Tabroom.com

ADL Smart Debate PF Tournament

2021 — Taipei, TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Kara Chao Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 11:02 PM CST

info

kcis '25!!

did pf+speech(rarely but I'll put this here), and currently in the third year of doing policy debate!

kch23455978@gmail.com

preferences in sd&pf

-quality>quantity: i prefer seeing good evidence and arguments warranted out clearly than a whole list of arguments(or evidence) read during your speeches without any deeper explanation or further extension in later speeches. 1 good argument that is well-warranted and well extended throughout the round >> 5 arguments that were read once and poorly explained

-tech>truth

-write the reason for decision(rfd) for me in your final speeches(summary+final focus): i would prefer seeing arguments and/or contentions laid out for me to evaluate; tell me why you win and what you are winning on

-do clashes: I will most likely not vote for you if there isn't an attempt to clash with your opponent's argument(even if you tell a good story of your arguments) a huge part of debate is about clash, tell me why I should prefer your argument over your opponent's

-impact calculus

-> however you want to do impact calc is okay for me, just make sure you have it in your final speech telling me what i should vote on and on what level do you outweigh the opposing side

-> i'd like to see statistics brought up while doing impact calc, it allows me evaluate args quantitatively while making my decision(which boosts your chances of winning ofc:)

additionals:

-i prefer line by line given during speeches(esp the rebuttal speech)that specifically answers your opponent's argument, it makes the whole debate organized, clear, and easy to flow for both me and your opponents

-i will not evaluate anything extended in ff that is not in the summary speech

-speaker points: i generally give high speaks; prefer clarity over speed but speed doesn't really matter for me, as long as it is clear and understandable it should be fine for me.

-time your speeches. you should keep track of your own speech/cx/prep time

-flow flow flow(preferably on paper b/c its much easier)

-lastly.. be respectful and enjoy the tournament!

--if you have any questions regarding my paradigm, feel free to ask preround

Janise Chiang Hire 8 rounds

Kris Chiu Hire 8 rounds

Kyle Chiu Hire 8 rounds

Emma Chuo Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 2:32 AM CST

hi! I'm Emma :) my pronouns are she/her/hers, and I'm a junior (class of '25) debating with ADL and attending TES (for those of you in Taiwan). I'm in my fourth year of CX, but I also do some extemp, world schools, and PF on the side. feel free to email me at eyhchuo@gmail.com for any questions!

Smart Debate (SD)/Public Forum (PF)

it's difficult to lay out reasons in exact bullet-points for what you should do for me to vote for you (because they depend on the substance and technical debating in different rounds), but here are a few things I believe in which help me judge:

1 --- tech over truth. if you tell me the sky is pink and the other team doesn't tell me otherwise, I think it's true for the sake of the debate round. that being said, I will not vote on that argument alone without you telling me why it matters, which leads me to:

2 --- framing/judge instruction. I need to know how you want me to evaluate the debate --- i.e. which arguments you think matter and why they matter + why you think, under that framing, your arguments matter more than your opponents' arguments. to explain that, you need:

3 --- well-explained link and internal link stories. you need to tell me what your arguments mean for me to vote for you and even make a decision at all! also, if I don't know what your arguments mean, it's likely that I won't understand the ways that you're using an argument (e.g. if you say that your contention A answers their contention B, but not tell me what contention A means, I won't understand why contention A can be used to rebut contention B, which means that I'll probably still give **close to** 100% risk to contention B.). finally:

4 --- impact/why your story matters. you should try to do impact calculus to tell me why your arguments matter more than your opponents'. this way I can decide between two different stories from two different sides.

+ I absolutely LOVE smart link and impact turns so if you can win on that you’re amazing but even if you don’t end up winning on it I’ll give you some extra you’re-a-smart-person speaker points

Speaks

usually I give out speaks within the 27.5-29.5 range; if you get higher than that, you are extraordinary. am literally hailing you you are my favorite speaker ever I tell all my friends about you keep up the good work you are a literal boss. if you get lower for that, it's most likely just because of discriminatory or disrespectful behavior that I do not and will not tolerate in any instance. please please just be nice.

if you're in the bottom half of the 27.5-29.5 range, my suggestion would be to practice your speech more and be more confident in it because it was probably great; speak louder & read clearer. if you're in the top half of this range, congrats! keep it up! for more detailed comments about speaks though, you can always ask me through email, in person, etc.

Others

I do NOT tolerate any discriminatory behavior (racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, or being rude to your partner or opponents). I'll do my best to make this a safe space because what really matters is that you get a place to speak about your ideas --- so please do reciprocate by being nice to everyone.

thanks for reading & enjoy your debates! :)

Brandon Gergel Hire 8 rounds

Brian Huang Hire 8 rounds

Ethan Huang Hire 8 rounds

Coco Kuo Hire 8 rounds

Adam Lin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 9:39 AM CST

----for ADL tournaments----

IF you go for an impact turn and win I will give you 30 speaks

IF you buy me food I will give you 30 speaks

IF you are a good debater I will give you 30 speaks

IF you roast Ray Wang or Micah Wang in your speech you will get 30 speaks.

bad jokes = -0.5 speaks - do it at your own risk

POLICY

----About me----

Taipei American School '23, Northwestern '27

I have been debating since the immigration topic.

I have been 1A/2N, 2A/1N, and double 2s.

I have qualified for the TOC twice.

I have zero knowledge of the 2023-2024 topic.

----Generic----

1. I will not flow crossfire/CX unless something is conceded.

2. I will time prep if you ask but it is still your responsibility.

3. Please add me to email chain: 23adaml.debate@gmail.com

4. Please set up an email chain or prepare whatever you need prior to the round.

5. respect your opponents and judge, please

----TL;DR----

tech over truth (most of the time)

strike me if you're gonna read high theory - I never have/never will read them, I don't vibe with them

warranting + explanation > spreading thru cards

condo is probably good

depth over breadth - especially in the block

overviews are nice unless it trades off with clash

YES:

aff-specific DAs

impact calc/comparison

card indicts/rehighlightings

agency CPs

some process CPs are fine

judge kick

blue highlighting

NO:

death good

lopez

rider DA

kicking planks

any kind of hate

yellow highlighting

----T----

Well-debated T debates = highest speaks

I probably won't vote on Ts about punctuation/"of"/"The"/"Resolved"

FXT, Extra T are hard to vote on solely based on it

reasonability is a bad argument

fairness is a terminal impact only if dropped

----DA----

ptx DAs should have an overview

Thumpers are great

warrant out all your cards - most DAs end up being just a ton of random cards

diversify your warrants don't just spam cards in the 1NR

If the scenario is absurd I'll probably not vote on it considering the risk

If the DA is creative/I haven't seen, +0.2 speaks

Aff-specific DAs, if executed well/is true, +0.2 speaks

I often find teams not doing the internal link debate, which is usually super weak - I do vote on this

impact calc is essential to a W

turns case scenarios are nice - but tell me why you turn them not they turn you

----CP----

Judge Kick is the default unless the Aff says something and that's dropped

Kicking planks is okay unless the Aff gives a reason why not

Multi-plank counterplans can be strategic, but I often find them abusive.

Would vote on cheaty process CPs

Consult CPs are disgusting

I will vote on sufficiency framing unless the aff specifies a solvency deficit that outweighs the net benefit (modelling etc.)

I will "reject the argument not the team" especially when the CP is super abusive (specifics on theory)

----K----

I've been a policy team my whole life so you need to explain if the lit base isn't cap, set col, bioptx, security, etc.

Not the biggest fan of K affs unless it is well explained. That being said, I'm all for K affs that are somewhat related to the resolution, especially teams that explain to me why the alt is key for solving a specific thing. Being vague is bad.

Framework v. K Affs - I'm easily persuaded by fairness as an impact. That also means I'm susceptible to impact turns, which means that winning competitive models of debate is key to winning the ballot - i.e. why your model is more debatable.

Aff framework v. Ks - almost never the voter, aff should get to weigh the aff, neg should get the K, link debating is the most important

Generic K links are bad - please read specific cards and explain it well. Long overviews are nice but make sure it doesn't trade off with clash. If generic, you must somehow spin it/contextualize in a way that makes coherent sense, otherwise it's hard for me to give the neg a link

no baudrillard

Aff impact turns against cap and security are nice, often find myself erring aff on them

If you're not black, don't run afropess

99% of the time, defense won't be enough for an Aff ballot

----Theory----

I probably won't vote on theory unless there's clear abuse (ex: lopez CP, 4+ CPs in 1NC, etc.) that means even if not dropped, spending enough time explaining that abuse can win you the ballot

Dropping theory isn't an instant voter - you still need to explain to me the abuse that has happened within the round

T outweighs theory - don't BS me

any DA theory is BS

severance is a reason to reject the argument 99% of the time

going for theory = lower speaks (only a bit) cuz I do think substance should be the core of debate

2AC theory should be in the doc - I find that teams just spread through a one-liner and hope they drop it

----Misc----

Speed - The only thing I care about is clarity (separate tags from the card itself, signposting is good). Don't read speed Ks. If the opponents are too fast, chances are I can't flow them either. I will intervene when it's too unclear.

Organize speech doc and speech in general and please highlight the cards. Don't say 'stop prep' and take 2+ minutes to send the doc - if there's a problem, tell me. Do send cards in the body of the email.

Don't be too pressing and be nice during cx - it can be a determinant of speaks if done well. I also think cx is binding. Avoiding questions will lower your speaks

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum

I probably don't know the topic that well, so a clear explanation/overview is very important.

1. In round behavior matters - Be nice and kind

2. Speed doesn't matter, as long as both the other team and I can understand, be CLEAR

3. No preference for specific arguments

4. Crossfire should be done in a civilized way - don't speak loudly at the same time as opponents.

5. Don't extend cards without explaining the warrants and linking it to the args.

6. It's good to compare different parts of different arguments on both sides to show how you outweigh.

7. Please do Line-by-line if possible, at least show what argument you are moving on to. Organize your speeches and flow.

8. You MUST show me WHY and HOW you win the debate in order for me to vote for your team. PERSUASION IS KEY!!!

9. I will vote on RESOLVED arguments, if there are random arguments that are left unanswered or not clear, I will not vote on that. Also if an argument is dropped, you must mention it or I will disregard it completely.

----Speaker Points Rubric [for both]----

30-29 hands down you're a great speaker. A few minor flaws could affect your speaks but it already exceeds my standards.

29-28 You are doing well, but there are probably some key things that you missed. Great speaking overall!

28-27 You're gonna have to work on your speaking a little more.

27-26 This is the speaks I will give to someone who I can't really understand/sounds like clipping/interrupting others.

<26 Forfeiting a speech, offensive language, or inappropriate behavior in general - please don't!!!

Tyler Prochazka Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:04 PM CST

Email: tynews2001@gmail.com

I participated in four years of policy debate in high school and I debated four years at Western Kentucky University.

I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.

When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.

If you are running critical/performance arguments, please be familiar with the argument and able to intellectually defend it. My personal preference when I debate is usually policy-oriented discussions and my personal bias is that switch-side policy debate is good, but I don't let this inform my decision in the round. At the same time, I think that non-traditional forms of debate are an important component of the community and have an important message to broadcast, and as such, I have voted for performance affs in the past.

The following is a preference and not a requirement. It is common for me to judge teams running non-traditional forms of arguments and personally be unfamiliar with the literature base. Thus, it is probably in your interest to ask if I'm familiar with a non-traditional argument prior to the round unless you plan to explain it extensively in the round. An argument is inherently less persuasive when the messenger also does not fully understand it, and the debate is probably less educational for everyone involved as a result. In general, I think you should be familiar with any argument you read before you deploy it in-round, but I've found this is more frequently an issue when high school debaters deploy the critical literature base. If I don't think you are familiar with your argument, I won't hold it against you in my RFD (although it will inform my speaker points), but it will probably influence whether you are able to effectively deploy the argument on the flow, where I will vote.

Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the RFD should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.

Alva Tang Hire 8 rounds

Addison Wang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 3:53 AM CST

Addison.Wang.NZ@gmail.com

he/him/his | ADL; FPS'26

Hello! I'm currently a high schooler at Taipei Fushing Private School in Taiwan. I mainly do CX debate and am currently in my 4th year of debating CX, but I previously did around 3 years of PF

*This paradigm was inspired by Tyler Prochazka, Gabe Esquivel, and Lily Ottinger's, meaning if you don't understand anything I wrote here, reference their paradigms :D*

General

T/L

I'm open to any argument, but please make sure that your arguments are supported by warrants, even if it's theory. I will not consider your claims without warrants, even if they are conceded. However, if the opposing team fails to challenge a poorly warranted claim, I will assume it to be true unless it's nonsensical.

Make sure you do clash between arguments. This means you answer your opponents' arguments, do line-by-line, and set yourself up for your strategies in your later speeches. Evidence comparison and impact weighing are good. Explain why your arguments are better than your opponents'.

Tech > truth, meaning if you have a card that backs your statement, it only matters to me if you impact it out for me in terms of why that means I buy your argument.

Quality > quantity, meaning develop strong, lasting arguments instead of running a bunch of weak ones. Despite that, I still respect any choice you find strategic but be prepared to defend your choice!

Clarity > speed. You can go as fast as you desire, but if it's not clear or if I can't understand it, then I won't take it into account in my RFD

Frame the ballot! State how the RFD should be written if I were to vote for you. If you do not provide any ballot-directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD based on my understanding of the arguments presented. Therefore, it's in your best interest to provide clear instructions on the RFD.

Make sure you time yourself! I will still time them but it's wise to keep track of how much time you have during your speech.

T/L

Cross-x isn't explicitly "closed," but each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties.

Please do not be racist, sexist, violent, etc in a way that may be hazardous to someone in the debate. I would prefer not to judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments in a debate.

Speaks range from around 26.5 to 29, but I have and will give higher or lower speaks depending on how the round goes.

Please disclose 30 minutes prior to the round. Shady disclosure practices are discouraged.

Topicality

Caselists are very important.

The presence of other NEG positions is not a defense to a ground argument. The AFF being disclosed is not a defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.

I default to competing interpretations, so do a lot of clash and evidence comparisons

Disads

They're great!

Impact turns are underrated.

Counterplans

I will NOT judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise.

Conditionality seems to be necessary for debate, but I agree that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not good. Increased condo usually leads to worse debating, but do what you need to do. I don't lean on any side, particularly for this.

I'm open to any theory arguments as long as you develop clear warrants for them.

PICs of any sort are fine in my opinion.

Kritiks

Not a heavy K debater.

Framework needs warrants and specific impacts to them for both AFF and NEG. Provide judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose the framework interpretation. Weighing the AFF against the K is reasonable in my opinion.

Read specific links to the AFF if you're NEG.

Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.

Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The NEG can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.

Planless/K-AFFs

I hate them with a fiery passion, but you're free to run them if you'd like. I'd probably lean on NEG, however.

T-USFG is a great strategy. I especially like TVA arguments with solvency advocates or examples of SSD. Make sure to explain why your impacts outweigh theirs.

Presumption is also a great strategy against these types of arguments.

SD/PF

In general, make sure you clearly explain your arguments to me. Do line-by-line and impact calculus. I personally value magnitude the most, followed by probability then timeframe, but how you structure and place your arguments is up to you!

Chloe Wang Hire 8 rounds

Micah Wang Hire 8 rounds

Ray Wang Hire 8 rounds

H Dylan Willett Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 3, 2023 at 10:39 AM CDT

Email me if you have questions and please put me on the chain: dylan.willett8 at gmail dot com as well as taiwanheg@gmail.com. I coach for the Asian Debate League. I debated for UMKC. In college, I mostly went for framework, topic DAs, and an assortment of topic critiques. As a coach I mostly have spent the last year working on random policy stuff, but have spent a lot of time working with critical approaches to the topic as well.

Be bold, read something new, it will be rewarded if you do it well. Analysis of evidence is important. I have found that over the past few years I have grown my appreciation for more of the policy side of research not in an ideological lean, but rather I am not starting from negative with process counterplans, I appreciate clever disadvantages, etc. If you have good cards, I am more willing to reward that research and if you do something new, I will definitely be happy.

I begin my decisions by attempting to identify what the most important arguments are, who won them, and how they implicate the rest of the debate. The more judge instruction, including dictating where I should begin my decision by showing me what is most important will help determine the lens of how I read the rest of the arguments

I find that I am really annoyed by how frequently teams are asking major flow clarifications like sending a new file that removes the evidence that was skipped. Please just flow, if there is an actual issue that warrants a question its obviously ok, but in most situations it comes across as not paying attention to the speeches which is a bit frustrating.

I like good, strategic cross-ex. If you pay attention and prepare for your cx, it pays dividens in points and ballots. Have a plan. Separate yourself and your arguments here!

I am a big fan of case debates that consist of a lot of offense – impact turns or link turns are always better than just pulling from an impact d file.

I think that I mostly lean negative on theory arguments – I would be really sad if I had to parse through a huge theory debate like condo, but am willing. I think I start from a predisposition that condo, PICs, etc are okay, and change based off the theory debate as it develops. I think theory is an important part of an affirmative strategy versus good, and especially cheaty, counterplans. I don't think education is a super persuasive argument in theory debates I have found. Way easier to go for some type of fairness argument and compare internal links versus going for some abstract notion about how conditionality benefits or hurts "advocacy skills".

In framework debates, the best teams spend a lot of their speeches on these flows answering the nuanced developments of their opponents. AFF or NEG teams that just say a different wording of their original offense in each speech are setting themselves up to lose. I am interested in hearing what debates would look like under each model. I like education arguments that are contextual to the topic and clever TVAs and impact turns are good ways to get my ballot while making the debate less stale. I find the framework teams that lose my ballot most are those that refuse to turn (on the link level or impact level, in appropriate manner) AFF offense. I find the K AFF teams that lose my ballot most are those that don't double down on their offense and explain how the NEGs impacts fit in your depiction of how debate operates.

Ks, DAs, CPs, T, FW, etc are all fine to read and impact turn – as long as I am judging a round where there is some attention to strategy and arguments are being developed, I will be happy. Definitely willing to vote on zero risk of a link.

Jordan Yao Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:49 AM PDT

Hi I'm Jordan Y. As of right now I am in 6th grade.

I have been doing policy and PF for 1 year.

PF tournaments: 4

Policy tournaments: 7

I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.

When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.

If you are running critical/performance arguments, please be familiar with the argument and able to intellectually defend it. My personal preference when I debate is usually policy-oriented discussions and my personal bias is that switch-side policy debate is good, but I don't let this inform my decision in the round. At the same time, I think that non-traditional forms of debate are an important component of the community and have an important message to broadcast, and as such, I have voted for performance affs in the past.

The following is a preference and not a requirement. It is common for me to judge teams running non-traditional forms of arguments and personally be unfamiliar with the literature base. Thus, it is probably in your interest to ask if I'm familiar with a non-traditional argument prior to the round unless you plan to explain it extensively in the round. An argument is inherently less persuasive when the messenger also does not fully understand it, and the debate is probably less educational for everyone involved as a result. In general, I think you should be familiar with any argument you read before you deploy it in-round, but I've found this is more frequently an issue when high school debaters deploy the critical literature base. If I don't think you are familiar with your argument, I won't hold it against you in my RFD (although it will inform my speaker points), but it will probably influence whether you are able to effectively deploy the argument on the flow, where I will vote.

(Credit to Tyler Prochazka for the awesome paradigm)

"Made by Jordan Y 5/11/2020"

Login to Tabroom

ADL Smart Debate PF Tournament

2021 — Taipei, TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

Judges