ADL Smart Debate Novice PF Tournament
2020 — Taipei, Taiwan, TW
Debate Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHere are what I will be looking for during the debates:
1. Respect your team, opponents and judges
2. Be polite, no offensive words
3. Speak clear (+0.5 points)
4. Don't expect the judge knows what you are planning to say. Persuade judge with what you want to say.
5. work as a team.
6. Flow your arguments well. Be logic!
7. Have fun!
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
Hi, I'm Miria (she/her)
If you have any questions: miriayc26@gmail.com
I am from Taiwan, so due to the significant time difference, I might look a bit tired.
I am very understanding when it comes to tech problems, so don't worry if any techy issues happen.
FLOW. SIGNPOST. IMPACT CALC. Honestly, I might not know your topic very well so do explain your arguments clearly. I won't vote on any arguments that aren't extended. What is said in the final focus must be included in the summary, or else, I will not evaluate it.
I am pretty generous with speaks, just don't say anything rude, racist, sexist, homophobic...
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.
for pf
- frontline (respond to their responses) if you're second rebuttal
- extend with warrants (reason why your argument is true) or it's not extended
- if you want it in final focus, talk about it in summary
- i wont vote on disclosure
- dont be a jerk
Any seamless reference to Avatar the Last Airbender will receive an additional +.25 to +.5 speaker points based on how much your reference is the quenchiest.
email: mckenzie.engen@gmail.com
I have taught public forum debate for a few years.
I prefer quality arguments over quantity. Not a big fan of spreading, so spread at your own risk.
I like cases that have a consistent thread/narrative throughout. I also think pathos and rhetorical skills deserve a bigger place in PF. These sorts of things impress me.
Happy debating~
1. Debate Background
- Competed in NSDA in 9th grade
2. How I Judge
- I am a flow judge
- I value the strength of arguments as well as the persuasiveness of the delivery
3. Specifics about my judging style
- conversational speed
- clear enunciation of words
- I weigh arguments based on the robustness of warrants
I have been debating since 2017.
-Tech > truth: meaning that you can run anything as long as it is well warranted.
-Make sure you have clash and compare the arguments.
-I love Impact Calculus!!!! (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe)
-Argument quality > quantity
-Use speed as your weapon and not against you (be clear).
-Explain why you should win. Write my ballot in your final speeches.
-I don't flow crossfire so if there is anything important make sure to bring it up in a speech.
-Be kind and respectful (if you don't it will drop your speaker points).
-Have fun!!!
Debate background-I have been doing debate for about 4 years. I have done Public forum and Policy debate but mainly focus on PF.
How do I judge?- I would like you to write out my ballot by doing impact calculus and weighing the arguments. If you do this then you will have a higher chance of winning. I don't really care what arguments you have, just don't make it confusing. I don't like evidence debates because how credible your evidence is doesn't really change that much. Its how well you can argue them. Make sure you extend evidence to back up your claims.
Speed-Speed is ok but just make sure your opponents can understand. There is no point of a debate if your opponents don't understand what you are saying.
Speaker points-If you are clear and at a good pace you would probably get high speaks. You should also sound confident in what you are saying. But if you interrupt speeches and insult your partner or opponents your points will be affected. Being racist, sexist, etc will make your speaks go down to the lowest there can be.
Crossfires-I like an interesting crossfire where things aren't just explaining. Crossfires won't be flowed so if you make a good point, it won't count unless you bring it up in a speech. Don't bully your opponents, if they can't answer your question then you already got what you wanted.
SD/PF
---warrant comparison
---impact calc
RFD
---map out the debate for me
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.
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
TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will make my best effort to make a decision that makes sense. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Do not say death is good. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for higher speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun!
Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Will start prep if you are taking too long. Please take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.
AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Very bad for non-resolutional K AFFs.
CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.
T Things:Not the best so don't blaze through analytics. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.
K Things: Agree with JMH: policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. No good in K v. K. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.
PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Will not vote on frivolous theory or philosophy tricks. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.
Nice People: Debnil. Both Morbecks. Michael B. Cerny. Steve Yao. Delta Kappa Pi.
Mean People: Eloise So. Gatalie Nao. Chase Williams. Kelly Phil. Joy Taw.