I am a 4th-year varsity policy debater so I'm familiar with the style and have probably gone against many similar arguments.

Speed is fine please try to be clear and signpost as you're going through your arguments.

Please be kind to your opponents, I understand that rounds can get heated but just be respectful.

I am usually tech> truth unless there is just some argument that is blatantly not true.

Impact calc arguments are very powerful in my opinion please please please weigh your arguments.

to be honest, if you say that your opponent drops every other card I'm probably not going to listen to that because they're not responding to one card isn't something of substance that I can vote on.

Please let me know if you have any other questions! Have fun! Debate should be something you enjoy

Millard North High School '23

LD for 4 years - 3 on the national circuit

email - nathan.liu1203@gmail.com

Debate is hard, and everyone puts a lot of time in - I will reciprocally put effort into judging your debate and, to the best of my ability, bracket my predispositions.

Post-rounding is acceptable as long as it stays respectful and in-round.

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

we will use speechdrop.net !!

I judge on the way you are able to articulate and explain your argument-cards are there as tools do not only depend on them!

I am pretty lenient and chill, I know that this is a learning experience for y'all :)

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

Email chain: Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round, as it makes evidence exchange much faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain- evelyntodd2007@gmail.com

Experience:

Competing: I'm currently a debater at Millard North. I'm a third-year debater. I did policy for two years, and I'm currently competing in pf. So far, I have qualified for nationals twice in policy.

General:

I will vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in the summary and final focus, and I will disclose exactly how I made my decision (as long as the tournament allows it).

• Tech > Truth

• The only time you need a trigger warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.

• Being blatantly rude to your opponents will get your speaks tanked. Regardless of how “good at debate” you may be, there's no excuse for this.

• I’m fine with most speeds as long as it’s clear and you warrant your arguments. If you decide to start spreading/speaking extremely fast I’d prefer a speech doc of some sort to be sent out before you begin.

PF:

• Give me an offtime roadmap before beginning your speech

• I’d like to see weighing as soon as possible within the round. Comparative weighing is critical to preventing any sort of judge intervention

• Defense isn’t sticky, anything you want in the round has to be in both summary and final focus

• Organize your speech and signpost throughout

• Speech-by-speech notes:
  
  

Rebuttal: Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round.

Summary/Final Focus:I understand that different teams have different strategies for approaching these speeches. I’m fine with anything as long as it works, but keep a few things in mind. 1. Defense isn’t sticky 2. Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about. 3. Final Focus should mirror the summary speech.

Cross: I don’t flow nor listen during cross. If something important happens bring it up in the next speech.

Prep: You must use prep to read evidence

Theory:

Due to my background in policy, I have a very comfortable understanding of theory. That being said, I think frivolous theory is dumb. I'll vote on it if it goes unanswered, however I have a very low threshold when it is answered.

• Theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse.

• If you are reading theory either be clear or send a doc before speech.

• I probably should tell you that I generally believe both disclosure and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability.

• Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.

• “Our coach didn’t teach us how to respond to theory” is not an argument. Same with “our coach doesn’t let us disclose” if there’s no proof that’s true. It's just an argument; answer it the same way you would arguments on the topic.

• "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are also not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.

Misc:

If you ask for 30 speaks before I submit my ballot, I'll give it to you (as long as you weren't rude to your opponent).

I don't care if you call me "Judge" or if you call me Evelyn; just do whatever you are more comfortable with.

I don't have preference in arguments. Run the k if you want to, or the politics da. Just make sure to run whatever you're running well.

Debate is supposed to be fun. I fully support trying to trip up your opponents in cross, just don't be rude.

Hi, I'm a 3rd-year policy debater at Millard North.

Email (for questions or email chain): jing.w4ng@gmail.com

TLDR: weigh, write my ballot, and be nice, i am lazy judge

General

• My philosophy as a judge is tabula rasa, and minimal judge intervention. As a debater I understand how frustrating it is when your judge votes you down because of their own biases, inputs, or preconceptions. However, I do think this is a two sided issue. If the debater leaves the judge with a bunch of puzzle pieces but no instructions how to put them together, I will have to use my brain to come to a decision, so while I believe in minimal judge intervention, it is also your job as a debater to prevent me from intervening. You can do this by clearly framing and weighing impacts, more details in it's own category.
• The better your analysis is, clearer your signposting is, and apparent your weighing is, the higher probability that you will earn my ballot. I understand it is easier said than done but please try your best in these categories, it will help not only in this debate round but any round you participate in.
• Be nice, I understand the competitive aspect but you can be both competitive and friendly.

Weighing/framing:

LDers: I'm framework is different in LD than it is in policy and PF, so to be clear, what I mean by framing is the method I should use to evaluate the round. But weighing impacts should be a universal concept among all events.

• I don't wanna just hear extinction is bad and that alone is a reason why I should vote a certain side. I'm more interested in the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of your impacts. And why that matters in the context of the round. Like everything, I want analysis and reasoning.
• If you don't tell me how to weigh something, I will default to magnitude > probability. This isn't a reason to not weigh at all and if nobody tells me how to weigh you'll probably get lower speakers. Again I don't want to intervene so please don't make me.
• Policy: if you are running a structural violence aff and the neg runs an extinction impact (or vise versa), you need to tell me why I should prioritize structural violence over extinction, or why I should evaluate extinction before structural violence. Both are obviously bad impacts, so I need comparison and analysis.
• LD framework: you do whatever your coaches taught you to do, again my decisions are made based on the flow, but I still like to see the weighing stuff (refer to first 2 bullet points).

LD:

• I'm gonna be honest I will evaluate LD rounds like a policy round. I'm not an LD debater but I am semi-aware of how things work. That being said please ask questions, never doing LD myself I'm not sure what you want to know from me as a judge, but the most important thing is that I look for line by line, analysis, warrants, weighing impacts. If you do these well or somewhat well you'll likely be the person I vote for.
• I am a great person to run LARP arguments in front of because that's basically policy.
• I am fine with all arguments except phil, since I'm assuming the person reading this is a novice, I don't think this will apply but for some reason if you are a novice who runs phil, you can go for it but be aware I'm less competent on the matter, and prefer hearing kritiks, das, etc.

Policy

CPs

• I need a net benefit, or some reason to prefer the CP over the plan. If not then I'll just vote aff, even if you win CP solvency.
• if you want to win this, I need the 2NR to do some clear analysis on why the plan is insufficient and the counterplan isn't.
• I'm okay with both generic and specific cps, I do think that specific ones are easier for you to prove solvency, but you do you.
• I lean neg on condo and I don't have a specific default to 50 states fiat.

DAs

• I'm fine with generics, but I do expect that you do some analysis and explanation on the link in the block. Yeah I get that the plan spends a lot of money but why does that cause inflation or ruin the economy? We spend a lot of money already so what about the aff specifically links into your DA? Questions like those are the ones I want to be answered, obviously I was describing an econ DA in that but in general I need warrants and analysis on why the plan uniquely causes the impacts.
• Weigh your impacts please. You gotta tell me why the impacts of your DA are worse than the potential benefits of the aff.

Ks

• Again do what's comfortable, I run Ks myself and have a good understanding how they work and how they are evaluated. That being said there are still things I look out for if you do decide to run a K.
• I don't wanna hear "lets all get kim jong un hair cuts and join a communist party", please explain to me how getting that haircut will solve your impacts and the affirmative. Or if you don't solve the affirmative then why I should vote on the K. I need the alt to be clearly extended and fleshed out, you don't need to give me a 5 paragraph essay on how it solves, just a short concise explanation, I will not fill in gaps for you so don't rely on me to do that.
• If you are going for pre fiat offense, then you have to win the link obviously, but also do a bit of analysis on how that is uniquely bad for debate. Why should the affirmative be voted down specifically?
• I'm not a fan of hiding root cause impacts and kritik tricks, I will only vote on a "conceded" root cause if it's explicitly stated in the 1NC somewhere, or if you make the argument in the block.

T+Theory

• For theory: You have to prove either in round abuse or some other reason why whatever your opponent did is bad for debate. So please clearly impact out your voters, tell me what education I lost, and why that matters. Same with fairness, impact out why fairness matters in debate. Like everything, I want to know why, a claim without a warrant and impact is just a claim. If you win competing interps prove to me why your model of debate is better.
• Same with T, but instead of winning they broke a rule of debate, you have to prove that they violated the resolution and aren't topical. Everything else above applies.