Tabroom.com

ADL Smart Debate PF Tournament

2021 — Taipei, TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Janise Chiang Hire 8 rounds

Kris Chiu Hire 8 rounds

Kyle Chiu Hire 8 rounds

Joshua Cho Hire 8 rounds

Jacqueline Chu Hire 8 rounds None

Jay Chu 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

Ash Koh Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 9:27 AM EDT

ash.koh2026@gmail.com

I will not vote on ad-homs attacks or arguments about your opponent's personal character outside of debate (calls outs are actually a reverse voting issue), I honestly couldn't care any less what you do outside the debate round.

That being said, I am militantly tech over truth. I have many thoughts about debate, none of these thoughts will factor into my judging except my belief that ad homs are a RVI and that you must read cards (the lack of new cards in kritikal debates is an epidemic).

My name is Ash not judge. I do not share people's disdain for things like hidden ASPEC, process counterplans, LD/K tricks, taking analytics out of the doc, 9 off, etc... If it is on my flow I will be voting for it.

I am inclined to believe that debate is a game you play on the weekends, where you come to accumulate as many ballots as possible, NOT an educational or performative space. K teams who truly believe that they are becoming an intellectual or are focused on creating a safe space, need to join a book club or conference instead, surely you will learn more there than spreading about fiat. Policy teams who genuinely think they are better than 'cheating k debaters' and are here to learn about the topic are equally as silly, I would recommend you participate in a research project, debate teaches you educational bankruptcy.

You will not convince me otherwise on either of those statements but I will be more than happy to vote on 'you dropped that debate is [insert adjective]' or 'topicality is saving our activity' even if it is blatantly false.

The goal of debate is to beat your opponent not to demonstrate your bravery. In my ideal model of debate, everyone is cutting ~100 cards per case neg and the affirmative is reading a plan or has the latest impact turn cards. Yet that is not the state of our activity, if your argument is not completely new or your cards are not extremely good (it should be //shree quality). I am a big fan of you reading strategies described as 'clash avoidance' because if you are not going to try your best at research why engage the topic at all? Honestly, I'd rather you not bother, I would rather adjudicate the game where you 'out-tech people' like I would actually rather you read indexicals or robo-spec then have to see you read a prior to 2020 card on your topic disadvantage... (at least that teaches you some skills...)

Audrey Leu Hire 8 rounds

Gina Lin Hire

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 3:51 AM CST

Info

I am Gina, in the round you can call me Gina or judge I don't really care.

I have done pf for a bit and now currently doing JV policy.

Email me if you have any questions.

Email: ling28@ma.org.tw (btw this is my school email so please write something appropriate).

PLEASE DO NOT ASK HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE LEFT EITHER END THE SPEECH EARLY OR KEEP GOING

In the debate

I am ok with fast but if you are reading fast you have to be clear and understandable or else I won't flow it.

You can read your own researched arguments, but you have be sure you understand them (And you explain it in summary and final focus so you can win on that if you want to).

For crossfire you can chose if you want it to be opened or closed but your opponents have to agree.

In cross please don't ask questions like is your author reliable or explain all of your contentions it is useless questions and giving the opponents chance to explain their arguments to the judge.

You should be clear in rebuttal of what contention you are rebutting to, like now rebutting to things, argument, or something close to that or I might think you dropped the argument.

Please do impact calc in final focus and also weighing, it is important to me!!!

If you didn't extend it in the summary then don't extend it in the final focus or I won't count it.

I will also time you but please try to time yourself.

I am one of those judges who mainly votes on dropped contentions so remember to not drop any contentions!

If your opponents dropped something don't just say they dropped this actually explain it and how you win on it.

Also I LOVE debaters signposting (basically just saying moving on to extending this contention or moving on to rebuttals) it will make the debate easier and the judge will be easier to follow or flow your speech.

Smart debate:

I love impact calc in final focus

Be clear

Signpost

Don't drop arguments

Ask good crossfire questions

Public Forum:

Explain your impacts to me

Impact calc in final focus

Don't drop anything

Be clear in signposting and talking

Persuade me with impact actually explain it

WEIGH!!!!

Speaks

- If you are being rude or annoying or inappropriate speaks -3.

- If you don't speak clearly -2.

- Swearing -1.

- If I really like your contention then + 0.5 speaks.

- If you speak clearly +1.

- If you are being nice you will most likely get high speaks.

Good luck :)))

henry Lin Hire 8 rounds

Dylan Liu Hire 8 rounds

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

Iris Tsai Hire 8 rounds

Scarlett Tsai Hire

Micah Wang Hire 8 rounds

Mia Weng 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.

Bryce Yao Hire

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"

Hermes Yen Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 7:29 PM EDT

I like to think that I enter each debate tab, and I don't really have any preferences. Just make sure that you respect your opponents and your partner, bring in a good attitude, and have fun

yenh@mca.org.tw <-- questions/email chain

Please don't call me judge, Hermes is fine

Don't be late. I won't quite dock speaks, but I'll be less inclined to buy your Bing '37 card about how polar bears lead to rapid economic collapse

Case

Warranting is really what I look for, I don't care that much about evidence and whatnot, just make sure you explain the (internal) link thoroughly. I'm pretty tech > truth as long as it actually makes sense. I actually tried to build an anime case one time - so take that as you will.

I was taught from a young age to go for narratives, so that might be someone worth considering. Narratives help me (the judge) focus on one thing particularly, a strong narrative is often a voting incentive.

Rebuttal & Second Constructive

Really prefer line by line, makes flowing so much easier. Preferable if you answer arguments by extending your own, but it's fine if you don't. Again, warranting>evidence, don't throw cards at me. Analytic arguments are fine. Second team, please frontline in the rebuttal to make the debate fairer. Non-unique and delinks are fine, but make sure you have some offense on rebuttals too - link turns and outweighs. otherwise the argument could go on presumption.

Summary

First team, make sure that you prioritize frontlining, otherwise, I won't be judging your impacts. Absence of frontlines means that essentially you concede to rebuttals, so don't do that.

Remember, summaries and final focuses are about closing doors, not opening them. Be sure to collapse on arguments, please don't give me 38173 gazillion contentions in final.

If you have time, make sure to weigh. It makes the second speaker's life so much easier.

Go down key clash in the debate, explain why you think you won those, and explain why that matters.

(I won't flow new arguments)

Final

Make sure that you limit down, and collapse on the arguments you think you won. Impact calculus is really good, and a necessity for any good team.

Cross

Be respectful, please! In general, close-ended "trap" questions work best, and humor is much appreciated! Just don't be too mean. I don't flow cross, but it's binding and I do listen.

Progressive args

I used to hate them, now I like them. I have some background in policy, so "DA with framing impact" or "Generalized alternative" is good. Just don't abuse this - don't read four different counterplans each with their 20 planks.

Misc

Generally, I'm a-ok with speed, but make sure your opponents can understand. Debate is about communication, not overwhelming the other side (and the judge) with evidence. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing.

Please be respectful in general, and be nice, or else speaks go blop.

Framework is all too often not developed enough, but can be a powerful tool if developed correctly. It tells me how to judge a debate, and I'll default on whichever team has a frame. If you don't respond to a frame with a counter-frame, then there's nothing for me to vote on otherwise, and so will vote on the team that has a frame. Unless it's not warranted, or the team without framing tells me the frame is 1. unfair or 2. uneducational or 3. not topical or 4. not as good. If you just say your frame outweighs or something then I'll still go with whatever frame was provided first. This method is a tad bit unorthodox but I don't like switching frames unless there's something wrong with the first - I do give aff a bit of ground here with framework (as they go first).

Clash is necessary for me to decide the winning team, absence of clash will lead me to vote for whichever team has the most convincing warrants.

I try not to intervene, but find that at this level of debate it's difficult not to.

Policy

case

not much to be said here, big fan of progressive affs - read kaffs at your own risk, make sure YOU understand them and relate them to the topic

disad

make sure you win your impact (this is particularly important to me) as what i think that as long as the aff impact outweigh you, voting aff minimizes risk

please don't run seven off, i do have an innate preference for reasonable dispo. but by all means - go for condo on aff, it's an easy win if neg fumbles

topicality

less concerned with what the intent of nsda putting the reso out and more concerned with in-round implications of what voting neg or aff means.

tldr; make in-round implications

theory

big fan, run theory

frivalous theory - i think it's funny

disclosure - unless the advantage gap between the two schools is really big and they really didn't disclose, won't vote on it

condo - skew neg on dispo (within reason)

make sure k links to case, make sure you understand the k

afropessisim

don't read cards with the n-word unless you're black

fem ir

works better if you have at least one girl on the team

baudrillard

big fan, make sure you explain

cap

offer realistic alts

imperalism

again, big fan

Speaks

i skew high on speaks so i'm not the one that messed up seeding

Don't forget to have a good time!

Ryan Zheng Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

ADL Smart Debate PF Tournament

2021 — Taipei, TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

Judges