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.

in terms of experience, i've done pf, cx, world schools, and parliamentary debate for two years of high school

speeches

- you can spread, but please articulate and add me to the email chain (fang.darrenf@gmail.com)

- your narrative/story should clear and extended throughout the round. however, i'm tech > truth, so anything that's dropped i will consider as agreed on by both teams

- please weigh and tell me how to evaluate your arguments (write the ballot for me!). absent debate to the contrary, i default to voting for the advocacy that is likely to accrue the most net beneficial util impacts upon consideration of its hypothetical implementation. unless i'm told to do otherwise, i use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to compare arguments

others

- i love Ks.

- the more specific the CP is to the aff, the better, because it drives competition

- please be nice during cross! (no shouting please). i don't flow cross, so if it's important, bring it up in your speech

I'm a sophomore cxer at westwood.

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

SD/PF

---warrant comparison

---impact calc

RFD

---map out the debate for me

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.

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.

1. you can speed up

2. dont steal prep

3. i dont flow cross

4. read anything you want just do it loud

5. be nice to ur partner

Chloe Wang

Taipei American School '25

9 years at Asian Debate League

Contact me at chloeraewang@gmail.com

Founder of the Taiwan Creative Writing Student Association (TCWSA)

• Learn more@taiwancwsa on Instagram

she/her

SPEECH

Experience

Top Speaker, Extemporaneous Debate (NSDA 2019)

Second Speaker, Novice Policy (Michigan 2019)

Champion, Storytelling (NSDA 2016)

Voting

I am generous with speaker points! Here is some advice that aligns with how I judge:

a) Don't forget to be confident and stay engaged with your speech.

b) Look around the room and not just at your parent or your paper.

c) Respect your peers and their time.

DEBATE

Experience

Quarterfinalist, Novice Policy (Michigan 2019)

Finalist, JV Policy (Berkeley 2020)

PF/SD

Please explain the magnitude, probability, and timeframe of your winning argument(s).

Clarification about arguments in crossfire is okay, but I will dock speaker points if you hadn't been flowing.

Do not rely on me to time your speech.

No clash ≠ judge intervention.

Evidence quality > quantity.

Tech > Truth.

Be nice, please!

SPEAKER POINTS

29.7-30 Exceptional.

29.4-29.6 Above average.

28.6-29.3 Keep doing what you're doing!

28-28.5 Average.

27-27.9 You're getting there.

<27 There's room to grow.

*Last updated 3/1/24