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.

-TES'24

-I debate at ADL

-He/Him

-email: 1234jaychu@gmail.com

I will do my best to follow the debate - be clear and do organized line by line

Clarity>Speed (But im ok with spreading)

Clear impact calc for me to evaluate

Slow down on tags and non-evidence args

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~

ash.koh2026@gmail.com

I will not vote on ad-homs attacks or arguments about your opponent's personal character outside of debate (calls outs are actually a reverse voting issue), I honestly couldn't care any less what you do outside the debate round.

That being said, I am militantly tech over truth. I have many thoughts about debate, none of these thoughts will factor into my judging except my belief that ad homs are a RVI and that you must read cards (the lack of new cards in kritikal debates is an epidemic).

My name is Ash not judge. I do not share people's disdain for things like hidden ASPEC, process counterplans, LD/K tricks, taking analytics out of the doc, 9 off, etc... If it is on my flow I will be voting for it.

I am inclined to believe that debate is a game you play on the weekends, where you come to accumulate as many ballots as possible, NOT an educational or performative space. K teams who truly believe that they are becoming an intellectual or are focused on creating a safe space, need to join a book club or conference instead, surely you will learn more there than spreading about fiat. Policy teams who genuinely think they are better than 'cheating k debaters' and are here to learn about the topic are equally as silly, I would recommend you participate in a research project, debate teaches you educational bankruptcy.

You will not convince me otherwise on either of those statements but I will be more than happy to vote on 'you dropped that debate is [insert adjective]' or 'topicality is saving our activity' even if it is blatantly false.

The goal of debate is to beat your opponent not to demonstrate your bravery. In my ideal model of debate, everyone is cutting ~100 cards per case neg and the affirmative is reading a plan or has the latest impact turn cards. Yet that is not the state of our activity, if your argument is not completely new or your cards are not extremely good (it should be //shree quality). I am a big fan of you reading strategies described as 'clash avoidance' because if you are not going to try your best at research why engage the topic at all? Honestly, I'd rather you not bother, I would rather adjudicate the game where you 'out-tech people' like I would actually rather you read indexicals or robo-spec then have to see you read a prior to 2020 card on your topic disadvantage... (at least that teaches you some skills...)

6 years PF coaching experience. Science major in University.

•Technicality: take care to explain to me why I should vote for you-- provide coherent links & impacts

•Crossfires: I enjoy a good show.

•Speed: no spreading please :) I want to understand every word.

•Do judges even follow their own paradigms?

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.

hi everyone im ashley

heres my gmail if you have any questions---> ashleyting1227@gmail.com

debate background --->

I have been doing debate for three years now.

I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the subjects or structures of pf and sd.

PF+SD how I vote --->

quick notes

- I will time your prep and speeches for you but it's still better if you time yourself

- NEVER BE RUDE TO EITHER YOUR OPPONENTS OR TEAMMATE

- I am a flow judge but I will not flow cross if you want to extend something from cross make sure you explain it

- note that recently I've been doing cx more so i might not know the topics as well as you so explain your arguments clearly, assume that I don't know anything, and you'll do great.

judging style/ most important key points

1. especially in sd and npf pls use up all of your time in ALL your speeches

2. warrants please not just cards

- explain to me why your card is important to this round

- don't just extend the tag!!!!!

3. collapse collapse collapse collapse collapse

- by the time you reach your final focus DO NOT extend everything

- start deciding which arguments are most important to this debate in your summary

4. go for something that you have extended throughout the whole debate

- i won't evaluate anything that was not extended throughout the debate!!!!

5. tech>truth

6. WEIGH PLS WEIGH PLS WEIGH PLS

- pleas have impact calc at least in your final focus

- if you have a team also do a little bit in your summary

- as a fyi you don't have to and say you win on all three prob, mag, and timeframe again collapse!

speaker points--->

- again never be rude to anyone

- don't interrupt your opponents (especially in cross)

- remember not to get mad at your partner they are trying their best

- flowing is v important to me pls flow for your speaks

- make sure you also let your partner get stuff in during cross as well

- understand what you are saying so you don't stumble a lot

- be efficient during cross!

rubric

* your points are based on the key points above *

29 and up: you are a good speaker there is not much you need to improve on

28 area: you are an above-average speaker, there is little you need to work on regarding your speaking

27.5 area: you are an average speaker there is definitely room for improvement but you are not a bad speaker

27 or below: I rarely give 27 or below speaks but if I do give you 27 or below. two reasons. first i either think you aren't taking this debate seriously. or second you were either being very rude or mean to someone in the round.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lastly, remember to work hard and have fun you'll do great good luck everyone

i am currently a high school student at taipei american school -- you can email me at 26irist@students.tas.tw or iristsai.26@gmail.com

**last updated for the NSDA taiwan invitational**

i've done 3 years of policy debate and am now in pf - the last policy topic i debated was the nato/emerging tech topic.

i am pretty tech over truth, but of course there are exceptions. any homophobia, racism, slurs, etc. will tank your speaks and may result in a loss

policy:

i'd say i was a pretty policy debater. that being said, i did end up running the k for a bit, so i'm relatively familiar with how parts of the k debate work. however, if you're running a k that is not the cap k, please do dumb it down for me.

for condo, i tend to lean neg, but most things are up for grabs.

tldr: read what you want, but do keep in mind that i haven't touched policy debate in over a year.

pf:

do whatever you want! but if you want something to be in my ballot, it should be in final AND summary. also, to me, 'probability' as weighing is pretty much meaningless; if you wanna win probability, win the link debate.

generally, i like big stick impacts (nuke war, extinction, etc.) and i'm more inclined to vote for those.

i'm pretty familiar with the topic this month (military presence in the arctic) so jargon is okay

i'm less inclined to vote for critical arguments in pf, especially if they're on the neg (you don't have an alt!)

speaks:

will range between 28 and 30. they will only go below 28 if you're either incredibly rude, or just outright problematic. if you're a great speaker (confidence, intonation, etc.) you'll get above 29s probably above 29.5s

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.