NSDA Taiwan Members Invitational
2022 — Taipei, TW
Debate Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Here are what I will be looking for during the debates:
1. Respect your team, opponents and judges
2. Be polite, no offensive words
3. Speak clear (+0.5 points)
4. Don't expect the judge knows what you are planning to say. Persuade judge with what you want to say.
5. work as a team.
6. Flow your arguments well. Be logic!
7. Have fun!
Newbie Coach for ADL
I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.
Email Chain: Brandonchen.email@example.com
Ask in round if you want to know more about me
I was exposed to policy debate very early in my high school years more than 30 years ago. Since 2008, I have coached countless number of students aging from grade 2 to grade 12, both in Los Angeles and Taipei.
I am a flow judge and will base my decision purely on your argumentation.
Speed is okay for so long as you slow down to emphasize your tags clearly.
I appreciate all types of Kritik and counterplans and believe debaters should debate out the rules of debate, not me.
I appreciate polite and respectful debaters; so, please persuade me with your logic, not your rude demeanor.
I debated in middle school and high school. I started off in public forum, then switched over to policy. I competed in tournaments in Taiwan, US, Korea, and China.
I'm more focused on your arguments than the way you present them. Give me a reason why you win. Don't bring up new arguments in the final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If you feel that you made a good point in the crossfire, you'll need to repeat it later on in one of your speeches.
I'm fine with speed; be clear.
I debated in college for 2 years and recently started coaching high school students. I am a flow judge and base it only on argumentation.
I debated since 5th grade to now.
I judge base on overall presentation of debaters
Don't read too fast.
Clear refutations are key to winning the debate. Speed-talking and arrogance are frowned upon. Debates should be consistent from construction to final focus, ideally while supporting a clear framework. Use sign-posts throughout to avoid dropped contentions. Solid evidence should clearly link contentions to impacts. Be civil.
Coaching at Asian Debate League
Debated for 4 years in policy at Boise High School
How I judge:
I am strict about clarity, please read clearly during your speeches. I will ask you to slow down if I can't understand you. After two requests I'll stop flowing. I'm less strict with novices on clarity, but I will always encourage debaters to slow down and read clearly.
I flow the full debate and I generally put more importance on rebuttals and final focuses.
Dropped arguments usually don't decide debates for me, especially for novices.
I enjoy it when debaters go beyond the evidence and produce compelling speeches based on their own words. However, if the arguments in the debate are unclear I will reference evidence to help make my decision.
Courtesy is very important to me. Treat your opponents with respect. I may vote against you if rudeness or bullying takes place in your speeches.
Preferred Name “Nae” pls and thx :)
6 bids to the TOC senior year
3x NDT First Round
For Email Chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Do what you want and I will vote for who wins I care very little what anyone at this level reads as long as isn't blatantly racist, sexist, homphobic, etc. Just do you the best you can.
HS Paradigm w/ some edits:
I am a young judge and I am still figuring out my ideas about debate so this paradigm will be an image of what I currently think about the activity. My favorite Judges: Shree Asware, DB, DSRB, Eli Smith, Rosie Valdez, Nicholas Brady, Sheryl Kaczmerick. Here's a list of what I think about certain arguments/ideas.
TLDR: I don't care about what you do just do it well. I can judge the 7 off CP/DA debate or the straight up clash debate. I'm down with speed but will yell "clear" if you're just mumbling. GLHF.
BTW: I make decisions quick it isn't a reflection of y'all I just think debates are usually pretty clear for me. I also have noticed I make a lot of faces and am pretty transparent about how I feel about stuff....take that as you wish.
Tech = Truth- i do believe technical debate is incredibly important to keep the flow ordered and to stop judge intervention BUT only if you are winning the meta-framing of the debate that makes your technical arguments true under your vision of the world. I'm also willing to throw the flow out the debate if compelling arguments are made by the debaters that it's a bad model for how I adjudicate. WARNING: This means you need to have a clear way for me to evaluate the debate absent the flow or I will default to it ie "flow bad" isn't enough.
Theory = Needs an interp not just xx is bad vote them down, but I'm always down to judge a theory debate.
DA- They're fine. I'm capable with judging them and have no problem keeping up with normative policy debate. I enjoy impact turns and I think the most important part of this debate is the impact calc/impact framing. I need reasons why your impact comes first and how it interacts with the other team's impacts. If you're both going for an extinction claim you need to win the probability and timeframe debate with some good evidence.
CP- I enjoy the theory debates here and I think they are important to set precedents for what debate should look like. I lean slightly aff on theory but I think I lean more neg against the permutation if it's well debated out. I think the affirmatives's best bet in front of me is to take out the net benefit unless the CP is just not competitive with the aff. NO JUDGE KICKING THE COUNTERPLAN NO NO NO EITHER GO FOR IT OR DON'T PLS AND THANKS.
K's- this is what I do and i'm most familiar with but this is a double edged sword because it means i expect you to be on point about how you articulate these arguments. Specific links are killer, but generic links applied directly to the aff are just as powerful when warranted. You can kick the alt and go for presumption but that usually requires you winning a heavy impact framing claim. Do your thing and make it interesting debate with your ideas and don't read me your generic Cap blocks (i do enjoy a good cap k though) that have nothing to do with what's going on in the debate. MORE EXAMPLES PLEASE!!!!
K AFF's- non-traditional affirmatives are also my bread and butter. I love how creative these affs can be and the educational benefit that these affs show. Be passionate and care about what you're doing and use your 1AC as a weapon against every negative strategy to garner offense as well as the permutation. Go for nuanced framing arguments and don't be scared of an impact turn. Having Roberto as my partner and Amber Kelsie/Taylor Brough as my coaches has forced me to learn a lot more high theory and I actually enjoy it if done right just know what you're talking about or I will be sad. :(
T - I actually like T against policy aff's a lot if you're gonna normatively affirm the topic you better do it right ;).
FW- this is where I feel like I get pathologized a lot on how I feel. The summer before my senior year my partner and I went for straight-up framework every round with fairness and limits arguments. I think this position run correctly combined with nuanced case engagement with the aff is actually a fantastic argument especially against aff's with weak topic links. I think arguments like dialogue, truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground BECAUSE the latter group of impacts end up being internal links to the prior. There's a TVA to almost everything so get creative, but TVA with a card that applies to the aff is a killer. If you're aff in these debates you should either impact turn everything or have a model of debate with some clear aff and neg ground. There are a bunch of ways to debate framework but having offense is the key to winning any of those strategies. ALSO DON'T FORGET THE AFF. YOU WROTE IT FOR A REASON EXTEND IT EVERYWHERE.
SIDE NOTE: All pettiness and shade is invited if you make me laugh or throw a quick jab of quirky shade at the other team I will probably up your speaks. If you make fun of Roberto (my partner) I will up your speaks. Also, Naruto/Bleach/My Hero Academia references will be rewarded.
OTHER SIDE NOTE: I grow increasingly tired of people yelling at eachother in CX and the trend of white cis-men constantly interrupting and talking over black folk/poc/women/queer/trans folk. If you do this I will probably be less inclined to care about whatever you say in CX and I may slightly punish your speaks.
Anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. will cause me to stop the round and move on with my life
Everything is a performance.You can hmu on my email at the top for any questions. Good Luck!
Coach @ Asian Debate League
Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017
Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021
Email chain: email@example.com
I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.
I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.
I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.
I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.
I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.
I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.
Status quo is always an option=judge kick
How I judge:
I work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.
Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.
I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.
For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)
I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.
I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.
This is my first time judging debate, please speak loudly and clearly so I can understand you.
I have a background in economics so I love to see clear arguments that take into account the incentives that influence individuals' and governments' behavior. If your logic is flawed then I cannot support your argument.
I will judge you according to how clearly you present your argument. I appreciate it when people get straight to the point and don't beat around the bush.
I will generously award speaker points based on your style, effectiveness, and respectfulness as a debater.
I look forward to judging your debate!
This is my first time judging, please speak clearly and maintain a moderate pace.
I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters, but I have a strong academic/research background as well. I value good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Dates for sources can matter, as old sources may be no longer valid.
There is plenty of time during the round for teams to present clear arguments and bring in evidence for claims. Do not rush so as to avoid repetition towards the end. Maintain eye contact with me and convince me using good evidence and a careful argument. Do not forget proper presentation (posture, eye contact, pace, etc).
I have taught public forum debate for a few years.
I prefer quality arguments over quantity. Not a big fan of spreading, so spread at your own risk.
I like cases that have a consistent thread/narrative throughout. I also think pathos and rhetorical skills deserve a bigger place in PF. These sorts of things impress me.
put me on the email chain and feel free to ask me if you have any questions abt how I judge
I won't flow the crossfire but will listen, so if they say something in the cross, you'll have to bring that up by yourself. A conceded argument is true but doesn't guarantee you the win, you need to explain the warrants and how it outweighs them. Do impact comparison and make sure to give an impact calc.
I am open to anything and I lean neg on condo. Explain the link if you are reading k. For aff, I’m fine with planless affs but you will have to provide a clear explanation.
Speed is fine but be clear
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 judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.
I prefer not to judge death/extinction good arguments and being racist, sexist, disrespectful is an auto loss.
Hi! I'm Charles (he/him/his). My email is chazkinz [at] gmail [dot] com.
For the 2022-23 season, I am in Taipei, Taiwan on a Fulbright grant to help promote debate here. If I am judging an online U.S. tournament, please be aware that I am on a +12-14 hour time difference.
This is my 9th year involved in debate overall and my 5th year coaching.
Conflicts: Charlotte Latin EL and AP, West Des Moines Valley, Lake Highland.
I am less concerned about having a detailed paradigm these days. I find that, at this point, debaters either don't read it anyway or already know to pref (or not pref) me. That said, here are some broad strokes that I feel inclined to keep:
Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and French authors. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.
Other important things:
1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.
2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot free. Examples include charts, spec details, and solvency details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read.
3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.
- My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
- I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
- Put your analytics in the speech doc!
- Trigger warnings are important
- CX ends when the timer beeps!
- Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!
Aaron Kim (He/They)
- Follow the flow
- Include judge instruction
- Little to no ideological biases
- Little to no topic knowledge
- I have exclusively debated and watched policy debate
As far as my judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as you should know what you need to do).
Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.
First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.
Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.
Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.
Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.
Speed – spreading is okay but hopefully you're not doing it in PF. Clarity > speed, always.
Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.
Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.
Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.
Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.
DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP
CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.
Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.
Include me in your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
(work in progress)
Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.
Good luck and have fun!
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 y'all have any questions.
Email: email@example.com (btw this is my school email so please write something appropriate).
In the debate
I am ok with fast but I don't prefer fast and 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 be clear in rebuttal of what contention your 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.
I love impact calc in final focus
Don't drop arguments
Ask good crossfire questions
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
If you are being rude or annoying or inappropriate speaks -3.
If you don't speak clearly -2.
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 to Y'all!!! :D
Debater at George Mason (Class of 2024), debated in high school at Perry in Ohio
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
NATO Topic - I mostly think about the college topic however I have so far enjoyed judging debates on this topic and have at least a surface level understanding of what’s going on. Maybe err on the side of caution and assume I don’t know every thing you’re talking about
Read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for, none of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me. A caveat to this is I'm not very fond of the 'Death K', and don't really want to hear the 'Christianity Procedural'. As a 2N in college, I enjoy aff specific CP/DA 2NRs, DA and case 2NRs, and impact turns the most, although I also like well thought out politics DAs and process CPs
In close debates evidence quality and impact comparison tend to matter a lot. I think evidence comparison is often overlooked in many high school debates and teams doing it would make decisions much easier. If you rehighlight your opponents evidence you should read it, don’t just insert it for reference. I’ll judge kick the CP if no one says otherwise, and I think I lean neg on most theory arguments.
I usually judge framework or cap K 2NRs in clash debates and have voted slightly more often for the affirmative. I think it’s useful for the aff to have a well thought out and somewhat limited counterinterp, or impact turns/arguments that don’t necessarily rely on a counterinterp. I think I usually vote neg when aff teams don’t have a counterinterp that solves the negs offense or their impact turns, and the neg has a well articulated switch side or topical version argument However the way aff teams have won without defending a counterinterp in front of me has been when they win impact turns to the negs particular performance/rhetoric or defense of their model. If you’re going for the Cap K prioritize the link debate and answering the permutation, because that’s where I’m most often persuaded to vote affirmative
For Ks on the neg the more specific the links and alternative solvency explanations are tailored to the aff the better. Admittedly I'm really bad for Death Good, and not so great for Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche, etc…
If you have any specific questions feel free to email me. Good luck and have fun!
- Started debating 7 years ago
- Currently a junior at Morrison Taichung
- Did mostly PF and World Schools
- Part of the Taiwan National Squad for World Schools
- Currently an assistant debate coach at my school
- Impact calculus & weigh
- I judge a lot on based on final focus
- Be respectful
- I don't take cross into consideration, if you said something insane bring it up later
- framework is cool but I don't care if u don't have one
- I like statistics
email@example.com - email chain
My debate background
I have never been in any debate competitions.
How do I judge?
If I was to judge, I think the most important part is to listen to each competitor’s arguments and decide who makes the best one.
My judging style
I would not only listen for the best argument, I would also listen for who speaks the clearest and at speed where everyone could understand.
Minimal experience judging
Talk slow and clear so I can understand
I flow and use what I hear for decisions
1.What is your debate background?
Debated in middle school.
2. How do you judge?
I judge mainly based on argument, with some based on delivery, more or less following (but not strictly based on) flow. I am Ph.D students in Engineering, so I am more familiar with quantitative arguments.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL.
- Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
- Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).
- Please don't call me "judge." It's tacky. My name is Lily. Note that this does not apply to saying "the role of the judge."
- Cross-x isn't "closed," nobody ever "closed" it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties.
- I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
- I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
- Swearing makes me cringe.
- Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
- If you are asking questions like "was x read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
- The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
- Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.
- I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
- TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.
Topicality vs policy affs:
- Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
- If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" isn't a catch-all. Make arguments about debatability.
- Case lists are good.
- The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.
- When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
- As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
- Conditionality- again, chaotic neutral. I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.
- Read them
- Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about the math behind polls.
- I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I don't harbor any illusions about the meaning of my ballot.
- I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR. Obviously, if you want to concede the link and agree to throw down on the impact turn that's cool too.
- Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
- Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
- Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
- Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - the answer doesn't even have to be explicit, but at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.
- If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically. If you want the debate evaluated differently, make an argument about why.
- I do not think permutations are cheating.
- An argument is a claim and a warrant. If you say something that does not contain a warrant, I will not necessarily vote on it even if it's dropped. In the interest of preventing judge intervention, please say things that have warrants.
- Most neg theory arguments I've watched would go away instantly if affs said "counter interpretation: we have to be topical."
- RVIs are not very persuasive in my opinion. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.
KU '25 (debated on antitrust topic)
Assistant coach at Blue Valley North and the Asian Debate League
I like debates with:
- Impact turns.
- Advantage counterplans that are not unreasonably vague.
- Case arguments beyond impact defense (this does not imply that you shouldn't read and extend impact defense).
I don't like debates with:
- Process counterplans (aff should go for 'perm do the counterplan' or a functionally intrinsic perm).
- Ks, K affs
I did policy debate for a year while at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City.
I judge on the overall presentation of debaters, arguments & delivery and I value well-structured cases and clear arguments and am comfortable with a variety of styles and speeds!
My preferred pronouns are they/them.
I debated in the NDT-CEDA policy circuit for 4 years.
I believe the topic is always being negotiated, not static. Much like a German Shepherd, framework is not always policing, but it may lend itself to such a service. Debates come equipped with norms, but those are not law.
High School 2020-21
Speed is fine, but go only as fast as you can handle. Conditionality is generally okay. Everyone in the debate should be timing. I have ADHD so I am terrible at remembering to press start. Rely on my timer at your own peril.
I like to hear critiques explained through history and current events. Examples are the easiest way to make a complex concept simple enough to evaluate in the short span of time we have together.
Police apologists whose arguments rely on the fear of the criminal will gain little traction on my ballot. Discussion of crime requires nuance as it easily becomes anti-black very quickly given the history of politicians using thinly veiled "tough on crime" platforms to wrestle over power. Read the links below and avoid an automatic L.
The Willie Horton Ad
What is your debate background?
- Worked for three and a half years as a Software QA, which involved frequent debating and important decision-making based on facts.
- Naturally tend to debate ideas, positions, and claims almost daily, often meeting with people to do so.
How do you judge?
What's most important for me is clarity and good analysis. I believe debaters should provide one or two main ideas at a time, and focus on providing evidence and analysis for them without getting off track or using many complicated words. I value when debaters talk about main points comprehensively without jumping around.
Please explain other specifics about your judging style
Give the strongest evidence early and spend the most time on it, instead of trying to present the audience with a multitude of facts, data, and evidence. Give quality evidence and analysis.
Briefly did L-D in high school, but not a whole lot of other debate experience. Spent 6 years as a lawyer.
Not easily impressed by arguments over definitions. If it is extremely important/the other side is clearly wrong, go for it.
Kritikal arguments in policy need to be very strong in order to be effective. In a policy setting, I will prefer to evaluate the real-life impacts of the policy. Policy debate should be a debate about a policy, not phrasing of the resolution or the other team's approach.
I will try to evaluate your substance, not your strategy. Attack the other side's positions, not the methods of their arguments.
-Hello! Please add email@example.com to the email chain.
-Debated at: University of Kansas '18-'22. Arapahoe HS '14-'18.
-Coached for: Asian Debate League '22-now, Arapahoe HS '22-now, Lawrence Free State HS '20-'22.
-I don't think arguments start at 100% weight/risk. I believe it is my responsibility to assess the extent to which your warrant supports your claim.
-I encourage you to have a coherent overall narrative/strategy, to provide argument comparison/interaction, and to emphasize clarity/organization.
-I would definitely prefer to judge the "best possible argument" as opposed to the "most possible arguments."
-I'm apprehensive about "insert this re-highlighting." If you do this, please make the tagline very clear and don't highlight more than the key part. The trend of "insert this section of a card we read earlier for reference; its warrant is applicable here" seems fine.
October 2022 update: I am unfamiliar with the 22-23 high school topic and this will be the first time I judge this resolution - please keep this in mind before you spread through your blocks :)
Conflicts: ADL. My pronouns are He/Him. Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Stolen from Dylan Willett: I am in Taiwan which is at minimum 13 hours ahead of the tournament I am judging so make sure to start off at a pace where I can adapt to your speed and speed up progressively through the speech because I might begin the debate a bit groggy.
I will judge the debate based on the flow. That said, I'm not too familiar with high theory Ks, but I will try my best to adapt to whatever argument style presented in the debate.
I lean negative on most theory arguments. I lean AFF on T, and I find reasonability a very persuasive argument when argued well. Please don't let this dissuade you from going for T - good debating can overcome most of my preferences/biases.
I won't judge kick the CP unless the 2NR tells me to. Impact calculus is very important. The Cap K is a very good argument if your link explanation goes beyond "state bad".
I have been debating for more than three years
- Please be polite (especially in cross)
- I dont flow cross
- You have the freedom to decide whether you want open or closed cross
- Please weigh as much as possible
- Talking clearly is way more important than speed (and will affect your speaker points too)
- Don't throw multiple contentions at me at once just to waste your time then never bring it up again
- I prefer well explained contentions over many contentions (im probably not going to be familiar with your topic as well so it would be nice if you define some key terms and make sure to introduce the topic thoroughly)
- Dont drop the opponents arguments or else i'll take it as if you concede to that point
- NO bullying during cross and all other aspects of the debate (applies to teammate as well)
- FLOW (im not going to remind you of this again during the debate- this is for YOU not me)
- Have fun and display sportsmanship :)
- In the round, you can call me Scarlett or judge, I don't really mind
- My email is email@example.com , so contact me if you have any questions :)
-I am a 7th grade TAS student (:
- I have debated for 6 years
- I compete every year in international tournaments (around 2-3 tournaments each year)
- I have competed in debate tournaments held by the University of Kentucky, University of Michigan, NSDA China, and TOC China.
- I have also won 5 first places (2 from NSDA Taiwan), 8 second places (3 from NSDA), 6 third places (3 from NSDA), and the fourth place in NSDA China
I will time you, but practice timing yourself as well.
- I am okay with spreading, but wouldn't prefer it
- Kritiks are great, but be sure to elaborate
- Say your framework before starting the time
- I look for clear, well structured evidence and explanations
- Be sure to have lots of clash and don't drop aff/neg's arguments
- FLOW PLSSS
- Just like PF, I would like to see lots of clash
- You should have a warrant for every one of your evidences (a warrant is why your argument stands)
- Practice flowing and keep up the habit, this way, you will be able to catch and take note of your opponent's loopholes.
- If you add a good poem or rap in your speech about the topic, +2 speaks
- Clear delivery of speech (+1)
- Swearing (-1) so be nice, then you get (+1)
- If your contention actually matches what you say, then (+1) if it's not that good but it watches what you say, then (+0.5) if your contention isn't really that good and it doesn't match what you say AND you also don't do any of the positive actions listed above, then... srry, (+0)
In general...GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!!! :)
- My debate background is rather minimal. I have participated as a speaker a few times during my secondary education. As a high school English teacher, most of the arguments I encounter are in essay format.
- When evaluating, I choose to focus more on argumentation and less on delivery. That being said, a debater should demonstrate their understanding of the topic and stance, particularly through responses to the opposition. Be able to answer every question you receive and ask questions in turn. Explaining evidence and answering the "so what" question helps me process your evidence and strengthens your point's impact. A number tells me very little - how that number affects the issue tells me much more.
- I value respect and responsibility. Respect all persons present by speaking clearly and kindly. Support the team effort in building the argument. Good luck, and have fun!
Taipei American School '25
4 yrs @ Asian Debate League (TW) - 37 tournaments
Contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow me on Instagram (and let me know!): @chloe.rwc (+0.1 speaks ;)
voting pretty generous speaks (>28) the highest I've given is a 30, the lowest being a 27.8
a) don't forget to be confident and stay engaged with your speech
b) look around the room and not just at your parent or your paper
c) be dramatic!! wow the audience!
d) have fun :)
experience PF/CX/extemporaneous debate
finalist in jv policy (berkeley 2020)
pf/sd please do impact calc!!
tabula rasa (translation: the mind in its hypothetical primary blank or empty state before receiving outside impressions) (translation: I try my best to be unbiased)
flow or i'll dock speaks
time yourselves, please!
no clash ≠ judge intervention
ev quality > quantity
i don't flow cross so bring up important stuff in speeches
no blippy extensions
tech > truth
be nice please!!
SPEAKS / debate rubric
29.4-29.6 6-0 in prelims
28.6-29.3 above average >:)
27-27.9 work on it
<27 please take things more seriously
lowest possible honestly learn some manners..
*last updated 10/9/22
I have debated in high school for 2 years and I also have coached elementary and middle school debaters. I mainly debate in PF and world schools formats. I judge debates based on the overall presentation but arguments are valued more compared to delivery or strategy of arguments. I feel fine with any speed and i feel fine about kritik and counter plans with no particular preference. It all depends on the quality and the analysis of arguments.
1. My background
- Debated (policy debate) for two years in high school in New York, USA.
- In college, I didn't continue competitively in debate but did "persuasive speech."
- 10+ years of coaching/instructing/judging debate in secondary education to students and fellow teachers. (Mostly in policy debate, but also some public forum and Lincoln Douglas)
2. How I judge.
- It is true that I deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters to an extent. (see below)
- I primarily focus on arguments and logical reasoning/connections.
- The delivery primarily only is an impact if it makes the arguments unclear to the listeners (myself or the opponents).
3. My judging style and preferences.
- Any pace/speed should be okay as long as the speaker is clear and loud enough (I'm not a fan of debaters racing through a preprepared speech thoughtlessly while being barely comprehensible).
- I'm not a big fan of a Kritik approach but will accept it if there is enough of a clear, logical connection created by the speaker. (If you use one, you had better be really good with having it connected and possible/believable.)
- I attempt to approximate the estimate of the “AVERAGE INFORMED CITIZEN.” (A simple "blank slate" is not an average citizen, so I do somewhat weight points according to the arguments being reasonable. However, you are also not debating against my knowledge of a topic.)
- I enjoy hearing counter plans and original ideas but don't like it if a counter plan is remarkably similar to the affirmative plan (has only minor differences/changes).
- I DON'T LIKE SPREADING! I would rather have a team choose their best arguments instead of trying to win by just having a large number of minor points that end up being dropped. (If you have a lot of points, that is not a problem that is, if... lots of points are dropped by your opponents, but you can defend the parts challenged are defended instead of quickly dropping them (when challenged) that would convince me that you are ready to defend the other points that were dropped. However, if you spread and then repeatedly drop your own arguments (when challenged), that would lead me to believe that you are only trying to win via numbers alone.)
- I am dyslexic... if there is a lot being said, I might not be writing/typing because it can be distracting from what is being said, but I am keeping mental notes. (Being dyslexic means that it is a bit harder for me to write and listen simultaneously.)
- My notes are sometimes messy because they are only intended for me.
- I prefer to give immediate feedback instead of long detailed written reports but will write up the more major things in a feedback report.
Email: Nathan.in.Taiwan@gmail.com (ONLY use my listed email if you need it to share evidence or in debate email chains)
background: I did 2 years of PF and 4 years of policy
add me to the chain: email@example.com
Policy: I'm unfamiliar with the new resolution, please keep that in mind
Spreading is fine as long as you are clear, there's no need to scramble through, ur only going to get low speaks. I'm familiar with basic Ks, but make sure the argument is explained thoroughly. I like theory and T.
Please have clash, it's painful to watch a debate where the two teams ignore each other's arguments. No clash ≠ judge intervention, I'm not gonna do the work for u. Make it clear to me why I should give you the ballot.
dw I flow
don't be problematic or I'll drop you
you're not gonna get below 27.5 speaks unless you really mess up
Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.
Updated for Online Debate
I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.
firstname.lastname@example.org is the best email for the evidence email chain.
You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:
1. Where am I voting?
2. How can I vote for you there?
3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?
I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.
If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.
One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.
I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.
Email Chain: email@example.com
I'm in 7th grade, I recently started policy debating.
- "Judge" and "Bryce" are both fine
- I lean tech over truth
I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
Cross-x isn't "closed," nobody ever "closed" it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties.
Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
If you are asking questions like "was x read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
Clarity > Speed
Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.
Don’t swear in round
(Credit to Lily Ottinger and Jordan Yao for the Paradigm format and inspiration)
"Made by Bryce Y 10/16/2022"
Last updated 8-27-22
I am currently a Fulbright Debate Coach and Trainer in Taiwan and an LD coach at Apple Valley. I was formerly a grad assistant at the University of Wyoming, head coach of Team Wyoming, an assistant LD coach with Harker, and the Director of LD Debate at Victory Briefs. My background is mostly in LD, though I have PF and policy experience.
Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com
Taiwan Public Forum
I am in the process of developing more robust thoughts about how I adjudicate Public Forum Debate rounds. I am not convinced that PF ought to mirror the norms of other debate formats, e.g., LD or policy. Ultimately, I think that debaters who advance strong arguments well-supported by the literature will do the best in front of me.
I've judged over 1000 LD and policy rounds from novice locals to TOC elims. I am not particularly partial to a style in which you debate the topic, e.g. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., but I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the question of the debate start a few steps behind for me.
Ideological stances that might influence prefs:
1. Fairness and logic are good—args to the contrary are self-defeating.
2. The aff should defend the topic; the neg should disprove the aff—I've voted against framework/for Ks a decent amount too but it's just a tougher route to take in front of me.
3. Some tricks are fine, most stretch the definition of what counts as an argument—anything that relies almost entirely on your opponent dropping it probably isn't even worth making in front of me.
4. I think Nebel T is true, but tech > truth. I have grown tired of adjudicating Nebel T rounds. I will give you extra speaks if you either (A) don't read Nebel T against a plan or (B) read 1 off Nebel T against a plan. If you think Nebel T is true, defend it. Short 1NC T shells are near impossible to judge because so much of the debate is late-breaking. I'd rather you went all in or just didn't read it in the first place.
5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good; most other counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
6. I'm inclined to think that everything other than conditionality and T should be a reason to reject the arg. Most other theoretical objections aren't particularly persuasive to me.
7. I'm generally against sandbagging both in the 1NC and 1AR. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1AR make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean. How much "new-ness" is allowed in the 2NR or 2AR is obviously contextual but the default is that it's determined by how new your opponent was.
8. Ev ethics are important—I'll default to the NSDA Evidence Guide.
9. I'd prefer not to read your cards—I'd rather you explain them to me.
None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy. I'm not sure I have strong opinions about much else. Like most other judges, I like evidence quality, impact calculus, and strategic choices. Like most other judges, I dislike cheating, unclarity, and impropriety.
I will NOT hesitate drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved.
1. Please time yourselves. Using a phone is fine.
2. Yes, off-time roadmaps are good.
3. Offense (why you win) is superior to defense (why you don't lose). I'm much more interested in the former; don't spend so much time on the latter.
4. The criterion/framework is not a voting issue. If you say it is, I'll make a big sad face :(.
5. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in debate. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence.
6. I prefer voting issues to be given as they arise on the flow, not in a discrete section at the end of rebuttal speeches.
7. You do not need to ask me to use your prep time (although I will keep track of time myself).
8. You can read my longer LD paradigm at the bottom for a more detailed view at my decision-making process.
9. You MUST follow the NSDA Evidence Rules (High School Manual here, shorter version here). I care deeply about evidentiary ethics in an academic event and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent allowed by the rules up to, and including, voting against you.
10. I hate evasion. Direct clash with your opponent's central points is preferred.
11. I will keep a rigorous flow, time all speeches, and not hesitate to enforce those time limits.
NSDA22: Big Questions
I will keep a rigorous flow, time all speeches, and not hesitate to enforce those time limits. I prefer if you keep your own time however. Off time roadmaps are preferred.
The more you focus on core, literature based arguments, the happier I will be. Please do not turn this event into one-on-one policy. I will heavily penalize anyone who attempts to spread or rely on excessive debate jargon up to and including a loss. I want to reward debaters who demonstrate that they have engaged with the serious academic literature on this topic (of which there is much) as opposed to those who sprinted towards surface-level takes or the most implausible "big stick" impact they can find.
I coach on this topic and have done research on it; feel free to assume a decent level of engagement with the relevant literature but err on the side of thoroughly warranting arguments as this is still a persuasive speaking activity and you ought to be assuming that a layperson is adjudicating the round. I will do my best to minimize intervention based on such prior knowledge.
I do not believe that the NEG has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable.
Not that it should ultimately matter, but I do not hold strong religious beliefs; however, I strongly dislike arguments that imply anything offensive about a group or person because of their (lack of) religious beliefs.
Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."
I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.
1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.
1. Give judge instruction. Tell me how to evaluate the debate.
2. Do argument comparison.
3. Email chains are good.
4. Fast debate is good debate.
I know almost nothing about the water topic.
Online Procedural Concerns
1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.