Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2021 — Online, CA/US
World Schools Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I competed in college parliamentary debate, and have 5 years coaching public forum debate in Beijing, Taipei, and now back in the United States. Under my tenure in Beijing, we won the NSDA China National Championship two years in a row.
I am a flow judge. I expect debaters to provide evidence for their arguments and responses, but if they do not, it is the responsibility of their opponents to highlight a lack of warrants.
I do not flow crossfire, so any significant information gained in crossfire should be brought up in later speeches.
I am focused on content over style, but do believe there is a necessity to communicate major issues clearly and convincingly when the debate is coming to a close.
I am okay with spreading, as long as the debaters are speaking clearly.
-Paradigm for Ash-
updated February 18th, 2022
As a competitive debater, judge and coach of 8 years, I have experience with:
British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, Australian Parliamentary, Public Forum, World Schools. I prioritize clear mechanization in case above all else. Explain your links/ mechs and give as much context as you can.
> Off Time Roadmaps are encouraged
> You do not need to make any kind of eye contact
> I may be asking for cards
> I do flow cross fire
>I prioritize substantive rebuttal over metadebate/ tech responses.
> I do not require friendly introductions
> Using your opponents name or speaker position is fine, avoid referring to your opponents in the third person (gendered pronouns are messy!). This includes me. You can refer to me as judge, chair, panel- but do not refer to me as Madame Speaker. I will not reduce any speaker points for this, I'm just not personally comfortable with this.
> I may give low point wins.
On Theory, I value theory to be limited to a K or a potential a priori lens, akin to a model or critique. Theory is a priori, but does not proceed the value of case. It merely is a lens for me to view and understand case, rebuttal, and the rest of the debate. Run theory alongside contentions with arguments.
On Prog, contentions should. a) identify structural inequality, b) explain how it manifests vis-a-vis the debated topic, and c) how policy change meaningfully deconstructs and combats structural inequality in this instance. To merely recognize it is not enough in providing solvency against pillars of institutuionalized violence. If conditions b and c are not met, I will not count this as a Prog case.
TLDR: I am not a tech judge. Spending the second half of a PF round using condensed referential metadebate on tech is a waste of time with me. Comparative analysis should use reference to substance and not floating PF norms as I do not adhere to or even agree to all of these 'norms'. Norms can be made up by students on the fly to their advantage on unsuspecting judges, or be norms in some schools and regions and not others. Debate is not fun when you want to make up rules on the fly in order to gatekeep wins/loses. Just convince me. That's what this sport is about- persuasion- not hidden rules. I don't adhere to any norm you could throw at me in speech. Most judges don't. Most judges in JV don't know what you are talking about. Debate is a worse sport for meta-debate/ tech prioritization.
Please avoid appealing to dogwhistling and overly euphemistic language that demonizes groups of people or other ideological camps.
I openly welcome argumenation or sourcing that may use Marxist critical theory, Libertarian, Socially Conservative, Neoliberal, logic and understandings. Please do not assume my politics or preferences simply based on my education, appearance, gender, or age and try to appeal to them. I find this practice uncomfortable.
I will deduct speaker points for:
> -.5 speak for: "Good morning/ Good afternoon/ Good evening" as an introduction.
TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.
Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time roadmaps/orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak, don’t shake my hand. If disclosure is not the norm I am willing to disclose. Pronouns: he/him/his.
I did policy in high school and NPDA at University of Oregon. My partner Gabe and I won the NPTE in 2022.
Preferences that matter for my decision
- Debate is a game
- Hard debate is good debate
- Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
- You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
- Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
- Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
- I default to magnitude first sans weighing
- Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
- I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
- Alts that are lit based are better than alts you made up
- Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
- Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
- For the love of god extend the aff
- For the love of god answer the aff
Preferences that matter but less for my decision
- Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
- I think condo is fine for debate but will vote on theory if won
- Going for RVIs is usually cowardice
- Perms are defense, defense is a suboptimal collapse strategy
- Links of omission are weak
- Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
- Decolonization is not a metaphor
- Nuclear weapons are tools - irrational nukes don't exist
- Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
- Science is a very useful ideology
HS Parli specific:
Spread if you can; don't spread if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.
Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. A pet peeve of mine is arguments about germaneness with no warrants or impacts. These arguments are winnable, but often have little or nothing to do with the argument it attempts to answer. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution (however wacky it might seem), it is probably germane.
Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
My name is Min Liu. I was a computer engineer for 10 years before I co-founded Able2Shine, a soft skills training company.I’ve only judged a few debates this year but I’ve grown to love this activity. Events I’ve judged so far are Public Forum, Parli and SPAR, and I can’t wait to try Policy and LD.
I prefer clear communication over speed, and honestly if you speak too fast I might not remember much when you’re done talking.
I enjoy the nuance of facts and subtlety of logic, and am excited to learn from all the debaters.
Presentation matters because in the real world you have to win hearts of minds of people. So when the debate gets close, the team with better speaking skills wins my vote.
I have a lot of experience competing in debate as a high school and college student (30 years), so you can expect me to be passionate about the issues you are speaking for and against but I will not bring personal preferences into debate like some other judges. I judge various events so here is a general outline of what I am looking for in a speech:
1. Passion - no matter what I want to see that you care about what you are speaking about. If this is lacking you can expect a poor ballot.
2. Good Arguments - when I have a tie between two capable and passionate debaters, this is where I go to break the tie. If you repeat arguments expect a poor ballot. Also note for formats like WSD and LD, I will try my best to flow the round, but you need to tell me arguments are dropped. I look for sound reasoning and logic flow in all of the debates and in LD, PF and other evidence based debates I will be asking you to read all of your cards.
3. Inflection and Voice - If I lose interest during your speech you are doing something wrong. Keep me engaged throughout. If you lose me when you are describing an argument you will not be on my flow and I will drop that argument completely.
4. Any type of rudeness and any chance at cutting other competitors speaking time (especially for POs in congress) will result in the lowest rank possible. RESPECT PRONOUNS and POI choices.
Claire Park (she/they)
- Read whatever you want
- tech = truth
- I like good evidence, I like spins more
- "status quo is always an option" means judge kick
- Judge direction is always good
I prefer to evaluate the debate on what is said in the debate, and I can vote for any argument. I think slight judge intervention is inevitable, but l do my very best to limit it as much as I can.
- If I can't hear you or if my wifi is bad, I'll verbally let you know
- My camera will be on, if it is off I am not ready
- Georgetown '25: not debating
- Major: Science, Technology, and International Affairs concentrating in Security, especially with AI.
- Notre Dame ‘21: 2N/1A
Please use your 1AC
Turns case is good
Impact calculus is close to essential
Case lists and TVAs are really persuasive to me
Usually, competing interpretations > reasonability
As a 2N, I love a good cheaty and tricky counterplan, so I'll consider it more than the average judge.
Honestly, you can read any K in front of me
Specific links can only help you
- I'm fine with them - the closer you are to the topic the better
- I'm more inclined to say that you get a perm
the neg [overview]
- Same thing as topicality portion
- I've voted for framework and I've voted against framework - as long as you debate it well I'm all for it
K v K
- My favorite debates to judge when done well, and my least favorite when done messily
- Similar to the topicality paradigm
- I don't really have a strong opinion on condo
- I'm inclined to think that perf con isn't a voting issue
*I'm fine with tag-team cross-x, as long as you give the person who's supposed to question and/or answer the chance to do so
*Also if an argument is dropped, I won't give it weight unless you extend the argument. Don't just point out it's dropped
- I don't really have that many strong opinions on debate that'll affect the decision. I prefer to be convinced of your argument despite my opinion.
wsd & extemp
I've judged only some wsd & speech, BUT I have done some debates in wsd and know a bit about speech and understand the structure. Honestly, just debate, argue, and convince well and I will judge to the best of my abilities.