Current LD Debater/past middle school debater.

Make good arguments, weigh them, be respectful, and most importantly, have fun!

Background:

I've been doing debate for 6 years. I'm on the Varsity PF debate team at Thomas Jefferson High School.

PF Debate:

Tech ---x------- Truth

Clarity X---------- Who doesn't like clarity

- Respond to first rebuttal turns in second rebuttal or it's too late

- Extend the warrant and impact of argument(s) in later speeches

- Please no theory or Ks

Speed:

- I can only write down things so fast so keep that in mind

- Signpost so I know what you're talking about

As a Russian and Ukrainian, I stand with Ukraine.

MS debate

Parliamentary debate:

I will flow pretty much everything you say in the round to the best of my ability. I can handle speed but not spreading (300+ WPM) without getting a speech document. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Assume I don't know the nuances about the topic you are debating, so if your arguments are complex, be sure to explain them well.

Framework/Definitions: If a framework isn't mentioned, I will default to the resolution and choose which side does more benefits/harms. The 1st prop can choose to define terms in the resolution, but it is not required. If the definitions are unreasonable, the opp can propose their own definitions, but please provide a reason about why you think they are unreasonable.

New Arguments: I won't accept any brand new arguments in the last two speeches unless the 3rd prop, the very last speech, is responding to new arguments made by the 2nd and 3rd opp speeches. That being said, feel free to elaborate on arguments you've already made.

Weighing: It's super important to weigh the arguments at the end of the round. This means explaining why, even if I believe all the arguments made by both sides, your team would still win the round.

Speaker points: At the end of tournaments, my speaker points usually range between 67-83. Eloquence, body language, taking POIs, and a touch of humor in your speeches will help your speaker points while rudeness will hurt them.

If you have any questions, please ask them before the round. I will disclose my decision in detail at the end of the round. Most importantly, have fun! :)

I am not a formally trained debater. Please do not spread, and explain your logic clearly. Refrain from using fancy debate terms, I will not understand them.

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

Please put me on the chain - s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com AND georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com (if policy).

Debate should be fun for everyone. If I can help you in any way when it comes to your comfort or safety in the round, let me know.

OV:

1. I don't have much topic knowledge.

2. I will not open docs until after the debate ends.

3. You must disclose anything that isn't new.

4. I am best for teams that, in the 2NR/2AR, tell a cohesive and pretty story about the technical debating that has occurred. If this is helpful, I am most persuaded by teams that debate like: Georgetown AM/BK/KL, Dartmouth SV/TV, Wake EF, Harvard BS.

Policy stuff:

I judge this most.

I basically only read cards as a tiebreaker for technical debating in close debates.

Try or die framing is not very persuasive to me. I evaluate relative risk of advantage vs disadvantage. The risk of the advantage linearly decreases with the risk of solvency.

Arguments about the procedure of debate/debating counterplans are more persuasive to me as theory, not competition. This is not a particularly strong opinion.

I will almost certainly not reject the team for anything other than conditionality.

Planless affs:

I don't judge this much. My voting record is 50/50. I vote affirmative either when the negative drops a trick, or the aff wins sufficient defense to neg debatability offense such that a K of the reading/imposition of T outweighs.

I can't imagine a 2AR that convinces me to vote on "they flipped neg to read T and that's bad." It's a logical criticism of a non-topical affirmative. Similarly, if the 2NR doesn’t go for T, it will be hard to persuade me to vote on disads to their interpretation.

K:

I judge this a bit more. My voting record leans slightly policy. This is broadly a reflection of who has done the better technical debating in the particular rounds I have judged. I generally vote negative when the neg wins a framework argument and a link that outweighs aff link turns.

I really enjoy critiques that make aff specific and nuanced arguments for why the affirmative is bad, premised on framework arguments that emphasize the importance of how we do research or justify policy.

I am very bad for Ks that rely on the logic of cause and effect - if links are non-unique, it makes no sense to attempt to attempt to garner offense from a unique consequence of the plan.

"Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me."

Email: yiwen.wu76@gmail.com

Please add both yiwen.wu76@gmail.com and mcleanpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain.

Background: I am a parent judge. I have judged a few PF tournaments in the past (mainly on the local circuit).

PF: Please do not spread; explain your logic clearly. Do not use debate jargon, I probably won't understand it.

I will flow what I hear. Sign post with arguments not authors.

I will not evaluate arguments with weak or misleading evidence/warranting.

All offense/defense you want me to evaluate must be in both summary and final focus. Please weigh.

I will not understand or evaluate progressive arguments. 

Speaker Points: Please be polite and respectful at all times. I will take off speaker points if you are not doing well/rude in cross.