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 debated PF for three years in high school. I have experience coaching debate teams and camps, and have judged many tournaments.

When judging PF debates, my primary focus will always be weighing of impacts. Explain to me why I should care. Do not expect me to make any judgement based on the arguments alone. Remember it is not my job to evaluate your individual cases, but rather to evaluate how well of a job you did defending your own case while attacking your opponents'. If you want me to take something into account, make sure you tell me in your speeches.

Likes:

- Linking back: It is important to me that you link everything back to your main argument and framework in all of your speeches, especially summaries and final focuses.

- Clarity: Make sure you speak loud and clear. When taking delivery into account, I care most about the clarity of your speech. I do not care much about speech speed, English proficiency or pronunciation, and dislike it when debaters take advantage of these (i.e. speak super fast so the opponents can't understand what you are saying; overcomplicating cases by using too much jargon...)

- Structure: I will allow road mapping before official speeches, and urge you to use signposts throughout the debate. This helps me and your opponents to better keep up with your case, avoids creating misunderstandings, and makes the debate much more efficient!

- Communication: I love seeing communication between partners and opponents! I strongly urge debaters to make wise use of their prep time by not only prepping for speeches, but also talking with their partners or asking their opponents for their cards/cases.

Dislikes:

- Debate on evidence: While I do believe that having credible evidence is crucial for building strong arguments, I dislike when too much time is spent on arguing who has more authoritative sources.

- Scripted debate: Many debaters like to prepare lots of cards and blocks beforehand, which is a smart thing to do, but I still value the improvising part of speeches. I strongly dislike when debaters spend the entirety of their speech time reading off a document full of pre-written responses.

- Chaotic crossfires: I will NOT flow crossfires where two or more people are constantly talking over each other.

- Rude behavior: I have ZERO tolerance for any rude behavior. This includes but is not limited to yelling or shouting, discriminatory language, ad hominem attacks, overly-aggressive attitude, and rude physical gestures (finger pointing, eye rolling, table slamming etc.) Rude behavior will affect your team's results as well as your individual speaker points.

Logistics: suyanglisusie@gmail.com if you'd like to start an email chain or doc for evidence checking.

Preferences:

1. Signposting > roadmaps
2. I appreciate well-reasoned empirical evidence, extra points if you can explain the mechanism/reasoning behind the facts.
3. I appreciate impact calculus and world comparison, even better if you have a framework that you reference consistently throughout the round.
4. I appreciate assertiveness and confidence but please do not be rude to your opponents at any point in the round.
5. I'm okay with spreading as long as you're strategic about what to drop vs extend in the second half ie. summary & FF. In the end I'm voting on your impact/weighing/frameworks, not solely on whether an argument was dropped without a good explanation of its significance.
6. Please keep your own time in speeches and crossfires. Repeatedly going over time will result in a lower speaker point.

I coach Public Forum and British Parliamentary debate at the National High School Debate League of China.

Time each other including each other’s prep time

Please email me the speech docs & any evidence read : sunny@debatersdiary.cn

I hope you please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! I would run disclosure theory every round. It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway.

When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly and emphasize impacts.

I like to see teams:

- Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round.

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- I am not familiar with kritiks.

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

I dislike:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can.

My name is Jianuo Song and I am a rising second year at the University of Toronto, specializing in finance and economics. I've been debating for almost six years: five years in public forum and 1 year in British Parliamentary. I've also coached and judged tournaments for more than 1 year. Here are my preferences for debaters.

1) I prefer debaters to construct a well-rounded argument instead of several arguments that are not as developed.

2) Under this resolution, I believe evidence is more important and valuable than logic that lacks evidence.

3) I dislike when debaters are aggressive and impolite during crossfire.

4) I am indifferent about how fast debaters are delivering their speeches as long as they can clearly express what they are trying to prove.

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.