hey whats up guys

my name's alper, ive been debating for 4 years now

Mainly cal LD

FOR LD

Value/Value Criterion is very important - will only evaluate impacts under the framework of the round. If you win an extinction impact but don't tie it back to framework and why it matters, I WILL NOT VOTE ON IT.

Tech > truth, will vote on anything as long as you win the links to access your impact and then explain why it matters under your framework. (and i mean anything).

BIG EXCEPTION: I am a trad ld debater, I don't understand anything prog or circuit. You are welcome to try and read it anyways, if you do it well enough and clearly explain to me why I should vote for you then I will, but know that "first the interp, then the violation" means nothing to me.

Also I am fairly good with speed but only if you actually enunciate. To be safe, you should probably send speech docs if you are planning on going fast.

In cross just don't be annoying please. Perfectly fine to cut your opponent's off if they are rambling, but if they are actually answering your question let them talk. Being annoying in cross = less speaks.

Please please please actually have clash!!! Read arguments that directly tell me why your opponent's arguments are wrong/don't matter.

Weigh and extend in your final speeches. Don't be afraid to collapse on arguments you are losing - I think this is super strategic and a sign of a good debater. You should be telling me what arguments matter the most in the round, why they matter the most, why you won them, and how that means you won the round under the framework. Basically make it as easy as possible for me to vote for you; write my ballot for me.

If neither debater does this and at the end of the debate I'm left with a bunch of arguments with no weighing/connecting back to framework then I will default to evaluating the round like a speech round: best speaker wins. Please don't make me do this, I hate judging speech.

FOR EVERY OTHER DEBATE EVENT:

Don't run theory. I am a lay judge. I understand nothing except argumentation. Don't be annoying in cross. Be respectful and don't insult your opponents. Read arguments, clash, collapse, weigh, extend. Be good!

Funny:

higher speaks if you make jokes/good references in round
+1 speak if you tell me a good knock knock joke before round
-1 speak if you mention lebron james

have fun guys, debate is supposed to be fun! joke around, laugh, talk with your opponents and get to know them a little. lighten up.

Debate:

If I don't understand an argument, I won't vote for it.

Speech:

Speak clearly and enunciate.

Hey! I'm currently a college student, but I competed in speech and debate for all four years of high school. I qualified to states and nationals and won several invitationals in LD, but also dabbled in parli, world schools, and info.

A few lil tidbits about the way I judge

- My judging philosophy is probably similar to a lot of older coaches that you’ve encountered — I’m willing to listen to things like Ks and theory, but I never ran them myself so you’ll have to explain them.

- I will flow the round and note all dropped arguments, however it is crucial that dropped arguments are impacted -- explain why it matters that your Brown 17 card was dropped.

- I appreciate a citation of authors for evidence (John Smith of the Stanford University in 2012) but understand that time constraints sometimes can be an issue.

- I know evidence quality is something that slipped a lot in debate in recent years, but it's one thing that I value strongly. Misconstruing reflects extremely poorly on your ethos. Calling out your opponent for misconstrued evidence or just any kind of evidence comparison is a huge + in my books

- Perceptual dominance is important in debate, but being rude is a big no, and will massively impact your speaks.

- For LD: I love a good value debate, but even if the value and value criterion are agreed upon, do not simply drop the framework. I expect clear links to framework within the debate.

- Add me to the email chain: ilincaflacau@ucla.edu

Overall, have fun and enjoy the round.

i did pf for four years at leland high school in san jose, california (c/o 2023). lhuang2023@gmail.com

important notes

• conceded cards, even if misconstrued, are true if not called out. i will not reference the email chain unless I am told/have to.
• speed is fine, but clarity matters. I flow what I heard, not what I read.
• new arguments need to be flagged for me to strike them, with the exception of new arguments in the second final focus.
• second rebuttal must collapse. defense is not sticky.
• in a lay setting, i ask you adapt to the most lay judge on the panel. i appreciate when debaters make rounds accessible to everyone involved.
• terminal defense >>> weighing > mitigation >>> "we outweigh on scope."
• i have a low bar for extensions. a 10-second repetition of what affirming does and why that's good/bad is enough in my book.

progressive argumentation

• i will always prefer good explanation over buzzwords. leaving me confused in round = my decision is confusing. in other words, do good judge instruction.
• theory: fine for anything, would prefer not to be in the back of a disclosure round if your opponent does disclose in some form.
• ks: understand these to a very minimal extent, explain your literature well and any links to opposing argumentation.
• k affs: i don't understand these but you can run them if you want to. please err on the side of over-explaining everything if you do.

leland '22 | ucla '26 (computational and systems biology major)

he/him

yes, i would like to be on the email chain: yongjindebate@gmail.com

idk if anyone reads paradigms nowadays...if you do, add me on the email chain without asking. thanks!

update for long beach:i have been meaning to leave the activity for a while now, so this will probably be the only tournament i will be judging throughout the entire year. i don't know the topic at all so when you are in front of me, i would expect you to not throw around acronyms around.

tech > truth - this should be the general philosophy of every judge but there is no such thing as tabula rasa

top-level:

1. i thank Allen Kim, Young Park, Allison Harper, Caitlin Walrath, and Ms. Northrop for molding my views and perceptions on debate and how a debate should be held. that means that a lot of my preferences of what i would like to see in a round is a collaboration and hybrid of their amazing opinions on debate. so, if you are ever confused throughout my paradigm, their paradigms should be a lot more concise and straightforward and i wouldn't blame you if you defaulted to searching theirs up.

2. debate is a discussion between the debaters, i'm only an adjudicator of the round - do you what you do best, whether you are running wipeout to agenda ptx to baudrillard, my only job is to listen and flesh a clear ballot that gives me the easiest way to vote - any arguments that you can explain THOROUGHLY is on the table and it is your job by the rebuttals to write the ballot for me

3. BUT... i will not tolerate any arguments that pertain to sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, classism, etc. i will stop a round if i need to, if i find that the debaters are uncomfortable and will cap your speaks to the lowest it can possibly be. respect needs to be earned between the debaters; but, there is a fine line between aggressive and passionate debating and ad hominem incivility

4. speed is fine and be comfortable in the round - whether you spread at 450 wpm or you go at Cal MS's speed, i'll flow whatever claims, warrants, or evidence you are communicating to me - but if i yell clear once and i can understand a drunk donkey better than i can understand your speech, i'll give up flowing :)

5. tag team CX is fine, you don't need to ask me beforehand - but if your partner is clearly speaking for you in CX, i'll make sure to tank both of your speaker points so...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

6. as i might have sounded passive-aggressive in some parts, i'm usually (HOPEFULLY) not too mean unless you break one or more of the stuff listed here. i wish you the best of luck in your rounds and if you have me as a judge, have fun and touch some grass after the round please

7. pre-round disclosure is good...that's a nonnegotiable

policy specific:

1. t: usfg- i put this at the top because you probably ctrl+F'ed my paradigm for this so you're welcome - these are the best debates to see or the absolute worst debates to see - i have been on both sides of these debates debating for and against framework so i welcome K v FW debates openly

- for FW debaters, i see the utility of both fairness and education/clash but i believe fairness is an internal link for education and clash FOR STRATEGIC REASONS, NOT PERSONAL ONES. in all the FW debates i've been in, 99% of explanations of fairness impacts become tautological, repetitive, and defensive by the 2NR and there are no intrinsic or external benefits to having fairness ALONE being good for debate. Additionally, my pet peeves for FW debaters are that they throw out TVAs without explaining why their TVA resolves any literature provided by the 1AC. i view TVAs as crucial for evaluating the round but without any justification for your TVA, there is an extremely high threshold of winning on it

- for K debaters, it is your job to defend why your model of debate is a better alternative to normative debate practices and impact or internal link turn the FW impacts for offense. Also, explain your counter-interpretation and why that has a net benefit to the model of this round or model of debate as a whole.

2. k affirmatives - i love them a lot and i've experimented with them throughout my high school career - while i see the value of K affirmatives and i do not auto default to "defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan" - this does NOT mean i'll understand the nuances of your aff without explanation

- it is your responsibility to:

1. explain the thesis of the 1AC

2. warrant the method/solvency of the 1AC

3. justify my relationship as a judge to the ballot and the round

4. explain the 1AC's relationship to the resolution whether that be positive or negative.

Lack of sufficient explanation of these 4 things increases my chances of voting presumption and/or FW in the debate

3. k v k debates - one of the most underrated debates to have - for K affirmative, explaining the 1AC's theory of power, perm, root cause, and comparisons between the 1AC and alt will help me understand the interaction between the 1AC and the K - for K negative, explaining the link and its relationship to the 1AC and method v method will isolate the ballot for me

4. policy affs - case debate are great to see - whether that entails impact defense, impact turns, specific case defense or offense, every reason provided to the 2NR are reasons to lower the threshold of voting aff - presumption is a thing and i do vote on it

5. cp - i'll reward teams who read specific solvency evidence pertaining to the aff's plan while it is not a necessity - but, what is a necessity though, is internal and/or external net benefits to the CP and how it competes against the aff solvency - i like to see unique and strategic counterplans whether they are abusive or not - but, the more abusive a CP becomes, the more i'll grant aff leniency to theory, i.e. international actors or private actors

6. da - i believe that link portions in a disad are extremely underrated - more and more i see disad links become generic links to the plan and the internal link story of the disad becomes really sketch. in the end, it ends up being an impact framing debate by the 2NR and 2AR

- while i highly regard top-level impact framing and turns case arguments and i'll reward a team that does one well, i do believe that a disad should have a coherent link and i/l story to decrease my threshold on it - i would rather see an impact turn round than see a 1NR mindlessly read 10 UQ wall cards on Biden's midterms

7. k- this is the area where i have interacted the most in my junior and senior year - framework and link debates are the most important to me and this is where your debates should be focused on anyway - whether you read a 2 minute o/v on your K or do line-by-line, i want to learn about how your literature is affected by the 1AC, the 1AC's politics, or the 1AC's rhetoric. And, i want to know what is my relationship to the K and how i should evaluate my ballot.

- i do not want to listen to your prewritten blocks and overviews discussing the nuances of your literature; i could've spent my time better reading comments from 40-year-old moms on Goodreads about your book than you spreading to me 8 minutes in the 2NC about it.

- if you pull lines from the 1AC text contextualizing the aff to the link, i'll heavily boost your speaks - for the alternative, i expect you to tell me if you are judge kicking it or not. if you aren't, i hope listen to a coherent story on how the alt resolves the links and examples of the alt happening either within debate or in politics

- most importantly, explain your buzzwords because it becomes so easy to see when a debater is vomiting random words because they are unfamiliar with the literature. Remember, debate is a discussion between you and the opponent, and your speaks will reflect if you make the debate inaccessible to them.

8. t - i could care less if you read 4 T shells out of your 10 offs, but your decision to go for it in the neg block and the 2NR, purely relies upon your ability to articulate: 1. the warrants of your standards 2. the impact it has in-round and out-of-round and what their plan justifies 3. the credibility of your interpretation and why the aff violates it. When it comes to competing interps and reasonability, i default to competing interps unless given instruction and explanation why reasonability outweighs competing interps.

9. theory - my general ideology on theory or any miscellaneous theory args is: go big or go home - while it defers to a round-by-round basis, i want to hear a 5-minute theory speech than a shoddily extended 45-second theory shell in the 2NR or 2AR. it is your job to justify why the opponent provides an abusive world of debate and how that led to issues in-round. i have no biases in voting for quirky theory arguments (i refuse to call them frivolous bc that's what PF and LD call them and i don't want to associate myself with them). Theory debate legitimately makes my day and i love to see a round that invests their time in one.

miscellaneous:

my speaks start at 28 and will go up or down depending on how well u speak, coordinate w ur partner, being nice to ur opponents, etc. but here are some pet peeves...

1. pet peeves:

- stealing prep (DON'T U DARE TOUCH UR COMPUTER WHEN UR PARTNER IS GOING TO THE RESTROOM)

- taking a millennia to send out the doc (marked or not)

- speaking over each other in cx

- asking "did you read 'x' card" more than once in a cx

- calling me judge instead of yongjin or you

- card clipping results in max 20 speaks - but, card clipping accusations need to be debated in-round for me to assign a loss - however, i will only assign an auto-loss if it is a bubble round because i believe that those who card clip should not be in elim rounds

- not disclosing the aff and 2nr strats pre-round unless its new

- experience in ld & parli

- i have small brain => pls do not be confusing

- have fun. if u don't have fun, i'll give u 20 speaks. :)

ty <3

I do speech events at Leland HS.

I've been doing speech and debate since middle school. I am more comfortable with judging speech events, but I have judged debate events, mainly PF. I will be flowing. I am pretty inexperienced regarding technicalities, so treat me like a lay judge. I enjoy cross, so make that count! Most importantly, have fun.

For Debate

Keep it simple, no off-topic or irrelevant arguments at all, keep improbable impacts off the table. Make sure you combine good, clear speaking with understandable arguments

For Speech

Simple and clear, good modulation and enunciation, and a topic to learn more about.

Let's try to keep it fast, fair, and efficient.

P.S.

K's, theory, spreading CPs are all allowed and praised.

Leland '22 Michigan '26

conner.shih.debate@gmail.com

Judging should be all tech, no truth. The only thing that factors into my decision is what has been said by the debaters. That means 'I don't care what arguments you go for or how many off you read in the 1NC.'

K in high school, policy in college. That just means do the better debating and you will win.

You can insert rehighlightings as long as its implication is explained. Recuttings of parts of the article not originally present in the card should be read.

I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the round or personal callouts.

Condo is good. Judgekick is good. Plan text in a vacuum is good.

Fairness is good. It is an independent impact. Unless it's not.

Big fan of the perm double bind. Not a fan of Kant.

Link uniqueness is important. You should read cards.

Don’t be problematic.

I have 3 years of experience with Parli debate at Leland. Be organized, signpost, speak clearly, and weigh. I prefer on-case debate; please refrain from running Kritiks and only run Theory when it is absolutely necessary.

PF at Leland High School for 3 years

- You can speak decently fast

- No extending through ink

- Extend everything in final focus

- You don’t have to extend full card names

- I don’t vote off cross but please be polite

- Make sure you weigh your impacts

- Don’t misconstrue evidence

- Please cut all your cards, it makes things much easier

- I’m not comfortable with theory

Thank you have fun!

Don’t be too unclear, present under stable topics and arguments, be clear and considerate with what you are arguing, and just have and fun experience debating

Hey!

I am currently a varsity debater in LD at Leland, and I also have some experience in PF and Policy. I don't have any particular preferences, as long as arguments are well-explained and have impacting. I do not do circuit nor have experience with theory, K, spreading etc, so I would prefer not to judge it, but I'll try my best.

Look forward to a great debate!