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

Here 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!

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

I debated in middle school and high school. I started off in public forum, then switched over to policy. I competed in tournaments in Taiwan, US, Korea, and China.

I'm more focused on your arguments than the way you present them. Give me a reason why you win. Don't bring up new arguments in the final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If you feel that you made a good point in the crossfire, you'll need to repeat it later on in one of your speeches.

I'm fine with speed; be clear.

I debated in college for 2 years and recently started coaching high school students. I am a flow judge and base it only on argumentation.

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...

hi! I'm Emma :) my pronouns are she/her/hers, and I'm a junior (class of '25) debating with ADL and attending TES (for those of you in Taiwan). I'm in my fourth year of CX, but I also do some extemp, world schools, and PF on the side. feel free to email me at eyhchuo@gmail.comfor any questions!

Smart Debate (SD)/Public Forum (PF)

it's difficult to lay out reasons in exact bullet-points for what you should do for me to vote for you (because they depend on the substance and technical debating in different rounds), but here are a few things I believe in which help me judge:

1 --- tech over truth. if you tell me the sky is pink and the other team doesn't tell me otherwise, I think it's true for the sake of the debate round. that being said, I will not vote on that argument alone without you telling me why it matters, which leads me to:

2 --- framing/judge instruction. I need to know how you want me to evaluate the debate --- i.e. which arguments you think matter and why they matter + why you think, under that framing, your arguments matter more than your opponents' arguments. to explain that, you need:

3 --- well-explained link and internal link stories. you need to tell me what your arguments mean for me to vote for you and even make a decision at all! also, if I don't know what your arguments mean, it's likely that I won't understand the ways that you're using an argument (e.g. if you say that your contention A answers their contention B, but not tell me what contention A means, I won't understand why contention A can be used to rebut contention B, which means that I'll probably still give **close to** 100% risk to contention B.). finally:

4 --- impact/why your story matters. you should try to do impact calculus to tell me why your arguments matter more than your opponents'. this way I can decide between two different stories from two different sides.

+ I absolutely LOVE smart link and impact turns so if you can win on that you’re amazing but even if you don’t end up winning on it I’ll give you some extra you’re-a-smart-person speaker points

Speaks

usually I give out speaks within the 27.5-29.5 range; if you get higher than that, you are extraordinary. am literally hailing you you are my favorite speaker ever I tell all my friends about you keep up the good work you are a literal boss. if you get lower for that, it's most likely just because of discriminatory or disrespectful behavior that I do not and will not tolerate in any instance. please please just be nice.

if you're in the bottom half of the 27.5-29.5 range, my suggestion would be to practice your speech more and be more confident in it because it was probably great; speak louder & read clearer. if you're in the top half of this range, congrats! keep it up! for more detailed comments about speaks though, you can always ask me through email, in person, etc.

Others

I do NOT tolerate any discriminatory behavior (racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, or being rude to your partner or opponents). I'll do my best to make this a safe space because what really matters is that you get a place to speak about your ideas --- so please do reciprocate by being nice to everyone.

thanks for reading & enjoy your debates! :)

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

In terms of experience, I've competed in Public Forum, Policy, and Parliamentary debate on the national level. I debate for the Brown Debate Union, and I'm currently ranked as the #13 first-year debater on the American Parliamentary circuit. A few things about debate:

- feel free to spread (if both sides are okay with it), but please articulate and add me to the email chain (darren_fang@brown.edu)

- your narrative/story should clear and extended throughout the round. I'm tech > truth, so anything that's dropped will be considered as agreed on by both teams, but I won't write the ballot for you. That is, if your opponents dropped something but I'm not told how it should factor into the ballot, it's not an automatic win

- please weigh and tell me how to evaluate your arguments (be comparative!). 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, time-frame/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to compare arguments

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

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~

I started doing debate when I was in 6th grade, but only started to take it seriously in 7th grade when I started Policy Debate. I switched over to public forum debate in 11th grade. I have competed in tournaments in the US, China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

I'm a flow judge - make sure to be clear though. I'm fine with speed, and I love kritiks and CPs.

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!!!

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.

October 2022 update: I am unfamiliar with the 22-23 high school topic and this will be the first time I judge this resolution - please keep this in mind before you spread through your blocks :)

Conflicts: ADL. My pronouns are He/Him. Add me to the chain: junxuan.ethan@gmail.com

Stolen from Dylan Willett: I am in Taiwan which is at minimum 13 hours ahead of the tournament I am judging so make sure to start off at a pace where I can adapt to your speed and speed up progressively through the speech because I might begin the debate a bit groggy.

I will judge the debate based on the flow. That said, I'm not too familiar with high theory Ks, but I will try my best to adapt to whatever argument style presented in the debate. 

I lean negative on most theory arguments. I lean AFF on T, and I find reasonability a very persuasive argument when argued well. Please don't let this dissuade you from going for T - good debating can overcome most of my preferences/biases.

I won't judge kick the CP unless the 2NR tells me to. Impact calculus is very important. The Cap K is a very good argument if your link explanation goes beyond "state bad".

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

I have debated in high school for 2 years and I also have coached elementary and middle school debaters. I mainly debate in PF and world schools formats. I judge debates based on the overall presentation but arguments are valued more compared to delivery or strategy of arguments. I feel fine with any speed and i feel fine about kritik and counter plans with no particular preference. It all depends on the quality and the analysis of arguments.

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.