Junior in high school, debating for 2 and a half years. I flow but that doesn't mean you can just dump information on me; go conversational speed.

email: spam58777@gmail.com

General Rules

Always use evidence and warrants to back up your claims. I will drop all claims that aren't.

Tech over truth within reason. If your opponents say "charter schools are racist" and provides me with a sensible link, I will consider that statement to be true until proven false.

However, I will drop ridiculous claims. For example, if they say "charter schools cause global extinction" and provide warrants, I will still drop it because that's ridiculous unless they give me compelling warrants backed by evidence.

Other than the boundaries I've provided, any claim that has been backed up and gone unresponded will automatically be considered true.

Ask one question and give one, short answer, Should take 30-sec max. If cross devolves into a shouting match I will stop flowing and dock speaks.

If your opponents concede anything in cross, point it out to me cause I won't count it in my decision otherwise.

You must create an email chain or evidence doc, I don't care which. You can choose to disclose cases.

I'm very strict w/ prep and if I think you're stealing any via stalling or searching for a card you read for like 3 minutes, I'll dock your speaks and maybe even change my opinion on my ballot. After all, stealing prep is cheating and I will give consequences. I'm not stupid.

Misrepresent evd and I will enjoy a very good paraphrasing/ misrepresentation theory and give you automatic 24 speaks, although I don't know if tab will allow me to go that low. (you card says something completely different/ you don't read their evd correctly)

Time yourselves and your opponents. I will also do it, but I'm not perfect, I may forget.

If the tournament doesn't decide for me, I will give debaters 4 minutes of prep.

I will disclose so please make it easy for me.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Speaks:

20: You have cheated (coach/ any other person in the room, teammates are messaging you blocks)

24: Light cheating (you steal prep/ don't read evd correctly)

25: drop out of debate

26: bad or should move to a lower division

27: normal

28: good team

29: Break team

30: I think you can win the tournament.

I make my speaks decisions based on three things:

1. word economy/ how well you speak

2. Structure (sign posting, impact interaction)

3. Strategy (collapsing, great turns, etc.)

These requirements' importance are unequal, with the most important starting from the bottom up.

I will follow this tournament's speaker point rules. I won't hesitate to mark using my own opinions, however.

Constructive:

Go conversational speed. I can't flow what I can't hear, after all.

Rebuttal:

Sign post or you will make the round very hard to judge, which will make me make mistakes. It's your job to make sure the judge will vote for you 100%.

I would like to see case interaction. For example, "Their 1st contention on economic collapse is delinked through our contention on job creation" or whatever. This makes the debate very clear and very easy for me to weigh, which is always very good for you.

Summary

Start to collapse, or I will dock speaks.

sign post.

Make sure you extend everything you want to use in FF, everything you don't mention will be dropped.

You have to extend link+impacts+ for me to evaluate it. It is highly suggested for you also to extend how your extensions interact with the opponent's case and what that entails, cause I won't let you do that in FF, b/c it's new.

I won't evaluate new offense in 2nd summary, your rebuttals should've been enough.

Defense is not sticky.

try not to extend new offense in 1st summary. I would prefer if everything was done in rebuttal. But that's just preference.

You can bring up new defense evd ONLY against new offense evd.

It'll be very good for you if you do impact calculus, like "we win on magnitude b/c of ABC" or, more simply, "their impacts are less/ less likely to happen/ less severe b/c ABC." This will only help me vote for you and give you some tasty speaks.

FF:

You should've collapsed onto one argument unless you started out with one argument. I will dock speaks if you try to go for everything.

Impact interaction is BIG in FF, so make sure you get that.

new stuff will be dropped, naturally.

make sure to spend more time on your case.

I would prefer voters b/c it makes it easier for me to vote, but as long as you have good speech structure you're fine.

If you make me laugh then +0.5 speaks lmao.

Top-level

Yes, on email chain: isaacliu.ludebate [at] gmail.com. Also, please briefly off-time roadmap. I have not judged on the policy topic this year (both policy and Lincoln-Douglas), so I am a blank slate on that front.

Debated 2 years of policy for Liberty University and did LD and PF in high school. I am fine with spreading if clarity is not sacrificed but will default to tournament norms (and there is a chance I will miss arguments if your case is unorganized). Tell me how to vote; I will vote for anything if articulated well, provided it does not cause in-round violence (i.e. arguing for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.).

I expect you to time yourself and your opponent—I try keep time as well but sometimes forget to start the timer. If you go overtime and I don't catch it and your opponents don't catch it, good for you. If someone points it out, I will dock speaks.

Kritiks

I am down with them. I lack familiarity with high-theory post-modernism arguments. I have some familiarity with criticism of anti-blackness and settler colonialism and am quite familiar with kritiks of capitalism and security. Regarding PF and LD, I will default to tournament norms regarding non-traditional affirmatives. For policy, I am 100% down with them, but also find framework persuasive (fairness can be an impact).

Theory

More favorable for the affirmative regarding negative counterplans; more favorable for the negative regarding affirmative plans. I tend to find arguments to reject arguments rather than the team more persuasive.

Event-specific things (Skip if policy debate)

Please, please, please don't take too long asking for evidence. If you share evidence in a speech doc like policy does, I will give 0.5 higher speaks (unless the tournament expects everyone to share evidence).

Public forum – full disclosure: my voting record has been favorable to whoever gives the last speech. That doesn't mean always pick second speaker; that means collapse the debate in the final focus and be aware of what your opponents might go for in their final focus. As I believe the second-to-last final focus is inherently more difficult, I will give higher speaks when it is executed well.

TLDR;

Votes off the flow and how you tell me to vote. Kritiks on the neg or aff* are cool. Don't run abusive affs or neg strats. Spread your heart out*.

*will default to tournament norms for LD and PF

Hello!

Feel free to run any and all types of arguments.

Spreading is fine as long as I can understand you and you sign-post . Cross-x will be open and binding. Do not just read cards/ taglines without explaining them. That is not sufficient enough.

Make sure you are respectful towards one another. Being rude will dock you speaks. This is an educational space that everyone should be able to have fun in.

Ask any questions you may have before the round! Always remember to have fun and try your best.