i'm sticking to a 10 second synopsis of my thoughts because my paradigm keeps getting deleted so i don't want to spend 208320840 minutes typing a whole paragraph:

policy:

email: mirab2508@gmail.com

pf:

- everything in the final focus needs to be in the summary

- don't just read 2 arguments against your opponents arguments and proceed to read a bunch of new contentions in your rebuttals. the rebuttal is responding to what the other team said, it's not a time to read new contentions unless you finished answering their stuff.

- be nice pls

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~

SD/PF

---warrant comparison

---impact calc

RFD

---map out the debate for me

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.

October 2022 update: I am unfamiliar with the 22-23 high school topic and this will be the first time I judge this resolution - please keep this in mind before you spread through your blocks :)

Conflicts: ADL. My pronouns are He/Him. Add me to the chain: junxuan.ethan@gmail.com

Stolen from Dylan Willett: I am in Taiwan which is at minimum 13 hours ahead of the tournament I am judging so make sure to start off at a pace where I can adapt to your speed and speed up progressively through the speech because I might begin the debate a bit groggy.

I will judge the debate based on the flow. That said, I'm not too familiar with high theory Ks, but I will try my best to adapt to whatever argument style presented in the debate. 

I lean negative on most theory arguments. I lean AFF on T, and I find reasonability a very persuasive argument when argued well. Please don't let this dissuade you from going for T - good debating can overcome most of my preferences/biases.

I won't judge kick the CP unless the 2NR tells me to. Impact calculus is very important. The Cap K is a very good argument if your link explanation goes beyond "state bad".

I have been debating for more than three years

- Please be polite (especially in cross)

- I dont flow cross

- You have the freedom to decide whether you want open or closed cross

- Please weigh as much as possible

- Talking clearly is way more important than speed (and will affect your speaker points too)

- Don't throw multiple contentions at me at once just to waste your time then never bring it up again

- I prefer well explained contentions over many contentions (im probably not going to be familiar with your topic as well so it would be nice if you define some key terms and make sure to introduce the topic thoroughly)

- Dont drop the opponents arguments or else i'll take it as if you concede to that point

- NO bullying during cross and all other aspects of the debate (applies to teammate as well)

- FLOW (im not going to remind you of this again during the debate- this is for YOU not me)

- Have fun and display sportsmanship :)

Email me if you have questions and please put me on the chain: dylan.willett8 at gmail dot com as well as taiwanheg@gmail.com. I coach for the Asian Debate League. I debated for UMKC. In college, I mostly went for framework, topic DAs, and an assortment of topic critiques. As a coach I mostly have spent the last year working on random policy stuff, but have spent a lot of time working with critical approaches to the topic as well.

Be bold, read something new, it will be rewarded if you do it well. Analysis of evidence is important. I have found that over the past few years I have grown my appreciation for more of the policy side of research not in an ideological lean, but rather I am not starting from negative with process counterplans, I appreciate clever disadvantages, etc. If you have good cards, I am more willing to reward that research and if you do something new, I will definitely be happy.

I begin my decisions by attempting to identify what the most important arguments are, who won them, and how they implicate the rest of the debate. The more judge instruction, including dictating where I should begin my decision by showing me what is most important will help determine the lens of how I read the rest of the arguments

I find that I am really annoyed by how frequently teams are asking major flow clarifications like sending a new file that removes the evidence that was skipped. Please just flow, if there is an actual issue that warrants a question its obviously ok, but in most situations it comes across as not paying attention to the speeches which is a bit frustrating.

I like good, strategic cross-ex. If you pay attention and prepare for your cx, it pays dividens in points and ballots. Have a plan. Separate yourself and your arguments here!

I am a big fan of case debates that consist of a lot of offense – impact turns or link turns are always better than just pulling from an impact d file.

I think that I mostly lean negative on theory arguments – I would be really sad if I had to parse through a huge theory debate like condo, but am willing. I think I start from a predisposition that condo, PICs, etc are okay, and change based off the theory debate as it develops. I think theory is an important part of an affirmative strategy versus good, and especially cheaty, counterplans. I don't think education is a super persuasive argument in theory debates I have found. Way easier to go for some type of fairness argument and compare internal links versus going for some abstract notion about how conditionality benefits or hurts "advocacy skills".

In framework debates, the best teams spend a lot of their speeches on these flows answering the nuanced developments of their opponents. AFF or NEG teams that just say a different wording of their original offense in each speech are setting themselves up to lose. I am interested in hearing what debates would look like under each model. I like education arguments that are contextual to the topic and clever TVAs and impact turns are good ways to get my ballot while making the debate less stale. I find the framework teams that lose my ballot most are those that refuse to turn (on the link level or impact level, in appropriate manner) AFF offense. I find the K AFF teams that lose my ballot most are those that don't double down on their offense and explain how the NEGs impacts fit in your depiction of how debate operates.

Ks, DAs, CPs, T, FW, etc are all fine to read and impact turn – as long as I am judging a round where there is some attention to strategy and arguments are being developed, I will be happy. Definitely willing to vote on zero risk of a link.