I'm an independent debate coach in Shenzhen and Huizhou, before that I debated and coached policy in USA at high school and university level. This philosophy is intended for PF tournaments in China and to guide students to do well in general.

Overall, I'm looking for balanced debate performances that emphasize great public speaking, confidence, logical arguments, proficient use of evidence, and persuasive weighing.

In the constructive speech, make sure that the titles and warrants to your contentions are read clearly.

In the rebuttal speech, try to generate offense and don't forget to cross-apply relevant data/warrants from your constructive speech.

In the summary speech, make choices. Don't just summarize the debate. Start with an overview that crystallizes the debate by identifying the key clashes or important issues. Start the weighing process. Why is the clash that you are winning important? Then, move on to the line-by-line. Defend the contentions that you intend to win the debate on by rebutting the opponent's rebuttals. Remember, the final focus is built on the summary speech, so it's worth taking prep time to align with the second speaker's strategy.

In the final focus, crystalize the debate. This would sound something like this: "The benefits of the UMT clearly outweigh the harms because confronting inequality has a far greater impact than a small reduction in business investment; it's also the right thing to do." Then weigh the debate using criteria like timeframe, magnitude, scope, probability, ethics, and turns. Finally, extend some of your key data points or warrants and rebut the most pressing points from your opponent.

In crossfire, have a goal. In the first crossfire, a good goal would be to prove to the judge that a few of the premises of your case are true. e.g. inequality is a serious problem, the exit tax stops capital flight, etc. In the second crossfire, it's a good idea to try to prove that some key elements of the opponent's case are wrong. You can do this by showing a contradiction or disputing facts. In the grand crossfire, it's time to focus on the clashes. Show that you're winning them and which one is most important. In terms of style, I prefer that you let each other answer, that you don't ask too long of questions or answer for too long, and that you don't waste too much time asking for evidence. Write questions before cross-fire starts.

Overall, I'll hold debaters accountable for what's on the flow. If you don't extend something, you won't get credit for it. And, when you extend something, I expect a warrant and impact to come with it. Get in the habit of saying 'because', 'for example', and 'this is important because'.

Have fun, and try to have a growth mindset. I'll give you feedback, and I hope that you approach it with an open-mind. That being said, I do believe that "pull beats push". In other words, you know what you want feedback on and you shouldn't be afraid to ask. Consider asking questions like: "How could I have persuaded you that x = y?" or "Why didn't you find x point important to your decision?". General questions like "How can I improve?" are less effective than specific questions about the debate or your performance.

If you have any further questions that the ballot or post-round discussion didn't answer, feel free to contact me on

WeChat: m123farmer

Edward Luo

2nd Place Team at the 2020 TOC

Speed Preferences: Talking fast is acceptable, but I may not catch everything so I recommend slowing down to emphasize your key points (or use tone and volume/other methods to emphasize).

I like to see debaters weigh during Summary and Final Focus. I will ultimately make my decision based on whichever side successfully convinces me that their impacts have better links and outweigh the other team's impacts.

I will never make arguments for either side (or assume you imply certain meanings), so even if you think that the opponent has said a ridiculous argument that is obviously wrong, you should still make a brief effort to rebut it.

I generally favor teams with strong evidence. If one side logically or anecdotally explains how A leads to B, but the other team provides statistics showing the opposite, I will usually side with the team with the statistics (Unless the first team can prove to me how those statistics do not contradict their claim).

If your opponent gives evidence that seems false, ask for an evidence check or provide evidence that shows the opposite.

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

1. My Debate Background:

Debated in University: 2010-2012, British Parliamentary Style

Coached university students and judged for debate competitions : 2012-2015, British Parliamentary Style

Coached secondary school students and judged for debate competitions: 2016- 2021, Public Forum Debate

2. How do I judge?

I judge on Argumentation, but also value engagement and teamwork to good extend.

3. Some specifics

• I value use of Evidence
• I value active engagement and logical refutations
• Speed: I can accept debaters speaking fast but please don't read your script without any emotions
• Manner: If you are an aggressive type of debater, please note I do need to hear the other side out (and thus excessive disruption won't be favored) 
•  
• Counter plans: depending on the topics, I think counter plans are overall acceptable, but I don't credit nor support a soft stance.