I have 6 consecutive years of experience in PF debate since junior year in middle school. I am an active member at northeastern university debate society since fall 2018; member of Harvard debate council since 2016. I have coached public forum debate for two years since summer 2018. And I have taught both middle and high school students enrolling in international school in mainland China, including students from British Columbia Academy, Shanghai American School, Western Academy Beijing, International School of Beijing, etc.

Judging PF debate, I evaluate more on your weighing in the impacts on a particular data/ evidence you and your opponents brought up in a round. I do not like to have four people speaking at the same time when it's grand-crossfire, if that happens, I will not take notes from either side. I can flow speed but I also prefer you to speak/ pronounce everything accurately and present your contentions with concrete evidence and supportive logic.

1. I hate speakers asking "do you have evidence on that" all time. If you do challenge your opposing team for evidence on a particular argument, explain to me why evidence in this case matters.

2. If you give a road map/ speech mapping, I would not time you. You can go as specific as possible. I would prefer you use signposts in your speech because that would make it easy to follow.

3. If you compare framework, make sure why yours is superior than the opposing team's. I do not need you to refresh both frameworks for me. Same thing when you weigh impacts. I don't want you to repeat what you and your opponents said. Always make sure you explain to me why yours is better in order to win my ballot.

4. I would not apply what you mean unless you mentioned the technical terms. For example, if your opposing team DROPPED an argument, make sure you mention it.

Shortcuts:

speed √

weighing √

summary and final focus √

check cards √

time for yourself/ opponents √

exceed time for >10s √

shouting in crossfire X

cutting speeches ("no no no"/ "answer my question please"/ "let me..."/ "what I was saying...") X

speak too loud/ low X

disrespect X

personal attack [ABSOLUTELY] X

I am a junior at Smith College, double majoring in quantitative economics and psychology. I debated in Public Forum for four years in high school. I have judged multiple tournaments in China and in the states.

In terms of preference, I normally focus on clashes in the round and the use of weighing mechanisms. Explicit weighing would be useful. Debaters should also be able to explain the logic of the evidence they used instead of simply listing it to prove their arguments.

I do not encourage being aggressive during the crossfire.

I look forward to seeing debaters' ability to identify logical flaws in their opponent's case and connect their analytical response with their prepared evidence in the rebuttal. Reading blocks without any engagement cannot win the round.

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.

NHSDLC PF:

1) Give me a framework with a warrant. Don't mention it then drop it later on. I will vote on it if you use it with purpose and as a weighing mechanism.

2) I LOVE a good line by line rebuttal. You can't do that if you don't flow. Flow.

3) I won't vote on blocks if they don't actually match what the opponent said. It actually hurts you. FLOW.

4) I won't flow arguments made in crossfire. Ask questions to find the clash. "Are you aware that *argument*" doesn't count as a question. Neither does "*argument* so what do you think about that?"

5) If you want good speaks you need good round control. This means knowing where the clash is and where it isn't, and using that to your advantage. It does not mean screaming. Screaming over someone won't hurt you either, it just wastes everyone's time.

6) If you have a pre-written summary and FF before the round even starts you can forget about high speaks right away. Blocks are for expediency, not for speech replacement. Know the arguments, know the clash, and weigh. I hate verbatim pre-written speeches--it isn't your coach's job to debate for you. If you didn't flow a single thing and are reading things someone else wrote, don't say its unfair that you got average speaks even if I picked you up.

7) While I appreciate the gesture I don't want to shake hands. You guys aren't good enough about using soap after using the bathroom. To be fair, neither are my adult colleagues.