i'm sticking to a 10 second synopsis of my thoughts because my paradigm keeps getting deleted so i don't want to spend 208320840 minutes typing a whole paragraph:

policy:

email: mirab2508@gmail.com

pf:

- everything in the final focus needs to be in the summary

- don't just read 2 arguments against your opponents arguments and proceed to read a bunch of new contentions in your rebuttals. the rebuttal is responding to what the other team said, it's not a time to read new contentions unless you finished answering their stuff.

- be nice pls

Be clear, confident, and respectful!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

1. Debate Background

My name is Curtis Wu, I've been doing debate since I'm in elementary school, currently a grade 9 student. I've debated smart debate and public forum , in which I know the format of each debate.

2. How do I judge

a) I'm a flow judge, I will try to flow the whole debate.

b) I judge based on the impact calculus (Impact, timeframe, etc.), and the arguments itself.

c) I care about how the arguments were arranged, all of the arguments must have some connections to the framework.

3. My judging style:

a) Speaking clearly is important.

b) It is important to answer to every arguments.

c) Important to point out reasons why you win the debate.

d) I don't have side preferences, BUT it is IMPORTANT to delivery your case fluently.