I have a background in WSDC, BP, and AP debating. I competed all four years in high school and am currently a university debater in the Asian circuit. I take notes and track the debate well. I dislike having to step in and will interpret the debate as is without interfering with my own personal biases. While I will be keeping my own timer to track, I expect you to time your speeches on your own.

That being said I appreciate speakers who are clearly able to weigh what are the principles in the debate and how they matter in relation to everything else presented in the debate. Additionally, I like clear, concise arguments that are easy to understand as an average reasonable person. I am not a fan of fluff or pretentious wording since I think they just make arguments less efficient, but this isn’t a really big deal to me as long as teams are still able to properly forward their points. Evidence is cool, but I don’t like speakers that throw a bunch of facts around without explaining their relevance to the speech or arguments.

I'll come into rounds with a blank-slate mentality. All used to evaluate your arguments as individual speakers and as a team are all that you are going to say in your speeches. As such, I highly appreciate speakers that are comparative, weighted, and impacted.

I will default to the utilitarian evaluation absent any attempt of framing why your arguments are important.

As with any other utilitarian argument, K's and Theories are welcome and I will give them due respect ONLY depending on the length speakers use it to benefit their cases. This means that I value explicitness over implicitness in order to deliver the most impartial decision possible and avoid any situations where I have to step in. You need to explain why your Theory or K comes first as a filter versus against all the other arguments that will come after it.

I pay attention to the format specifics and speaker role. As such, I would appreciate it if the important "winning" part of your speeches does appear in constructive speakers. It will be hard for me to credit a winning argument/card launched during CF or FF if it is not in the constructive summaries.

It will be most beneficial for you to narrow down impacting/comparatives in your FF speeches just so you don't leave any room for me to use my own judgements in appreciating impacts :)

I am very open to using the full range of speaker scores. The average is 27.4 and the highest I've given is 29.

Please be respectful, especially in CFs! Have fun :)

My Judging Highlights (do note that I've spent all my time in debate under the British Parliamentary/Asian Parliamentary)

- 10th Best Judge, United Asians Debating Championships 2020, (Asian Parliamentary) (Asian Region)

- Overall Best Judge, Proxime Debate Open 2020, 60 Teams (British Parliamentary) (Philippines, open for all countries)

- 4th Best Judge, Macquarie Pre-Australs 2020, 50 Teams (Australs Format) (Open for all)

- 4th Best Judge, Taiwan Debate Open 2020 , 50 Teams (British Parliamentary) (Taiwan, open for all countries)

For PF:

- 6 Rounds for Stanford Invitational

0 I have been constantly hired to judge and provide feedback for the training rounds of asian JV and Novice teams. I would love to bring my experience over, learn and improve in the PF format.

For other S&D Events:

Debate Champion, National Population Development Debates, National, Philippine Department of Education, 2019