Tabroom.com

ADL Smart Debate Novice PF Novice Policy Tournament

2021 — TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Janise Chiang Hire 8 rounds

Jacqueline Chu Hire 8 rounds None

Jay Chu Hire 8 rounds

Brandon Gergel Hire 8 rounds

Jenny Kuo Hire 8 rounds

Adam Lin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 9:39 AM CST

----for ADL tournaments----

IF you go for an impact turn and win I will give you 30 speaks

IF you buy me food I will give you 30 speaks

IF you are a good debater I will give you 30 speaks

IF you roast Ray Wang or Micah Wang in your speech you will get 30 speaks.

bad jokes = -0.5 speaks - do it at your own risk

POLICY

----About me----

Taipei American School '23, Northwestern '27

I have been debating since the immigration topic.

I have been 1A/2N, 2A/1N, and double 2s.

I have qualified for the TOC twice.

I have zero knowledge of the 2023-2024 topic.

----Generic----

1. I will not flow crossfire/CX unless something is conceded.

2. I will time prep if you ask but it is still your responsibility.

3. Please add me to email chain: 23adaml.debate@gmail.com

4. Please set up an email chain or prepare whatever you need prior to the round.

5. respect your opponents and judge, please

----TL;DR----

tech over truth (most of the time)

strike me if you're gonna read high theory - I never have/never will read them, I don't vibe with them

warranting + explanation > spreading thru cards

condo is probably good

depth over breadth - especially in the block

overviews are nice unless it trades off with clash

YES:

aff-specific DAs

impact calc/comparison

card indicts/rehighlightings

agency CPs

some process CPs are fine

judge kick

blue highlighting

NO:

death good

lopez

rider DA

kicking planks

any kind of hate

yellow highlighting

----T----

Well-debated T debates = highest speaks

I probably won't vote on Ts about punctuation/"of"/"The"/"Resolved"

FXT, Extra T are hard to vote on solely based on it

reasonability is a bad argument

fairness is a terminal impact only if dropped

----DA----

ptx DAs should have an overview

Thumpers are great

warrant out all your cards - most DAs end up being just a ton of random cards

diversify your warrants don't just spam cards in the 1NR

If the scenario is absurd I'll probably not vote on it considering the risk

If the DA is creative/I haven't seen, +0.2 speaks

Aff-specific DAs, if executed well/is true, +0.2 speaks

I often find teams not doing the internal link debate, which is usually super weak - I do vote on this

impact calc is essential to a W

turns case scenarios are nice - but tell me why you turn them not they turn you

----CP----

Judge Kick is the default unless the Aff says something and that's dropped

Kicking planks is okay unless the Aff gives a reason why not

Multi-plank counterplans can be strategic, but I often find them abusive.

Would vote on cheaty process CPs

Consult CPs are disgusting

I will vote on sufficiency framing unless the aff specifies a solvency deficit that outweighs the net benefit (modelling etc.)

I will "reject the argument not the team" especially when the CP is super abusive (specifics on theory)

----K----

I've been a policy team my whole life so you need to explain if the lit base isn't cap, set col, bioptx, security, etc.

Not the biggest fan of K affs unless it is well explained. That being said, I'm all for K affs that are somewhat related to the resolution, especially teams that explain to me why the alt is key for solving a specific thing. Being vague is bad.

Framework v. K Affs - I'm easily persuaded by fairness as an impact. That also means I'm susceptible to impact turns, which means that winning competitive models of debate is key to winning the ballot - i.e. why your model is more debatable.

Aff framework v. Ks - almost never the voter, aff should get to weigh the aff, neg should get the K, link debating is the most important

Generic K links are bad - please read specific cards and explain it well. Long overviews are nice but make sure it doesn't trade off with clash. If generic, you must somehow spin it/contextualize in a way that makes coherent sense, otherwise it's hard for me to give the neg a link

no baudrillard

Aff impact turns against cap and security are nice, often find myself erring aff on them

If you're not black, don't run afropess

99% of the time, defense won't be enough for an Aff ballot

----Theory----

I probably won't vote on theory unless there's clear abuse (ex: lopez CP, 4+ CPs in 1NC, etc.) that means even if not dropped, spending enough time explaining that abuse can win you the ballot

Dropping theory isn't an instant voter - you still need to explain to me the abuse that has happened within the round

T outweighs theory - don't BS me

any DA theory is BS

severance is a reason to reject the argument 99% of the time

going for theory = lower speaks (only a bit) cuz I do think substance should be the core of debate

2AC theory should be in the doc - I find that teams just spread through a one-liner and hope they drop it

----Misc----

Speed - The only thing I care about is clarity (separate tags from the card itself, signposting is good). Don't read speed Ks. If the opponents are too fast, chances are I can't flow them either. I will intervene when it's too unclear.

Organize speech doc and speech in general and please highlight the cards. Don't say 'stop prep' and take 2+ minutes to send the doc - if there's a problem, tell me. Do send cards in the body of the email.

Don't be too pressing and be nice during cx - it can be a determinant of speaks if done well. I also think cx is binding. Avoiding questions will lower your speaks

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

Public Forum

I probably don't know the topic that well, so a clear explanation/overview is very important.

1. In round behavior matters - Be nice and kind

2. Speed doesn't matter, as long as both the other team and I can understand, be CLEAR

3. No preference for specific arguments

4. Crossfire should be done in a civilized way - don't speak loudly at the same time as opponents.

5. Don't extend cards without explaining the warrants and linking it to the args.

6. It's good to compare different parts of different arguments on both sides to show how you outweigh.

7. Please do Line-by-line if possible, at least show what argument you are moving on to. Organize your speeches and flow.

8. You MUST show me WHY and HOW you win the debate in order for me to vote for your team. PERSUASION IS KEY!!!

9. I will vote on RESOLVED arguments, if there are random arguments that are left unanswered or not clear, I will not vote on that. Also if an argument is dropped, you must mention it or I will disregard it completely.

----Speaker Points Rubric [for both]----

30-29 hands down you're a great speaker. A few minor flaws could affect your speaks but it already exceeds my standards.

29-28 You are doing well, but there are probably some key things that you missed. Great speaking overall!

28-27 You're gonna have to work on your speaking a little more.

27-26 This is the speaks I will give to someone who I can't really understand/sounds like clipping/interrupting others.

<26 Forfeiting a speech, offensive language, or inappropriate behavior in general - please don't!!!

henry Lin Hire 8 rounds

Joel Mounts Hire 8 rounds

Aaron Ong Hire 8 rounds

Tyler Prochazka Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:04 PM CST

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.

Ethan Tai Hire 8 rounds

Anthony Trufanov Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 29, 2024 at 12:01 PM EDT

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. Negs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Affs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

I do a lot of work during tournaments and will be tired on their last few days. I have found that this makes it harder for me to focus. To counteract this, I have gone back to flowing on paper, which I have found helps me process the debate as it is happening. You will benefit if you make my paper flowing life easier (give me time to flip the page, warn me if you're going to make an abnormally large number of arguments about part of the flow, tell me to make an overview or framework page if I need one, etc.).

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would decide every question in the debate. However, shrinking decision times make this impractical. Minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them through debating.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty neg on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the aff are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the aff, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches. "Should =/= immediate" plus a cr

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless Affs

Good for specific Ks on the neg, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K affs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA then yes, you need framework and you need an alternative. Whatever issue your framework says should determine the round should be what your link, impact, and alt are about.

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessively demanding curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

Ethics and Conduct

If the tabroom tells me to do something, it is not up for debate. I will do that thing. The rest is what I will do if left to my own devices.

Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Alternative remedies short of an automatic loss could be more responsive or proportional to the harm: scratching the argument AND evidence, scratching only the evidence and treating the argument as if it is made analytically, assuming an author is absolutely unqualified, requiring the team to produce the full text of articles in question, requiring the violating team to establish a paper trail authenticating other important evidence and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, requiring a team to produce the full text of every article in the debate and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, reducing speaker points, informing the team's coaches after the fact. They MAY be a reason to reject the team, but I will not treat them as such by default.

Clipping - claiming you read words from evidence that you did not read - is different, and a voting issue. It is a form of dishonesty that irreparably distorts teams' speech times, which affects every other issue in the debate, and which opponents are uniquely poorly positioned to police. If you are inexperienced or appear to have clipped by mistake, I will be lenient. Otherwise, it is non-negotiable.

Thoughts on stopping the debate early:

1. This is an exceptional measure to be avoided if possible.

2. Once the debate stops because of an ethics challenge, my first step is to consult the tabroom and do whatever they say.

3. Unless expressly instructed otherwise by the tabroom, the debate will not resume once stopped. The winner and loser will be determined solely by the ethics challenge.

4. An accusing team can stop the debate at any time except during a speech or a cross-ex. They win if they are correct, present compelling evidence that they are correct, and I agree that the conduct justifies a penalty loss. The winner will receive 28.5 and 28.6. Losers who have personally committed an ethics violation receive the lowest points allowed. Losers who have not personally committed an ethics violation - either due to an unsuccessful accusation, or because the partner committed the violation - receive a 27 and 27.1.

5. During the dispute, both teams must engage in good faith. The accusing team must submit evidence of their accusation as soon as possible. I will not consider evidence submitted within 20 minutes of decision time. Any filibustering or other unreasonable behavior by the accusing team will result in a win for the accused.

6. An accused team can stop the debate, even if the accusing team does not wish to do so, if the accusation concerns the fundamental academic integrity of the accused. This is a very high bar.

7. An accusing team may ask me if I believe certain conduct justifies a penalty loss without stopping the debate. I will take judge prep to answer. This answer is not an invitation to negotiate and obviously doesn't bind the tabroom.

8. I will proactively end the debate for clipping. I will not do this for other evidence ethics or academic integrity issues.

9. Basically none of this applies to novice or JV, where I will resolve the dispute as quickly and narrowly as possible with the aim of maximizing the number of speeches that can happen.

Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth.

H Dylan Willett Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 3, 2023 at 10:39 AM CDT

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.

Judy Yen Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

ADL Smart Debate Novice PF Novice Policy Tournament

2021 — TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

Judges