I'm an independent debate coach in Shenzhen and Huizhou, before that I debated and coached policy in USA at high school and university level. This philosophy is intended for PF tournaments in China and to guide students to do well in general.

Overall, I'm looking for balanced debate performances that emphasize great public speaking, confidence, logical arguments, proficient use of evidence, and persuasive weighing.

In the constructive speech, make sure that the titles and warrants to your contentions are read clearly.

In the rebuttal speech, try to generate offense and don't forget to cross-apply relevant data/warrants from your constructive speech.

In the summary speech, make choices. Don't just summarize the debate. Start with an overview that crystallizes the debate by identifying the key clashes or important issues. Start the weighing process. Why is the clash that you are winning important? Then, move on to the line-by-line. Defend the contentions that you intend to win the debate on by rebutting the opponent's rebuttals. Remember, the final focus is built on the summary speech, so it's worth taking prep time to align with the second speaker's strategy.

In the final focus, crystalize the debate. This would sound something like this: "The benefits of the UMT clearly outweigh the harms because confronting inequality has a far greater impact than a small reduction in business investment; it's also the right thing to do." Then weigh the debate using criteria like timeframe, magnitude, scope, probability, ethics, and turns. Finally, extend some of your key data points or warrants and rebut the most pressing points from your opponent.

In crossfire, have a goal. In the first crossfire, a good goal would be to prove to the judge that a few of the premises of your case are true. e.g. inequality is a serious problem, the exit tax stops capital flight, etc. In the second crossfire, it's a good idea to try to prove that some key elements of the opponent's case are wrong. You can do this by showing a contradiction or disputing facts. In the grand crossfire, it's time to focus on the clashes. Show that you're winning them and which one is most important. In terms of style, I prefer that you let each other answer, that you don't ask too long of questions or answer for too long, and that you don't waste too much time asking for evidence. Write questions before cross-fire starts.

Overall, I'll hold debaters accountable for what's on the flow. If you don't extend something, you won't get credit for it. And, when you extend something, I expect a warrant and impact to come with it. Get in the habit of saying 'because', 'for example', and 'this is important because'.

Have fun, and try to have a growth mindset. I'll give you feedback, and I hope that you approach it with an open-mind. That being said, I do believe that "pull beats push". In other words, you know what you want feedback on and you shouldn't be afraid to ask. Consider asking questions like: "How could I have persuaded you that x = y?" or "Why didn't you find x point important to your decision?". General questions like "How can I improve?" are less effective than specific questions about the debate or your performance.

If you have any further questions that the ballot or post-round discussion didn't answer, feel free to contact me on

WeChat: m123farmer

you can ask for my paradigm before a round begins

Edward Luo

2nd Place Team at the 2020 TOC

Speed Preferences: Talking fast is acceptable, but I may not catch everything so I recommend slowing down to emphasize your key points (or use tone and volume/other methods to emphasize).

I like to see debaters weigh during Summary and Final Focus. I will ultimately make my decision based on whichever side successfully convinces me that their impacts have better links and outweigh the other team's impacts.

I will never make arguments for either side (or assume you imply certain meanings), so even if you think that the opponent has said a ridiculous argument that is obviously wrong, you should still make a brief effort to rebut it.

I generally favor teams with strong evidence. If one side logically or anecdotally explains how A leads to B, but the other team provides statistics showing the opposite, I will usually side with the team with the statistics (Unless the first team can prove to me how those statistics do not contradict their claim).

If your opponent gives evidence that seems false, ask for an evidence check or provide evidence that shows the opposite.

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

PF

• In my view, the goal of debate is to educate debaters on both the topic area and the practice of debating.
• I come to the debate expecting the debaters to explain not just what their arguments are, but why they matter and, more importantly, why I should vote on them.
• Overall, I will evaluate a debate based on the analysis given in the Final Focus as to why a team should win the round. If that analysis is inconclusive or unpersuasive I will work backward across my flow until I can find an RFD.
• The role of the summary speaker is to summarize. Summary speakers who do 3 minutes of rebuttal will be penalized speaker points.
• I do not flow crossfire. The way I see it, CF is for the debaters to clarify the debate and bring new information to light. Nothing in CF will ever be a voting issue unless it is brought up later in a speech.
• I don't care about dropped arguments unless I'm told a reason why dropping that argument matters.
• Doing evidence check will result in a loss of speaker points. It is a waste of everyone's time. If you missed something, ask about it in crossfire.
• Doing evidence check and not actually analysing the evidence in the following speech will result in an even greater loss of speaker points.
• If the tournament allows, I will give oral feedback in addition to the feedback on the ballot.

Case Construction: I value well-structured cases that present clear, logical arguments supported by credible evidence. Arguments should be signposted clearly, making it easy to follow along. I appreciate when debaters articulate the significance of their arguments and how they interact with their opponent's case.

Evidence and Empiricism: Quality evidence is paramount. I expect debaters to present statistical support and explain its relevance and impact on the debate. Misrepresenting evidence or failing to provide sources upon request will negatively affect my assessment of your credibility.

Clash and Engagement: A good debate is characterised by direct engagement with the opponent's arguments. I look for teams that can effectively refute and dismantle their opponent's case through logical reasoning and evidence rather than simply restating their case. Rebuttals should be specific and address the core of the opposing argument.

Delivery: Clear and concise delivery enhances persuasiveness. Speed is acceptable as long as it does not sacrifice clarity. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their arguments, making it easy for the judge and the audience to follow.

Crossfire: I view crossfire as an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extend arguments. I appreciate debaters who ask pointed questions and provide direct answers. Civility and respect during crossfire are non-negotiable.

Final Focus: The final focus should crystallize why your team wins the round, tying back to the framework or weighing mechanism established earlier. Be clear and concise, prioritizing your strongest arguments and why they outweigh your opponent's.

Decision Rationale: My decision will be based on the flow, considering which team has effectively established their case, utilized evidence more persuasively, and engaged more effectively in refutation and rebuttal. I value strategic argumentation that demonstrates understanding the round's key issues and how they interact.

Feedback: I believe in constructive feedback that helps debaters grow. I aim to provide specific and actionable comments that focus on both strengths and areas for improvement.

Conclusion: As a judge, I aim to foster an environment where debaters feel challenged and supported in their growth. I look forward to rounds that showcase the debaters’ ability to argue and their passion for the topics they are discussing.

Cards cannot replace links. Be sure to bridge the gap between the evidence and your case. 

Be careful not to discredit your opponents' response to your case or rebuttal if they have responded. Respond to them directly and concisely in summary. 

Impact weighing is key in the FF. Sort out your priorities and weigh the essential clashes. 

Cooperation between the two partners can be a bonus. Be "in sync" with your partner on which impacts your case is focusing on, so that each speech weaves into the previous one. 

MSU ’26
Debated pf for 1 year during high school (China & US circuits), 2nd year doing policy debate (2a)
Please add me to the chain: zmmdb8@gmail.com
Pronouns: she/her/hers

- Zero tolerance for anything ethically or morally horrible (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, death good, any form of discrimination or harmful rhetoric, etc. directly lost you the debate)
- As an ESL I appreciate clarity over speed, go slightly slower on analytics please
- Extra speaks for pronouncing last names of Chinese authors correctly