

LD specific preferences

- Please disclose immediately when requested if the pairing is out, EVEN if you are in flight 2. I think pre-round disclosure is educational and think the "30-minutes before the round" standard is arbitrary and silly. Getting me to vote on this is highly unlikely (more on this below) but I will happily reward/punish teams who point out this happened with speaker points (+0.2/-0.2 respectively).

- I am not a fan of theory/tricks/phil arguments. This is primarily due to the incomprehensible speed/clarity at which these arguments are usually deployed. I do not open the speech doc while flowing and will not refer to it to flow warrants I missed. I also find reasonability to be an extremely persuasive argument for most theory/tricks arguments (don't disclose cites, you wore shoes, etc). Arguments this does not apply to are theory arguments common in policy (conditionality bad, aff didn't disclose at ALL, 50-state fiat, PICs bad, international fiat, etc).

- I think the existence of a time skew biased in favor of the neg to be a persuasive argument in LD (take advantage of this in theory debates!!). Due to this, I find myself being more lenient to the 1AR/2AR in terms of tech (ie, not being super strict on dropped args, focusing more on the story than minute tech details). In high level debates, aff teams NEED to collapse in the 2AR to be able to win.

- Conditionality bad much more persuasive to me in LD comparatively to how I view it in policy. 2 or less in policy and 1 or less in LD are usually easily defensible to me.

Ethics/Procedural Challenges
- If you believe the other team is guilty of an ethics violation and I am notified, the debate will end there and I will determine if you are correct. If I notice an ethics violation, I will not stop the round but decide the round based on it after it ends if I believe it was sufficiently egregious. If there is an easy way for me to access speech docs, I will follow along at random moments during the debate.
- Card clipping/cross reading – Any form of misrepresenting the amount of evidence you have read is considered card clipping. It is your opponents’ burden to ask for a marked copy of your speech but it is yours to make sure that is ready IMMEDIATELY. This means if you forget to physically mark during a speech, you better have a crystal clear memory because you will lose if you mis-mark evidence. Audibly marking during a speech is acceptable as long as you explicitly say the words “mark it at ‘x’”. Intention does not matter. I understand if you were ignorant or didn’t mean to but you should have to take the loss to make sure you are MUCH MORE careful in future. Video or audio recordings are a necessity if you want to pose a challenge about card clipping. Anything that is 3 words or less (no more than twice a speech) I am willing to grant as a minor mistake and will drop the accusing team for being petty. Double highlighting is not card clipping, just make sure your opponents know which color you are reading, a simple clarification question can resolve this.
- Evidence fabrication – it is hard to prove this distinctively from evidence that cannot be accessed – if a team is caught fabricating (making it up) evidence they will lose.

Problematic not an ethics violation (these can be persuasive arguments to win my ballot)
- Evidence that cannot be accessed – this is necessary for teams to be able to successfully refute your research. If this is proved, I will ignore the evidence and treat arguments related to it as merely claims in my decisionmaking
- Out of context cards – this will seriously hurt your ethos and your opponents will probably definitively win their competing claim
- Misdisclosure – the only reason why this isn’t above is because there is almost no falsifiable method to prove that a disclosure wasn’t honest – this is probably the most serious of this category and can garner you major leeway in my decision making if you can successfully prove how it has impacted your ability to debate this round.
- If I catch you stealing prep (talking during dead time to your partner about the round, messing around on your computer, etc), I will dock half of your remaining prep time

Long ramble (this is the first draft of my judge policy I wrote when I was a young first year out that I just didn't want to delete because it's fun to keep. Only read this if you're bored or have too much time on your hands, a lot of it is probably outdated)

- The most influential aspect of determining how to pref a relatively new judge was seeing how they debated, talk to people who’ve judged/watched me (if they still remember)before to see what I rolled with in debates.
- I always enjoyed/found much more helpful the longer/thorough judge philosophies so be prepared to read a lot of my thoughts/rants that are coming
- Daryl Burch (coach) is the single biggest influential figure in my development as a debater. Srinidhi Muppalla (partner for 2 years) would probably come second. Go look at their philosophies.
- I was a 2A for 3 years and then a 2N for my senior year – I have read affirmatives all over the spectrum (complete performance, 10 impact policy affs, k affs that defended a plan) – and went for whatever on the neg (at one point my senior year, some team asked me past 2NR’s and I answered: T-economic engagement, give back the land K, black feminism K, asian counteradvocacy, warming good + geoenginnering CP, mexico politics DA, process CP, dedev, afropessimism K, warming good + politics DA, warming good + politics DA, framework)

Top Level Thoughts
- I see debate as an intellectual forum where individuals come to advocate for some course of action – the type of action desired is for the debaters to choose and discuss and for me to evaluate whether it’s a good or bad idea – note, this means you MUST defend SOMETHING (even if it’s nothing)
- Ethos is underrated – most judges know which why they will decide right after the round ends and spend the time after justifying and double checking his/her choice. Your persuasive appeal in every way you conduct yourself throughout the round is a massive factor in this. Know what you’re talking about, but more importantly, sound like you know what you’re talking about and show that you EXPECT to win.
- Speak clearly – if you can’t you should be doing a LOT of drills (trust me I was there too) – Judges who didn’t let me know they couldn’t understand me assuming that was my burden annoyed me to no end – I will be very explicit in letting you know if I can’t understand you – after the second time I call clear, I will not evaluate any cards/arguments I call clear on afterwards – I'll flow the next of your cards if I can understand them, this would be strategic as then the other team is responsible for answering them
- Speed = arguments I THINK the other team is responsible for answering – if it’s not on my flow then it’s not an argument so do your best to make sure it gets there
- I am awful at keeping a straight face while judging – use this to your advantage
- Set in stone – speech times, only one team will win – everything else is up for debate
- An argument is a claim and a warrant – dropped claims are NOT dropped arguments – dropped ARGUMENTS are true and you should avoid dropping ARGUMENTS – my understanding of rejoinder is that claims can sufficiently be answered by claims
- Conceding an opponent’s argument makes it the truest argument in the round – use this to your advantage
- I don’t protect the 2NR unless explicitly asked to – specific brightlines and warranted calls for protections (anytime) will be zealously adhered to
- Being aggressive = good. Being aggressive and wrong = bad. Being mean = worst. Debate should strive to be a safe space. There is a fine line between a politics of discomfort (which can be productive) and being violent toward another individual. This fine line is up to subjective determination by a “know it when I see it” test.
- I do believe that arguments about a debater’s actions/choices outside of the current round do have a place in some forms of debate. My biggest problem is that most of these arguments are non falsifiable and really impossible to prove. I think that it is important to be genuine but do know that debate is also a strategic game where strategy can conflict with genuine advocacy. Once again I’ll employ a subjective “know it when I see it test” and will update my thoughts on this issue as I judge more debates.
- I think all debaters should play an proactive role in doing their own prefs as soon as possible – it is quite the rewarding learning experience that helps you learn your judges
- Cards can undisputedly settle factual questions – analysis (including analysis about cards) settles everything else
- I will only call for a piece of evidence if there is an explicit cite referenced during the explanation of the argument – If I am asking questions like “Can you give me the piece of evidence you think says ‘x’,” then I am either doing annoyed or the debate is way too close for me not to double check.
- Debate's a technical game - do line by line and answer arguments - don't be surprised if I make decisions that seem debatable based upon technical concessions
- Assuming all positions are well prepared and executed close to as well as possible this would probably be my favorite to least favorite 2NR's - DA + case, DA + CP, advantage CP + DA, topic K, any strat with generic impact turns, any strat with politics, any strat with a process CP, generic K, topicality
- Cheap shots will only be voting issues if you give me no other option - what I mean about this is you better go HARD or go home, anything under 1 minute of explanation/warrants/asking for protection will probably be dismissed as a rule of thumb - cheap shots are not good arguments that were dropped, those don't apply to this section, but argument that are sufficiently stupid that they can only be won because they were dropped
- I'm super lenient on paperless rules - as long as you don't take forever and I don't catch you stealing prep you'll be fine - if your computer crashes mid speech just let me know

Framework
- I honestly feel like this section determines a lot about how people pref judges these days
- I will start off by saying that I am a firm believer in ideological reflexivity – people go a long way in trying to understand each other’s arguments and even embrace them instead of crying exclusion/trying to exclude.
- But yes, if you win the tech battle I will vote for framework
- Flipping neg greatly hurts your ability to go for ANY arguments based upon procedural fairness
- Real world examples from the debate community go a long way in proving points in these types of debates – use them to your advantage
- I think debate is most educational when it is about the topic – however I think there are multiple ways to defend the topic
- Arguments about procedural fairness are the most strategic/true in my opinion – however impacting them with just fairness is unpersuasive and you should couch your impacts upon the education (or lack of) from debates with little clash
- It is worth noting that I have stopped running procedural based framework arguments by the end of my senior year – however this was mainly due to the fact that I was very bad at going for framework and instead found much more strategic to engage affirmatives on the substance of their arguments (because I had a genius coach who was very good at thinking of ways to do that)
- If an aff defends a plan I will be EXTREMELY unpersuaded by framework arguments that say the aff can only garner advantages off the instrumental affirmation of the plan

Non-Traditional
- If you know me at all you should know that I am completely fine with these
- CX makes or breaks these debates – yes I do believe that you can garner links/DA’s off of things you say and the way you defend your advocacy even if your evidence says something else
- Always and forever I will prefer that you substantive engage your opponent’s advocacy, you’ll get higher points and the debate will be more educational, fun, and rewarding – however I do understand when there are cases you need to run framework and shiftiness in the way an advocacy is defended can be persuasive to me
- Watch out for contradictions – not only can it make a persuasive theory/substantive argument but I find it devastating when the aff team can concede portions of neg arguments they don’t link to and use it as offense for the other neg arguments
- The permutation is a tricky subject in these debates – I do believe that if the best arguments are made by both sides the negative will probably win that the aff team should not be able to garner a permutation – arguments couched upon opportunity cost and neg ground are the neg pushes I find most persuasive – however the aff arguments I always found persuasive are the substantive benefits that a strategy involving the permutation can accomplish
- Aff teams should have a clear non-arbitrary role of the ballot – these questions can go a long way in framing the debate for both sides
- Evidence can come in many forms whether it be music, personal narratives, poetry, academics, etc – all of it is equally as legit on face so you should not disregard it
- I need to be able to understand your argument – I always had a weakness for understanding high theory based arguments so if that is your mojo just know how to defend it clearly – most rounds you will know your argument the best so you’ll sound good and I’ll know it better than the other team so you should still be fine with running these and picking up my ballot
- Alternative styles of debate is not an excuse for actually debating, do line-by-line, have organized speeches, and answer arguments, I am very flow oriented when judging any type of debate, even if the general thesis of your argument may be superior and all-encompassing, YOU need to be the one to draw connections and explain why the other team's technicalities don't matter

Aff/Case Debate
- Add ons are HELLA underrate - PLEASE utilize them
- 2AC’s and 1AR’s get away with blippy arguments, punish them in the block for them
- K affs with a plan in my opinion were some of the most strategic and fun affs to utilize
- If the neg has an internal link takeout but didn’t answer the terminal impact, that does NOT mean you dropped an impact, logical internal link takeouts can single handidly undermine advantages even without evidence
- Make sure your advantages are reverse casual, many affirmatives fail at this and negative teams should expoit that
- Super specific internal links that get to weird places were always intriguing and show you are a good researcher, they make me happy

Kritik
- Contrary to popular belief, I only went for the K v. a traditional policy aff three times my senior year. I lost 1/3 of those rounds but never lost a round when the 2NR involved a CP/DA/impact turn. Take that how you will

- Explaining a tangible external impact (not only just turns case args, although those are also necessary) is key to winning on the neg, most teams don't do this
- As a debater I’ve always had trouble conceptualizing high theory criticisms, maybe I’m just illiterate but I will have trouble voting for something I can’t explain in my own words
- Don't drop the aff, 90% of K 2NR's that don't directly disprove the aff in some way will probably lose.
- Permutations are pretty strategic, phrase perms as link defense to some of the more totalizing k impacts and defend the speaking of the aff and you should be fine
- Framework and the alt are usually 2 sides of the same coin, please please impact what winning framework means
- I am most familiar with kritiks based in critical race theory, mainstream k’s (neolib, security, cap, etc.) I can also easily understand
- Death good is not a strategic (or true) K in my opinion at all, however there is a BIG difference between death good and fear of death bad

Topicality
- Probably more a fan of competing interpretations
- Reasonability is a reason why the aff could win without offense – It means that the aff is topical to the point that topicality debates should not be preferred over the substantive debate and education that could’ve been had by debating the aff
- Big fan of reject the argument not the team
- I think the T-it's debate on the topic this year is very interesting and could go both ways based on evidence/execution on both sides
- more persuaded by T-miiltary means structures not actions
- effects T is underrated on this topic - try and directly increase exploration/development not some regulation or be prepared to defend that regulation as exploration/development

Disadvantages
- I’m on team link determines the direction of uniqueness
- Politics theory arguments are meh in front of me, I personally never went for them, I just found substantive arguments more strategic
- Short contrived DA’s are strategic but ONLY because aff teams don’t call them out for their bad internal links and only read terminal impact defense to them – fix that and they should go away
- I always loved good impact turn debates, warming good, de-dev, anything
- Turns case arguments are awesome – use them to your advantage and don’t drop them

Counterplans/CP Theory
- Big fan of advantage CP’s – plank them all you want (but kicking planks is probably abusive because every permutation of the diff planks are now another conditional option)
- Solvency advocates go a long way in helping you with theory – I firmly believe that they are good for debate
- I’m an agnostic on the theory of CP’s that compete off of immediacy and certainty
- Agnostic about almost every theory question, more persuaded by the aff on 50 state fiat, international fiat, and object fiat
- Interpretations are good – you should always have one (even if its self serving)
- In my last 3 years of debate, I have NEVER been on a team that went for conditionality for 5 minutes in the 2AR, 2 or less conditional options will be an uphill battle for the aff

Speaker Points
Points are based on two things: content and style. Content is simple, the more your argumentation helps you win a ballot, the better your points. Content includes things like warrant explanation, strategic execution, and strategic vision. Style is as important if not moreso than content. These are all the intangible parts of your debating that garner my respect. This would include organization (very very very VERY important), presence, clarity in delivery, and respect for the activity and your opponents. I also have a horrible sense of humor, by that I mean anything that isn't violently offensive is ok under my book and I'll probably find it funny (this includes awful jokes and bad puns) - take advantage of that

I will shamelessly admit that I was that debater who obsessed over points because I liked to calculate things/wanted to know where in the bracket I was. Ask me afterwards and I’d probably tell you what I gave you

Random bonus like things that would boost your points –
- Successful and badass risks (impact turn an aff for 8 minutes, kicking the case, all-in’s on strategic blunders, etc)
- Making fun of my friends (It has to be funny)
- Make fun of Simon Park or Gabe (It doesn't have to be funny)
- Memes, pokemon references, mainstream anime references, etc
- Leftover speech/prep time (although if you deliver poorly that shows false arrogance which will hurt you more)

Some background:

I did PF throughout high school and parliamentary debate (APDA) at the University of Maryland. I've coached students in PF, Parli, LD, and Policy and I've judged all debate formats, though I'm most up to date with PF.

Some general things:

1. Don't be rude.

2. Rounds are evaluated based on argumentation. Speaks are evaluated based on contribution to the ballot.

3. I can handle speed as long as you remain coherent. I will never intentionally penalize you for spreading but you take on an increasing risk that I miss something on the flow the faster you speak. Send me a speech doc if you want to be safe: thnliu288@gmail.com

4. I will stop flowing when time is up (yes, you can finish your sentence). Keep track of each other's prep time.

5. I don't flow cross but will pay attention. For me, cross often helps clarify things (remember, I'm not an expert in the topic you're debating). If there's something from cross you'd like me to evaluate in my decision, bring it up in your speech.

Some notes on debate and flow

1. Please signpost and road-map. Telling me where you are on the flow will ensure that I am also there.

2. Tech > truth. The further from "truth" your argument strays though, the lower the threshold I have for what qualifies as a response. For instance, "no they can't" is an acceptable response to "elephants can fly".

3. I (tend to) only evaluate arguments made in the speech where they belong. Constructive arguments belong in the opening speech. Responses should be made in the first speech they can be made in (generally the subsequent speech). New arguments don't belong in the final speech.

4. Extend (and frontline) the offense you want me to flow through. If you forget to extend it, I'll probably forget to vote on it. Blippy extensions are fine in principle, but often insufficient for a ballot in practice. The more you think I should prioritize an argument, the more speech time you should allocate to it.

5. I will only call cards if you explicitly ask me to and they matter for my decision. Hint: they almost never do.

6. Tell me how to weigh arguments or I will weigh them myself. I'm bad at weighing.

Specific argument preferences/biases

1. I am receptive to pretty much any type of argument, so long as you tell me how I should evaluate it.

2. Progressive arguments (Ks, theory) are cool. However, I offer no guarantee to keep up to date with the latest acronyms or terminology, so err on the side of explaining things more thoroughly.

a. Be very explicit when telling me how to evaluate the argument. This is especially true for anything pre-fiat - if you don't tell me what I should do (and warrant why), I'll probably do something you didn't want me to.

b. I prefer "drop the argument" to "drop the debater". I'll consider whatever you run, but I'm more inclined to buy the former.

c. Used to be categorically against RVIs, have come around somewhat. I'm down to vote on them, but it's context dependent.

d. Still very against tricks, very receptive to theory on tricks bad. If I have to vote on them, you are almost certainly getting a low speak win.

3. Tabula rasa is fake. Debate involves a common pool of knowledge assumed to be true unless challenged. If challenged, it becomes another argument to be evaluated in the round. For transparency, my "default settings" are: policymaker role of the ballot, debates should be fair and educational, the world exists, science is correct, the earth is flat, words have meanings, consequences matter, equality good, rationality real, people have free will. Feel free to make arguments challenging these assumptions, but keep in mind that you incur the burden of proof.

4. Feel free to ask questions before the round. I don't claim to be perfectly unbiased, but I am very willing to clarify any pre-existing beliefs I may be bringing into the round.

5. My gut is not your gut. If you ask me to gut check something or rely on my intuitions, I'll do that but you may not like the outcome. The safe thing to do is just make warranted arguments.

6. If you say "baba yetu" in your speech, I'll sky your speaks.

I debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

Weigh your impacts please

APDA: I'm an APDA south judge. I strongly believe it's the debaters' jobs to make the round clear and adjudicable for me. What this means: (1) make the case clear and get all fact claims out of the way in POCs or else I won't adjudicate on them, (2) don't just beat arguments, weigh!!!!! When I adjudicate I will defer to well-warranted weighing, but if both teams just tell me "this is the most important issue in the round" without any reason that's the case, you didn't actually weigh.

If you run IR in front of me please run it well

High school debate: I'm not big on true spreading because honestly my thoughts can't keep up with what you're saying, but I don't mind debaters speaking at a fast-but-conversational pace. I care a lot more about the strength of your warrants than who reads more/better cards but I'll obviously take evidence into account. I'm fine with jargon but I will be annoyed if you aren't respectful of an opponent who isn't familiar with it. I am most impressed by clever/creative arguments and turns. I have a pretty structural style of judging debate so try to hit all the arguments because I will pick up on drops if they're weighed properly. See my APDA paradigm for more on my feelings toward weighing lol

High school IE (are paradigms a thing here?): Your speech can be entertaining but if it doesn't fulfill the purpose of the event (e.g. being funny in HI, being persuasive in OO), I'll probably knock your ranks and speaker points down a bit.

APDA

EXPERIENCE:

- Debated at American University

SPEED:

- Don't spread - quality over quantity

SPEECHES:

- Signpost

- I like a quality narrative - better speaks

Framework/Impacts:

- Clearly weigh impacts under a set framework - don't leave me to do it

PF

EXPERIENCE:

- Debated for four years on the national circuit at St. Joseph's Preparatory School.

SPEED:

- As long as you're not spreading, I should be fine. (Signpost along the way in your speeches)

EVIDENCE:

- I will call for a piece of evidence only if the opposing team explicitly tells me to do so or if I feel a piece of evidence is misrepresented.

HOW I DECIDE THE ROUND:

1.) I'll be looking to the framework that has been more heavily warranted to be more valid than the opposing framework.

2.) I'll begin evaluating the arguments/impacts set forth under said framework. I will use the weighing that you have set forth for me in summary/FF - If you do not weigh for me, I will be doing it for you (it's best you not leave it up to me)

*Note: If an argument is not in BOTH summary and final focus, I will not evaluate it no matter how good of an argument it is (barring terminal defense).

Please don't make me think I'm in a policy round.