PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly. New on case arguments are ok in 2NC, but not off case.

Hi, I'm Gene! I did LD debate for two years in middle school and I don't do debate anymore, so excuse me if I'm a little rusty.

- Please speak clearly and try not to spread as fast.

I absolutely hate it when people run through their whole case at Mach 3 speed and without any clarity. I am fine if you talk a little faster than normal, but if I cannot understand what you said, I won't write it down. Unless you are trying to break a world record or are an auctioneer, I cannot think of a real-world example where you need to talk super fast. Plus, the chances are that you might not be clear so don't risk it.

- I'm fine with progressive stuff, but please explain them very well.

From doing debate for a little while, I understand some of the progressive stuff (like K's, CP's, Disads, etc.) but I'm definitely not the best with them so make sure to explain it well to me so I get your point. (The same thing goes with Phil)

- Actually debate the topic, please.

Exactly what it says. I'm ok with a little off-topic stuff that has some relevance to the debate (ex. evidence validity) but please stay on topic.

- Be civil, especially during CX.

No scream-offs, please. It's fine to destroy your opponent's arguments, but not cool to make fun of them, etc.

Some things that I like:

- Creativity

I love seeing a person who has a very creative turn or has a very unique argument. I like arguments that I react like "Woah, I had no idea you could link that to [topic]!"

- Facts over Feelings

Pathos is cool and all but won't help you win the round. I would rather have a good argument than a minute-long speel on how animals are being abused every day.

- Being able to elaborate and explain your argument very well.

If you can't explain it to a 5th grader, don't use it. Simple as that.

- (LD) Actually using your FW

I absolutely hate it when people just drop FW in their 1st AR or NR. If you don't want to use FW, don't do LD, go do PF or something without FW.

- (PF) Having both people do work

Bothers me when only one person carries, unless you're a maverick, make sure both people are doing equal stuff.

- Clarity

I know I said it at the top but I'm gonna say it again. Please speak clearly and loudly at all times. It would be better if you go slower, but if you must go fast MAKE IT CLEAR. I'm also a terrible flower so even if you go fast and clear I might not catch up to you.

Some other things:

- I usually don't pay much attention during CX so I don't care if you destroyed your opponent in CX unless you bring it up in another speech.

- Be honest. If you went over on prep, tell me. That being said, tell me if your opponent went over on prep or lied about something and I will do something about it.

- I prefer no disclosure as it makes the debate more fun than robotic, pre-written arguments. You aren't always gonna be prepared for everything IRL.

- If you make me laugh, or reference something I really like (How To Train Your Dragon, Classical/Film Music, or Valorant preferable) I will add some speaks depending on how good it was (max .5). But I will tank speaks if you are just goofing around the whole round trying to make me laugh or make a reference that has nothing to do with your current argument.

- Have fun. Debate is about learning and researching topics and being able to argue them, not trying to scam $100 of prep off an 11-year-old on Reddit (seen that before).

My email is genechang.w@gmail.com if you have any questions. I like to just listen instead of reading, but you can still send me your cases and add me to email chains if you want.

Please include me on any email chains:

zedhatool@gmail.com

General/Not format specific:

- Above all, I will not tolerate any discrimination in round or out of round. Debate is a space that needs to be safe and open to all debaters.

- I'm mostly tech over truth but I have a higher bar for bad arguments.

- I'm a huge shill for Ks (but I have 90s K debater tastes), so if you run and understand Schlag I'll give you perfect speaks

- I have read a lot of literature, and I have experience with philosophy from the pre-Socratics to critical race theory. That said, I will prefer good explanation. If you can't explain your phil well, I won't vote for you.

- I'm okay with fw v K debate, but I really prefer if you substantively address the K, so either prove it wrong or K it back.

K Debate:

I want to expand on the above point a little bit, because I think there are two really bad attitudes toward K Affs (and really Ks in general) that pop up in debate rounds. The first is fear: Debaters are afraid of K affs, and so instead of trying to address why they're wrong, they use framework and theory arguments. Kritiks operate just like any other argument; arguments have an epistemology and an ontology. The difference between a kritik and, for example, stock issues, is that debaters using stock issues are often not aware of their own epistemology and ontology because they're normalized within the structure of debate. DEFEND YOUR EPISTEMOLOGY AND ONTOLOGY! Kritiks want to tell you your ways of knowing and categorization are in some way bad, you need to say that they're not. The K is wrong, and here's why. The second is disgust: debaters often think that K affs are, in the words of someone I otherwise consider an excellent debater, "cheating." I think this kind of attitude is bad for debate, full stop. While I will vote for framework if it wins the flow, I think framework v K arguments are usually bad, and win most often because debaters are unprepared to deal with them. The K is just another argument, so prove it wrong. Contrary to what I think is popular belief, debate isn't primarily a research event; debate is a critical thinking event. Use your brain to address the K, not some static, stale conception of debate that will instantly be proven to be anti-black/sexist/capitalist or whatever the K is you're hitting.

- My default interpretation of debate is that the only rules are speech time and speech order, and the only normative standards are fairness and education, but I can be convinced to change any of these positions

Policy specific:

I don't really have much else to say. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Pref sheet (policy)

1. Topical K affs/KvK debate/Topical performance affs/Ks on neg

2. Fw v K/policy affs/non-T K affs

3. Trad debate

LD Specific:

I am not a huge fan of tricks.

Pref sheet (LD)

1. Topical K affs/KvK debate

2. LARP rounds/Trad debate (just as long as it isn't too slow. I get that trad LD is a speech event but come on)

3. Tricks

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

--CX/LD--

-Email me your speeches at lin.andy@berkeley.edu

-Prep ends when the speeches are sent, and talking outside of it will lose you speaker points.

-Spreading is fine, but if you're incoherent I'll let you know only after your speech ends so watch yourself.

-I'm fine with any argument, and I'll almost always weigh tech>>truth, but you'll have a harder time convincing me of the solvency of your kritik alt than with a well-argued disad. If you lose the solvency debate on the kritik, I'm going to treat it like a very weak disad.

-If you read a k-aff, I will default debate is a game unless you convince me otherwise.

-If the flow is unreadable and there isn't enough clash on either side, I will default neg - the 2AR has a chance to clean up while the neg doesn't.

-If you clip cards, that's an immediate loss and zero speaker points.

I'm extremely flow-oriented. Good clash and line-by-line will make your rounds 10x more winnable with me. If there's clash, good weighing will also be necessary to win debates, you'll make me very happy if you do good impact calc on every flow.

Theory- I'll judge theory debates based on the flow, but will ignore it altogether if an in-round impact isn't substantiated. (I always enjoy a well-argued Topicality argument, however.) Don't flood the debate with a laundry list of theory offense though because it will immediately lose you speaks and potentially the round because I'm much less inclined to weigh any of it.

History- I debated for 3 years in Highschool and am starting debate in college as a 2N. I am, however, currently unfamiliar with the literature in this year's topic so I will be judging your evidence on substance rather than otherwise staple tagline arguments.

--Parliamentary/Congress--

-please don't read topicality unless you think it's a very convincing and easy sell. Specifically for parliamentary, I think it's almost always a waste of time.

-Points of privilege and points of order are unlikely voting points for me

-Spreading is fine, but clarity should be prioritized

-If you have time, answer POI's or I'll probably dock points.

-One well-supported link chain is better than several convoluted ones.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

General

Debated at Jack C Hays and Trinity University

Currently finishing last semester at Trinity.

Email: averydebate1@gmail.com

Debate - All

ONLINE --- Please go like 85% percent speed. It can sometimes become difficult to understand debaters over computer audio and my own typing. Wait for a VERBAL confirmation I am good to go before starting a speech.

) Have docs sent at round start time

) Send cards in files

) Disclosure - don't really see a world where I want to vote on disclosure. Mis-disclosure depends on whether or not it is verifiable within the round by the debaters mis-disclosure occurred. I do believe disclosure is a good practice and should be done, but lack of disclosing is probably not any kind of round ending decision.

) Please be nice in round - No one wants issues

) I've found out I am not a fan of debaters trying to be snarky in speeches and at worst has made me very very uncomfortable in the past.

) Do not misgender your opponents - Even If not called out in round your speaks will suffer and I will probably not be looking to view things favorably for you in the debate. I have no issue voting on misgendering and will be happy to do so. This can be avoided by simply gendering your opponents 1) correctly or 2) referring to speeches and not the debaters.

How I Judge

) Everything is either offense or defense at the end of the day. The team with the most important/largest offense in the round wins. Defense is important, but I need some kind of reason to vote for a side. Risk of impacts need to be a more substantial risk than the other side, not just a risk - please do weighing!

) I tend to be somewhat expressive in round. You should not take my expressions and movements as comments on your arguments.

) I like to evaluate debates as technically as I am capable of - This does not mean all arguments exist on an equal playing field in their acceptability in the round. I carry in my own beliefs into round and can't purely disentangle them from how I evaluate arguments. This doesn't mean i wont vote on such arguments, but the thresholds is high and I am much less likely to be persuaded by your Heg DA versus an aff about a literary work.

) Please attempt to engage K Affs on a deeper level. Opening up a book and reading is good and will make your arguments better. This doesnt mean Framework isn't a viable option against Kritikal affirmatives, but deeper and creative arguments are likely to be rewarded. There is almost certainly someone out there that says the aff is bad, you can find them.

) I sometimes struggle to understands debaters spreading. If I need you to slow down I will clear you. Please be sure to signify vocally in some way when you transition from card text to tag, too often debates spread without enough differentiation.

) I flow on my laptop for most rounds

) I tend to not flow off the doc. You're speech should be understandable without me having to look at it. I will look at cards during prep and after speeches If I feel as though I need to.

) Better Cards > More Cards - Truth and being correct is more important than having a lot of people being wrong. I'd rather you invest in quality evidence that actually says something than trying to string together a conspiracy theory from 6 cards.

) Massive fan on the weird side of arguments. Things that are considered "tricks" or "trolls" are often arguments I can see myself voting on IF AND ONLY IF you do the work of demonstrating how it interacts with the other side in a way that reaches an Impact. It would be preferred if the impact wasn't just presumption.

) Presumption is a very silly argument versus most Kritikal affs. I don't think this activity requires anyone to pretend signing a ballot does anything in any round for me to vote a side.

) Will not vote on cards written by current debaters

) Will not adjudicate issues that occurred outside of the round

) Will vote on Spark/Wipeout

) Not voting on RVIs

) Every time I enter speaker points it is basically a number randomly generated from my head. I don't have a system for this nor plan to make one. I will give speaks on the vibes, but I tend to hover around high 28 to low 29 for doing an okay/good job.

College - Climate

) Unsure what T looks like on this topic outside of the subsets debate. I currently do not have thoughts on any portion of this.

) I think there is ALOT of potential for cool affs and negative strategies on this topic. Big fan of a lot of the climate change critical literature in all its versions and think there is good potential for aff specific engagement no matter how you approach it. This is 100% a topic you should have something specific as a link to the aff, especially if you are reading the Cap K.

) Please no warming good

) Unsure what Kritikal affs look on this topic yet, but I'm hopeful for some cool stuff that doesn't just become "markets bad" by the 2ar. If that is your aff I'm probably not the biggest fan of it.

Thoughts On Arguments That Are Maybe Important To You

) T-Framework - I think these debates can sometimes be interesting but most of the time become slugfests. I think the negative should probably go for a real impact (not fairness). I am much more interested if you decide to do something that is a bit more topic or aff tailored with framework rather than preaching about the glory of limits for the sake of meaningless gameplaying. Hypotesting anyone?

) Condo -my condo threshold is not set at a certain hard limit, but once it starts becoming 3+ condo I am willing to listen to the argument as real. What's acceptable and what's not certainly depends on the round and I am open to being swayed in whatever direction in any given round.

) More to be added

LD Quick Pref List:

K -- 1

T vs K-Affs - 1/2

K-Affs - 2

Policy Strat - 2

T - 2

Phil - 3

Theory - 4

Tricks - 4

OLD LD THOUGHTS

Framework vs K Affs -- I think a lot about framework debates and have become mostly opinionless on them. I find these debates conceptually really interesting but I'm not sure how much of that can ever be drawn out in LD. Do things with framework besides "limits good!" and engage the aff more. This debate in LD I think is very skewed negative.

Policy Affs vs K -- I end up tapping out on extinction first a lot, but this is mainly due to lack of impact framing or weighing by the negative. If you are doing a framework push in the 1ar/2ar you need to implicate what winning it gets you/ why the links dont matter anymore etc on a substance level. I often find perm explanations from policy affs very lacking, I'd much rather judge an impact turn to the K than a nonsensical perm 2ar. How affs win this debate is by having offense on the the K at some substantive level (links, alt, impacts, not broad issues of "fairness"). Negs should be turning the aff in some way or interact on some level with the aff outside of "there is a link, moving on to impact." otherwise I'm left just evaluating between 2nr impact rambling versus 2ar impact weighing.

Phil - Yes. I have cut phil affs of all varieties and read a lot of them in highschool (Rawls, Contractualism, Scanlon, Virtue Ethics, Kant, even a little Schopenhauer)

I've cut and prepped induction fails, Trinity goes for no free will and we live in a simulation. I rock with a lot of these arguments. I think teams are pretty bad at answering them. do with that what you will. I don't think any of these arguments require truth testing framework to win.

Make it so I either negate or CAN'T affirm the resolution with offense of why affirming would be bad or impossible then you will probably be in a good spot -- Just make sure its CLEAR and an actually strategy and not paired with like 20 other tricks and triggers -- If it's your winning arg, make it win the 2nr and GO for it

Policy Args - Yes they are good. Functionally and Textually compete, explain things. I don't go for or extend these things very often, but I promise I will follow whatever you do. Don't be afraid to go for a CP DA. There's isnt much to say about DAs -- Have uq, a link, have an internal link, have an impact; do that and youre golden

I find a lot of cards about China to be kind of ridiculously racist at points. Policy teams please point this out more.

T - LDers please read an interp with definitions of the resolution words, I'm not a fan of people just saying "grammar" or basing the interp on vague vibes the aff maybe did something bad (Nebel). I try not to hold on to many defaults on T because I think debate about meta level questions should be largely up the debaters. Counter-interps should be extended, they should have standards, and they need reasons why they are good (I dont really care what the reason for it being good is, just make sure you answer the opponents args, otherwise T interps become two ships in the night).

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

RVIs on T is an arg I think is foundationally silly -- you dont get to win for following norms. However, drop or undercovered args are undercovered args, go for them if you must.

Theory - Most theory read I find pedantic and rarely a reason to DTD instead of DTA (except condo). Lean neg on condo in LD but very open to it being read. Strong tendency to not vote for AFC, ACC, Colt, TJFs, etc.

Probably not the judge if your A strat is 1AR theory restarts, but I will vote on it I just likely won't be very happy. These debates just end up becoming theory overview 2ars which become very intervention heavy to evaluate.