This is my eighth year in the speech and debate community. I competed for four years in high school, three years in college, and this is my second year coaching at Wilson High School. I'm familiar with all forms of high school debate, but CX debate is where I feel most at home. I believe each type of debate is unique and should be treated as such - if you want to do policy debate, do policy debate!

I expect policy Affs to uphold the resolution and critical Affs to link to the resolution. I admittedly have a bias for real world policy cases, but I'm willing to vote on the K if it's ran well. I have seen critiques ran well on the college circuit, but yet to see one convincing enough to vote on while judging high school debate. Flashing does count as prep time; when the flash drive is out of your computer I will stop the timer. Prep time will not be taken for your opponents to open up the file. Tag-team CX is not allowed and if competitors repeatedly do it then speaks will be docked. I have two thoughts on topicality. There's 'legit' topicality and then there's 'its's another argument' topicality. If it's obvious the Aff isn't topical I will have a bias for the Neg's topicality arguments. If it's obvious the Neg is running topicality just to throw it out there, I'll treat it like any other argument. Speed is fine. Just slow down on the tag/cite.

Tell me how to vote in the final speeches. (What I should value / what matters and why.) If no framework is given, I generally default to utilitarianism.

I was president of both English and Chinese debate team during college, now work in the field of licensing. Started to judge different tournaments for DLC since 2015, both off-line and online.

In terms of preference, I value clear presentation and direct logic, simply repeating how strong your cases is not helping you to win, identify your opponent's logical flaw then rebut or defend analytically, ideally to connect with your prepared evidence, or to rebut basing on the real clash. As for speakers point, being kind and clear is the key. And please, don't yell.

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.

Debate/Judging experience:

I debated, coached, and judged tournaments in China for the past three years.

Judging preferences:

I want to believe that debating is all about effective communication, I would appreciate speeches that are crafted, mechanized, emphasized and purposeful. Exchanges can get intense, but teams still need to see their opponent and contribute to moving the debate forward. The use of evidence can benefit one's case as long as it's been explained and impacted at that specific moment, I wouldn't be able to credit one underdeveloped evidence even though it's awesome.

I started to debate in 2017 as a high school freshman and accumulated extensive debate experiences which were but mainly in Public Forum. I ranked 10th in the national debate ranking list in China and had won various awards in tournaments. As I graduated from high school, I began my judging career in 2020 as a college student and have since then judged more than 200+ rounds of public forum debate (both online and on-site). Overall speaking, I have judged and debated on a wide range of resolutions, social, political, economic, etc.

My judging philosophy is rather simple: Rule of Logic. I deliberate my decisions with a number of factors: argumentation (logic), quality of evidence, impact evaluation, and debating style (eloquence). (ps: evidence before impact for quality of evidence might decide if impacts are real and solid; for example the methodologies in which the research in your evidence was conducted clearly influences the relevant data)

I don't have a particular preference about speed since English is de facto my native language, or nearly, but debaters must speak with clarity (don't let speed compromise your content) otherwise i might not be able to understand and thus fail to judge your arguments.

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.

Both slower speaking pace or a faster one are working for me. Frameworks are crucial for me to evaluate Public Forum debates. I would prefer well-developed arguments over many arguments that are not as developed. I prefer evidence with logical analysis compare to the arguments that are logical but lack of sufficient evidence. If both team can try to calm down in the crossfire and present efficient and useful questions, it will be my pleasure to judge them.

Updated for Winter Invitationals 2022: Upenn/Harvard

My Pronouns are They/Them/Their

Personal Experience:

As a debater, I have over 6 years of competitive debating experience in Public Forum, both Chinese and US Circuit. I competed in various regional and national level tournaments. Just as a record I had runner-up and best speaker for NSDA CN National, broke in major US tournaments like the NSDA Nationals and UK TOC, with some octas from Stanford/Harvard Invitational. In a word, I participated in PF debate competitively with passion during my middle/high school years, and I had basic knowledge about LD, Policy, and BP format, I'd like PF to stay unique from "Diet Policy" though.

For CX: I'd like to make an early apology for not being an active CX debater myself, so don't assume that I would be too familiar with a lot of specific techniques, though I do like to watch CX videos and know basic concepts like Framework/Plans& Counterplans/all sorts of Critiques, etc.

For LD: I prefer progressive argumentation over traditional strategy, articulate as much as possible.

As a coach, I had over 2 years of coaching experience in China with middle and high school students, some of which have won major regional tournaments with 1st ranking in the Chinese circuit.

As a judge, I had over 3 years of judging experience, mostly in the Chinese circuit with NHSDLC and NSDA China, but I'm fully open to different styles from the Chinese and US circuits.

As a student, I study Computer Science at ETH Zürich(Yes, this is the Einstein school, NOT Princeton), if you have never heard of this school it's perfectly normal. Go on whatever ranking and check the first non-US/UK school or the first unfamiliar school, it's mostly it.

My professional knowledge is mainly about CS, Math, basics about international relations, and fundamental philosophy. Be careful with AI arguments since I might have an implicit bias about your statements if they go up against my algorithm knowledge.

Framework:

My perspective as a PF debater tends to focus on quantifiable impact analysis, but I also buy egalitarian analysis as a framework and critiques if you put them in the right schema, a good analysis around structural violence/inequality/capitalism/libertarianism/neoliberalism/accelerationism might earn you a win against a huge amount of statistical evidence.

If there's no framework debate at all, I will follow default cost-benefit analysis on quantifiable impact, if both sides failed to access any quantification, I will then evaluate link quality>general performance>emotional appeal(it should be noted that I don't often buy seemingly exaggerated impact like human extinction, nuclear WW3, world doom unless you can access a good amount of probability cards)

I'd also take feasibility into consideration even if it's a should-no-would resolution, basic supply-demand statistics /empirical successful examples should do just fine for that.

Speed:

Spreading NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I can easily handle speed over 1000 words/4 min from my empirical experience(I once went for 1200 words case in a major final and lost) I think the vast majority of PF speakers wouldn't go over this limit whatsoever, so unless you are a well-versed CS-Spreader I believe I can understand your fastest pace possible, but still remember this: speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST!!!!

Crossfires:

I appreciate respectful, peaceful, and fruitful crossfires, I flow BOTH crossfires and speeches, major evidence, especially data mentioned anew in cross should be re-emphasized in later speeches. Yelling and abusive behaviour will lead to speaker points deduction, but rudeness would not be a major RFD on my ballot at the end of the day.

For Online Events, I'd like to remind you again that normally conference Apps like ZOOM have automatic main voice detection, which means when multiple debaters try to talk simultaneously, one of them(normally the loudest one of all) would be emphasized and others weakened, so as basic decency I'd like to ask you to keep Q/A brief and productive because it's relatively hard to interrupt in online sessions, save some time for opponents to respond. Don't start making Speech/reading cards in Cross!

In short, have the basic decency of keeping things lean and saving time for each other.

Front-lining:

I do NOT require rebuttal speakers on the second speaking team to frontline opponents' rebuttal speech! Of course, it's appreciated if your time permits, but I would value direct responses and quality of rebuttal over front-lining against your opponents' rebuttal, that could be picked up in summary(AKA I would NOT just consider it dropped until after Grand Cross, don't try to sell me "any turns left unresponded in 2nd rebuttal are 100% conceded arguments", I will take responses from summary into consideration)

Summary and Final Focus:

No NEW arguments in final focus, summary should cover ALL voting issues about to be mentioned in the final focus. Do not just bring up "dropped argument" in final focus if it's only mentioned once in your case and was not picked up in your summary to point out opponents didn't respond to them etc. I appreciate impact analysis based on quantifiable evidence, in summary, you should try to keep the consistency of using good data and try not to get into sheer logical explanation/emotional appeal.

Critiques:

Simple standard: 1. alternative better than original plan 2. alternative mutually exclusive with the original plan, if both criteria suffice on a scientific basis, I will buy your critiques with high speaker points. But I would also accept offenses about counterplan not allowed in PF debate, however would not be a major contributor to my RFD. (Focus on Framework if Alt is absent, FW standard mentioned above)

Theory, and everything alike:

NO, you can try reading those, and I will still judge on my flow, but also still based on my usual standard mentioned above.