Tabroom.com

NSDA Taiwan District Tournament

2019 — Taipei, Taiwan, TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

David Arnett Hire

Mira Baba TAS

Stefan Bauschard Hire

Christina Chang PAS None

Eric Chang MAT

Last changed on Tue March 26, 2019 at 10:40 PM CST

Email: change1@mca.org.tw

Put me on the email chain, I won't be flowing off the doc though; I only flow what you say.

I started debating from elementary in Public Forum and then I did policy for 2 years and competed in the NJFL in the US and the MS ToC. I'm doing LD now as a K debater in US tournaments.

I vote on what's on my flow, if something is dropped, I won't evaluate it. Therefore please make it organized and easy to flow. I'm a tech>truth judge, I'll only vote on what you told me to, so please IMPACT EVERYTHING. I'll be very sad if I have to vote for the losing team because you didn't extend your impacts or warrants. EXPLAIN EVERYTHING, don't just tell me that being racist is bad, explain what happens when you are racist in a debate round.

It's mostly the same as policy, but no plans and definitely no theory.

Speed: I'm fine with speed (if your opponents are) just stay clear. I'll say clear twice and then I'll stop flowing by the third time.

Time: time your own speech and prep time. Your speaker points will be busted if you go overtime or steal prep.

Speaker Points: Clothing has nothing to do with debating. You can show up in a T-shirt and flip flops and your speaker points won't be affected. Be courteous and organized and you'll get a 28 easily.

for those that don't understand what I'm talking about below, don't worry, you're probably fine

Framework: let's be honest, PF is just slower/mini-policy. I default util and CBA, but I'll vote with any warranted method. Please clash with the other side's model, don't just tell me what your's is, tell me why the other side is wrong.

Kritik: If you can run the Kritik as a linear DA, I'll happily vote for it. No alternatives because advocacies aren't allowed in PF.

CX/LD

Policy: The bread and butter of debate. I'm down with voting on policy args, just extend them properly.

PIC: I dislike word PICS, although you might have a harder time winning PIC

Topicality/Theory: I'm not a big fan of theory unless there's in-round abuse. I don't like frivolous theory, but I'll vote for it if the other team doesn't say anything. I default reasonability and drop the debater. If you run theory, you better go for it; time skews just wastes everybody's time and takes away from the content of the debate. HOWEVER, I'll happily vote for it if you have a good, pragmatic impact.

Framework: I love a good framework debate despite me being a K debater. If it does turn into a framework debate, please clash; I've seen too many rounds where people just say their own framework but doesn't tell me why the other side is bad. I default Util.

Kritik: I love Ks but they are pretty difficult to explain. I'm familiar with Model Minority Myth, Cap, Semiocap/Baudrillard, and Afropessimism, but I not deeply versed in the literature, so please give a fire rebuttal/final focus that explains what the arg is clearly.

Speed: I'm fine with speed (as long as your opponents are ok with it too) but if you aren't clear, I'll say "clear" twice, I'll stop flowing if I can't understand what you're saying afterward. Please sign-post.

Cross-fire/CX: I don't flow crossfire/CX, but it plays a pretty big part in my decision. Try to use it as a time to gain ethos and set up arguments. Be aggressive, but not rude (it'll come out of your speaker points). I love trap questions (and when people call them out) and I'll reward high speaker points for it. You better know your own evidence when you go into crossfire though, your speaker points will be destroyed if you read the wrong evidence or don't know what it says.

Speaker points: I don't care what you wear or if you stand or sit. I'd honestly be fine if you all came in with shorts, t-shirts, and flip flops. Speaker points will be evaluated based on organization, Cross-fire/CX.

For those that actually read my whole paradigm, I'll boost your speaker points by .2 if you whisper Taiwan No.1 at the end of your speech.

Calvin Chao KCI

Arthur Chen PAS None

Brandon Chen Hire

Max Chen PAS None

Eudora Chi KCI

Janise Chiang TAS

Alyssa Chuang PAS None

Peter Davos Hire

Ryan Engen Hire

Darren Fang Hire 8 rounds

John Ferris ADL

Daniel R Fruit ALT

Michael Gardner IBSH

Jonathan Hsu TAS

Warren Huang TAS

Ginny Hwang DIS

Last changed on Sat March 31, 2018 at 6:02 AM CST

I have been debating competitively for around five years now with experience in PF, CX, LD, and a little bit of WSD. During these years, I have competed in up to 15 tournaments all around Asia and the United States.

I’m a flow judge and will therefore focus primarily on your content. I’m ok with speed and spreading; presentation and delivery is not as much of an issue as long as you are clear in what you’re saying. I have a background primarily in CX so I enjoy arguments along both the lines of your regular policy-oriented topics as well as ones that are more critical based. I don’t have strong preferences in terms of argument types, so feel free to run whatever you think you can best debate.

That said, some debaters take this as an invitation to run all the arguments that they know applies to the topic—try not to do this for the mere sake of running more arguments. Quality and depth outweighs quantity. (Don’t let this discourage you. If you think you can defend all your positions effectively, by all means, run them!) This should answer most questions regarding my stances on kritiks/theory/cp etc. Run them if you can explain them extensively and use them strategically. One thing I will say is that I think framework is an area of argumentation that debaters should use effectively. I’ve seen that a lot of debaters tend to drop them after their first speech. Engage in the fw and write my RFD for me in terms of what my decision should be based off of in the round.

On the same subject matter, be clear in how you want me to weigh the debate; otherwise, I will default to my personal judgement in deliberation. Quick note on final focuses: don’t bring up new arguments. I will not take new arguments into consideration. Try to focus on your extensions and analysis in this speech. Engage in your opponent’s points and create clash.

Lastly, please be respectful to everyone in your debate room. Feel free to approach me before the round if you have any other questions you would like to clarify.

Good luck with your debate!

Fiona Kao KCI

Jenny Kuo KCI

Salina Kuo PAS None

Tim Laas-Nesbitt Hire

Benson Lin MAT

Last changed on Sat February 12, 2022 at 11:39 AM EDT

As far as my judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as you should know what you need to do).

Public Forum

Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.

First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.

Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.

Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.

Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.

Speed – spreading is okay but hopefully you're not doing it in PF. Clarity > speed, always.

Policy Debate

Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.

Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.

Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.

Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.

DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP

CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.

Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.

Include me in your email chain: benson_lin@brown.edu

(work in progress)

Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.

Good luck and have fun!

Cynthia Lin KCI

Young Lin IBSH

Jason Liu PAS None

Gavin Matthews TES

Joel Mounts ADL

Adam Nelson Taipei American School None

James Pan TES

Last changed on Tue May 1, 2018 at 6:08 AM CST

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!

Kelly Phil TAS

Tyler Prochazka ADL

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:04 PM CST

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.

Tripp Rebrovick Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:12 AM EDT

Tripp Rebrovick

Director of Debate, Harvard University.

BA, Harvard; PhD, Johns Hopkins

Please put harvard.debate(at)gmail.com on the email chain, but see note 1 below.

Updated January 2021:

The first thing to know about me as a judge is that I take overviews in the final rebuttals very seriously. The team that correctly identifies the critical arguments for each side will generally win, even if they have problems elsewhere on the flow or if I have other reservations about the argument. In other words, most of the time, the team that gets my ballot has done a better job of (a) identifying the most important arguments in the debate and (b) persuading me that in evaluating those particular arguments I should believe them. Similarly, I've found that in most of my decisions I end up telling the losing team that they have failed to persuade me of the truth of their most important argument. Occasionally this failure of understanding is due to a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker(s), but more often it is due to a lack of detailed explanation proving a particularly significant argument to be correct.

As a judge, I am usually skeptical of anything you say until you convince me it is correct, but if you do persuade me, I will do the work of thinking through and applying your argument as you direct me. It is usually easy to tell if I am persuaded by what you are saying. If I’m writing and/or nodding, you’ve probably succeeded. If I’m not writing, if I’m giving you a skeptical look, or if I interrupt you to ask a question or pose an argument I think you should answer, it means I’m not yet convinced.

In close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I tend to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic understanding of the arguments and the round than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others. I am usually hesitant to vote against a team for something they said unless it is willful or malicious.

A few other tidbits:

1. I will not read the speech doc during your speech. The burden is on you to be comprehensible. Part of me is still horrified by this norm of judges following along.

2. If what you have highlighted in a card doesn’t amount to a complete sentence, I will most likely disregard it. Put differently, a word has to be part of a sentence in order to count.

3. CX, just like a speech, ends when the timer goes off. You can’t use prep time to keep asking questions or to keep talking. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to alt use time.

4. Please number your arguments. Seriously. Do it. Especially in the 1NC on case and in the 2AC off case.

5. Pet Peeve Alert. You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact. For example, saying a war with china causes poverty does not mean the DA turns a poverty advantage. It simply means the DA also has a poverty impact. In order to the turn the case, the DA must implicate the solvency mechanism of the affirmative, not simply get to the same terminal impact.

6. [Since this situation is becoming more common...] If the affirmative wins that conditionality is bad, my default will be to reject conditionality and make any/all counterplans unconditional. Pretending that the counterplan(s) were never introduced is illogical (they stay conditional) and solves nothing (the affirmative can't extend turns to the net benefit).

Peggy Shih Hire

Ethan Tai FPS

Joy Taw TAS

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 11:44 PM BST

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.

Amber Ting TAS

Han Tseng PAS

Yvette Tseng FPS

Alexandros Vassilakis PAS

Micah Wang TAS

Ray Wang TAS

James Weaver Hire None

Nathan Weller Hire

Last changed on Sun October 9, 2022 at 3:19 AM CST

1. My background

Debated (policy debate) for two years in high school in New York, USA.
In college, I didn't continue competitively in debate but did "persuasive speech."
10+ years of coaching/instructing/judging debate in secondary education to students and fellow teachers. (Mostly in policy debate, but also some public forum and Lincoln Douglas)

2. How I judge.

It is true that I deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters to an extent. (see below)
I primarily focus on arguments and logical reasoning/connections.
The delivery primarily only is an impact if it makes the arguments unclear to the listeners (myself or the opponents).

3. My judging style and preferences.

Any pace/speed should be okay as long as the speaker is clear and loud enough (I'm not a fan of debaters racing through a preprepared speech thoughtlessly while being barely comprehensible).
I'm not a big fan of a Kritik approach but will accept it if there is enough of a clear, logical connection created by the speaker. (If you use one, you had better be really good with having it connected and possible/believable.)
I attempt to approximate the estimate of the “AVERAGE INFORMED CITIZEN.” (A simple "blank slate" is not an average citizen, so I do somewhat weight points according to the arguments being reasonable. However, you are also not debating against my knowledge of a topic.)
I enjoy hearing counter plans and original ideas but don't like it if a counter plan is remarkably similar to the affirmative plan (has only minor differences/changes).
I DON'T LIKE SPREADING! I would rather have a team choose their best arguments instead of trying to win by just having a large number of minor points that end up being dropped. (If you have a lot of points, that is not a problem that is, if... lots of points are dropped by your opponents, but you can defend the parts challenged are defended instead of quickly dropping them (when challenged) that would convince me that you are ready to defend the other points that were dropped. However, if you spread and then repeatedly drop your own arguments (when challenged), that would lead me to believe that you are only trying to win via numbers alone.)

Additional notes...

I am dyslexic... if there is a lot being said, I might not be writing/typing because it can be distracting from what is being said, but I am keeping mental notes. (Being dyslexic means that it is a bit harder for me to write and listen simultaneously.)
My notes are sometimes messy because they are only intended for me.
I prefer to give immediate feedback instead of long detailed written reports but will write up the more major things in a feedback report.

Email: Nathan.in.Taiwan@gmail.com (ONLY use my listed email if you need it to share evidence or in debate email chains)

Chase Williams Taipei American School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM EDT

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Drew Williams Taipei American School

Mindy Wolfrom Taipei American School

Scott Wunn Hire None

Ethan Yang TAS None

Login to Tabroom

NSDA Taiwan District Tournament

2019 — Taipei, Taiwan, TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

Judges