I am a lay judge. I like teams that are persuasive and knowledgeable in the topic area. Thanks.

Brentwood '23 | UPenn M&T '27

Email: hongwil@wharton.upenn.edu

4 years of PF, championed 2022 Gold TOC, 5th at NSDA Nats

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

TLDR: Typical tech over truth flow judge that enjoys weighing analysis and warrant comparison.

For reference, the main people who taught me debate are Siva Sambasivam, John Nahas, and Nelson Rose so feel free to check out their judging preferences as they are very similar to mines.

With that said, a few general points:

1. Please weigh. This means I want in-depth comparative analysis between the links and/or impacts. Also respond to the opponent's weighing as well otherwise the whole debate just gets messy

2. Final focuses should be consistent with everything in summary. Extend links (not 7 second blips), focus on warrant comparison, and sign post please.

3. I can handle speed decently well but I would prefer if you do not spread. If you do choose to spread, please always send docs beforehand just to be safe.

4. Be nice in round and don't read anything that is problematic.

5. I am open to theory and Ks but I do preface that I am not an expert in progressive arguments. I will try my best to evaluate them but no guarantees that I will always make the right evaluations. So run these arguments at your own risk.

6. If you make me laugh or make the round entertaining for me, I will give you high speaks. I hate when rounds get tense, debate is about having fun.

Reach out to me whenever if you need anything!

Standard FLAY Judge; I competed in Public Forum and World Schools Debate for Boston Latin for 6 years.

TLDR: Warrant + Weigh = Win

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag-not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop for judges : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, if you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

**My partner and I made it our mission to run environmental arguments on every topic in our senior year. That being said, I'd look favorably upon climate change related impacts and links, if ran well.

**Regarding progressive args, I'm not very well versed in them so run them at your own risk. The likelihood of me voting for K's, t shells and theory shells etc. are low simply because I'm not familiar with them. If there's actual abuse in the round, just explain it in paragraph form or put it in a way that I would be able to easily follow.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask or reach me at cinly.mo@columbia.edu

Good luck, have fun, and learn things!

Email: debate@inboxeen.com

**Be kind. Have fun. Don’t be afraid of me! I was once you and I know what it’s like! When I award speaks, they are heavily influenced by the level of kindness and congeniality shown in round. I am judging because I love the activity as much as you, and I want to help you do better if I can!**

School Affiliation(s)

Current Affiliation: East Chapel Hill HS

Current Role at Institution: I'm currently the Associate Director for Digital Communications at the Yale School of Management, but dedicate my off-time to S&D!

Previous Affiliation(s) and Role(s)

The Bronx High School of Science (Bronx, NY)

I coached primarily Public Forum Debate and Legislative Debate (Congressional Debate) at the Bronx High School of Science from roughly 2011-2015. I judged across all events – speech included. I began my coaching career at Bronx as an extemp coach.

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I have judged and coached (primarily Public Forum) throughout the years since graduating from this school.

Debate Experience

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I competed primarily in policy debate at River Valley High School in Mohave Valley, AZ. I also competed in other speech and debate events.

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York, NY)

I was a member of the Columbia Policy Debate team and competed for one year during my time in college.

Other

Tell me what to do – i.e. ‘tabula rasa’ insofar as one might even exist, and insofar as it might be helpful to roughly describe my ‘paradigm’.

Please ask specific questions at the beginning of the round for further clarification. E.g. my threshold for buying a reasonability standard has significantly heightened with age.

Run whatever you’d like – hypotesting, retro theory, nothing at all! I can handle it!

Most importantly, this is an educational activity and I believe in Debater/Debate -- i.e. you are more important than the round, so please speak up if you feel uncomfortable and tell me/your coach/tab immediately if something bothers you. I believe in the platinum rule - treat others as they'd like to be treated. Be kind to each other and have fun!

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

I debated in the late 90's. I believe in the Value Premise and Criterion. I think there should be clash. Rounds should be in a conversational speed. If I am yelling clear, I am missing an argument. I will stop flowing. I am not a blank slate judge nor will I drop someone for dropping an unreasonable argument. The last speeches are for providing voters and writing my ballot. If there is no connection back to the VP/ your position, I feel there is no ground for me to vote. I do not vote for Kritiks. I do believe a discussion with a debater about the round is ok. I think understanding points of view helps with communicating your cases in later rounds. I will not switch my decision.

I have debated in some capacity at some point in my life, current PF coach for Boston Latin School/APDA debater. Tl;dr normal tech judge. (My paradigm used to say flay judge but Ive come to realize I’m a lot more tech>truth than most judges. Read anything as long as it’s not racist or bad.)

my email is lemuelyu@bu.edu, please add it to the doc/email chain/carrier pigeon

At the end of the round, I will look down at my flow and do a few things, in the following order.

1. I will look at any framing, characterization, burdens, overviews etc. and evaluate the clash (or lack thereof) there. The winning arguments will serve as a filter for arguments in the round or as a way to determine the top layer of the round.

2. I will look at each individual contention or piece of offense within the round and determine what is won and how much it has won (i.e., how well it links to its impacts, a function of warranting, INTERNAL LINKS, uniqueness, etc). I will look at defense and evaluate whether it is terminal or mitigatory, and whether defense has been properly frontlined. Importantly, I will only look at offense and responses that are both extended and implicated in the final foci, and pulled directly from summary.

3. I will look at weighing. I often think about this as “layers” for the round, the side that best accesses (via probability, scope etc) the highest amount of the most important impact will win the round. This means weighing impacts over other impacts (i.e. death over poverty), and then weighing access to impacts/link weighing (i.e. more death over less death)

4. I will vote for the argument with the best link into the greatest amount of the best impact (not necessarily the greatest quantity).

some procedural stuff

- tech > truth but there is a threshold of believability for your arguments. if you claim that the sky is neon orange, you better have some EXCELLENT evidence for it. also, if you're argument is straight up racist, sexist, etc. i will not remain tabula rasa.

- I have never learned theory in my life, so I am not receptive to it. However, if you feel like running theory and get your opponent's ok to run it, you're welcome to run it at your own risk. Might make the round more interesting...

- light cussing is fine but full on spewing invective is not fine.

- I can generally flow relatively quickly but if you're gearing up to pull up speechdocs I will stop flowing. I will only flow what I comprehend.

- please don't be disrespectful. If you are disrespectful then I will be disrespectful to you :((. I don't care if you have fun or not, that's up to you. But don't make it unfun for other people.

- Weighing and warrants are important, they're what win rounds. Weigh before final focus and have a clear narrative. If no weighing is done throughout the round I will default to some stupid weighing mechanism like "who weaponizes the gay frogs". No one wants that. Also, I won't vote for an argument I don't understand.

- second rebuttal is required to at least frontline turns, otherwise they are considered dropped.

- Please signpost.

- Be as aggressive or passive as you want in cross, i'm usually not listening unless it starts to become whack. Aggressive =/= disrespectful. If both teams agree you can literally use cross as prep time if you want.

- Don't postround please, the round is over and you should have made it clear during round.

- If a card becomes heavily disputed in round, I will call it.

- If a warrant for an argument is not given, "this is not warranted" is a valid response.

- If the argument is well warranted and not empirical, "this is not carded" is not a valid response.

- if you concede defense to frontline a turn, tell me what piece of defense you concede and how it gets rid of the turn. Being able to wipe offense off my flow simply by saying “we kick out” is dumb.

- speaks start from 27 and go up from there. If I give you a 27 I think you were kinda poopoo. A 28 means you were aight. 29 means you were very nice, and a 30 means you were very very nice. Anything below 27 means that I think you're a terrible person

- Don't go more than 10 seconds overtime. I'll stop listening to what you say after that. Abuse prep and your speaks will tank.