Last changed on
Sun July 31, 2022 at 1:00 AM CEST
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.
