info

kcis '25!!

did pf+speech(rarely but I'll put this here), and currently in the third year of doing policy debate!

kch23455978@gmail.com

preferences in sd&pf

-quality>quantity: i prefer seeing good evidence and arguments warranted out clearly than a whole list of arguments(or evidence) read during your speeches without any deeper explanation or further extension in later speeches. 1 good argument that is well-warranted and well extended throughout the round >> 5 arguments that were read once and poorly explained

-tech>truth

-write the reason for decision(rfd) for me in your final speeches(summary+final focus): i would prefer seeing arguments and/or contentions laid out for me to evaluate; tell me why you win and what you are winning on

-do clashes: I will most likely not vote for you if there isn't an attempt to clash with your opponent's argument(even if you tell a good story of your arguments) a huge part of debate is about clash, tell me why I should prefer your argument over your opponent's

-impact calculus

-> however you want to do impact calc is okay for me, just make sure you have it in your final speech telling me what i should vote on and on what level do you outweigh the opposing side

-> i'd like to see statistics brought up while doing impact calc, it allows me evaluate args quantitatively while making my decision(which boosts your chances of winning ofc:)

additionals:

-i prefer line by line given during speeches(esp the rebuttal speech)that specifically answers your opponent's argument, it makes the whole debate organized, clear, and easy to flow for both me and your opponents

-i will not evaluate anything extended in ff that is not in the summary speech

-speaker points: i generally give high speaks; prefer clarity over speed but speed doesn't really matter for me, as long as it is clear and understandable it should be fine for me.

-time your speeches. you should keep track of your own speech/cx/prep time

-flow flow flow(preferably on paper b/c its much easier)

-lastly.. be respectful and enjoy the tournament!

--if you have any questions regarding my paradigm, feel free to ask preround

Pronouns: He, Him

I have debated for 6 years, fourth-year in policy

To win the debates you should understand and explain your arguments well. Have clash and do impact weighing. I personally value probability over other things. Also, please time you debates since keeping track of time is important. When you speak, please slow on important tags or arguments so I can flow it.

joshuacho714@gmail.com

For speaker points, I usually give high speaks as long as you are respectful.

Coaching at Asian Debate League

Debated for 4 years in policy at Boise High School

Email:connordennis@u.boisestate.edu

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.

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: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

For K's 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 am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.

I listen first and read your evidence second. If you are clear, this distinction shouldn't matter. If you aren't clear I'm not comfortable reading your blocks and cards to fill in the gaps for you.

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.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

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.

Happy debating~

for email chain: rynhium@gmail.com

FHJH '28

3 years of policy, 4 years of SD/PF @ ADL

Policy:

Tech > Truth, but if at the end of the round it really comes down, I will award the qualified arguments with higher speaks. I will flow all of your speeches and crossfires, and at the end of the round evaluate all my flows to facilitate my ballots. Please do not do the following things because they're rude and I will stop flowing.

• Clipping, not highlighting cards, spreading so fast that words are inaudible.
• Being racist, sexist, homophobic, or other forms of prejudice or discrimination
• Being rude, constant interruptions, or physical violences
• I am extremely strict on time. Stealing prep, coach intervention, cheating, if you need more than 30 sec to send an email chain start running your prep. Keep the debate as effective as possible, so I will start prep instantly after the previous speech end if you didn't start prep or speech, unless it's a health emergency. Do not ask or offer to send a marked copy unless the other side requested, and do it all within a minute or I will start running your prep.
• Saying "Star Wars sucks" in front of me

We all love debate and think it's fun or at least educational, that's why we come here, if you don't want to treat the round, opponents, or judges fairly or nicely then I believe you don't deserve to play the game anymore and I will stop you immediately.

Quality > Quantity, most debaters lack an internal link or a link when explaining a position to me, and instead spam 8 offs in the 1NC. Do judge instructions in the final speeches and really focus on how few arguments and how they outweighs (impact calculus), the status quo's uniqueness, how it links, how and why it leads to your impacts. By giving me a clear way to vote for your story I will be able to give you an easier ballot.

Do the following things so you wouldn't be called out:

• Give a clear roadmap (I'm going to read two offs, the DA and the K)
• Time yourself (If your speech exceeds more than 30 seconds on my clock I will stop flowing)
• Be respectful to your opponents and judges (Be passive but aggressive in CX, not yell or interrupting each other like 5-year-olds)
• Send out all cards (Send all before the speech, not after, I won't flow them because it's stealing prep)

Things I love:

• Offense: Impact and link turns are the best in terms of outweighing the case, perms are a good test of CPs, theories are not my preference but if you articulate it well so that I can understand clearly, I will still vote on it.
• Transition words: Online or even physical debates are hard to flow sometimes, you can spread on the evidence part but please slow down on analytics, tags, or blocks so I concentrate especially on those parts and put it down on my flow. Words like "next," "moving on," or "answering XXX" are great and will earn you high speaks.
• Line by line: Answer your opponents with the following format OREO: Opponent's claim (O), You're reasoning why it's false (R), Cite or extend evidence (E), Explain or extend offenses (O)
• Impact Calculus: Do the impact work for me! Explain how you outweigh on magnitude, timeframe, and probability, you can extend cards from earlier constructive speeches. Find loopholes or flaws in your opponents' arguments and make them concede this bad argument so you can make weighing easier.
• Clean kills: Make a clear decision for me earlier in the debate. The more precise, the better. This includes if your opponent's drop, do something inappropriate like clipping, or didn't time themselves, point it out, then the debate can end already, no needs to entertain the flow anymore.
• Some jokes but staying focus on the right time: Having some fun with your opponents or judges can be entertaining and well-respected. Stay on business mode during the round.

Moving on to individual preferences:

DA

• I like good DAs. I think as long as you answer every offense and clearly explain the LINK, you can win even with a super generic DA. Link > Impact, so as long as you win doing the plan links to the DA which might potentially ruin or outweigh the aff, it's a good and simple plan in the 2NR. Link turns will be nice and sometimes impact turns but don't double turn.
• For the aff, non-UQ or link turns can also help. Again, focus less on the impacts unless there is a clear link, point out any irregular arguments or points because I may also be as confused as you are. Explain how the DA is irrelevant to the plan's execution or a thumper can take out the DA easily.

CP

• CPs are good as long as they're mutually exclusive and solve the aff. CP is a test of the affirmative's plan by solving better with a net benefit. Impact turns are good and CP-exclusive arguments like net benefits are preferable. Explain why your CP solve better, avoid a net benefit that can be a DA, and focus more than proving the affirmative is inefficient or will inherently fail.
• Add solvency deficits to the CP or prove only your plan can solve with good cards. Perms are nice and if you prove the CP is not mutually exclusive then I will give you that. Condo is good but have a counter-interp and voting issue if you're going for it. Do impact weightings and clashes between the CP and DA

T

• Ts are good against unpredictable affs. T is a model of how a topical debate should be for the entire debate season! The negative should provide an interp, voting issue, and extend it all to the last speech. Explain how the aff violates and why the violation is bad, limits and education impact. Fairness is AN INTERNAL LINK, and you show explain how T is bad for the debate community.
• Explain how you meet the interp and provide a counterinterp, explain how substance outweighs procedural debates and kill the limit and education through overlimiting and critical thinking. Do not drop any T arguments and make sure to clarify what your plan does in 1AC CX.

K

• I'm not a really big fan of K, but I'll flow K debates anyway. This means you need to do more effort explaining the K to me. There should be a clear link to the K, an impact, and an exportable alt if the aff did include framework. Defend all offenses and explain how the plan is a root cause of unsustainability or violence, and for later speeches give an overview of the K, the link, the alt, and do line by line.
• For the aff you can do many things against the K, including but not limited to perm, alt fails, definitely extend framework or you'll make your own life hard, and make sure to explain why the case outweighs and solves the alt. Try to make fun of the alternative and the K altogether.
• I'm not very familiar with K vs K debates as I have never met a K aff before, so if you are to run a K aff in novice or younger pools it's not recommended, and you will have to do extra work convincing me. To summarize I will vote the K that solves the other plan and the one that explains the best.

Theories

• I love condo and other theories like vagueness, disclosure debates. For condo, ask status in the 1NC CX and make sure to have a counterinterp of dispo. Hidden vagueness or disclosure cards in the 1NC are fantastic.
• For the aff, you can't really do anything against theories if you mess things up earlier in the debate, so during 1AC CX make sure to carefully answer trap questions and decide the status before-round. Good disclosure such as wiki practices or specification are great for the debate as a general.

SD / PF

If you're looking at this paradigm, this means you're a dedicated debater already. Keep it up!

For debaters at this level, the goal is really to learn and have fun, so I only have a few expectations and some things that can help you in your debate. Doing the things below can help your debate skills more than you ever thought of.

• Read slow and clear, do not try to rush through as many arguments as you can because limited speech time means you can't answer all opponents' claim thoroughly. 3 contentions are the ideal number of contentions.
• Please only extend 1 contention in the end of the debate. Do not go for all of them. Spend all of your time explaining the story, and please do impact calculus: how you outweigh on magnitude, how fast your impacts are and how likely. A world-scenario comparison like "in the pro's world" vs "in the neg's world" is good. Do as many clashes as you can in the late speeches.
• Ask meaningful questions in CX, do not ask questions like "can you explain your card...." No! Ask questions that you can use to manipulate your judge and against the opponents themselves.
• Extend everything in the debate, do not pop-up new arguments out of nowhere in the later speeches. Stay on-topic and make sure to understand your opponents' arguments clearly before you answer any of them. Point out arguments that the opponent did not or did a poor job answering and remember to answer all arguments.
• FLOW! Flowing is a tool to help you monitor what you said, your opponents said, so you can answer all of them and not miss any arguments. Use papers and different colors of pen, and make sure you can read what you wrote. I cannot emphasize how flow will be a dominating aspect of beginners' debates.

But debaters are this level usually don't fulfill all expectations above, so if you can fulfill it, that will be a big bonus and will certainly help you dominate your opponent and my ballots.

Have fun in debate!

Email chain: lily.coaches.debate@gmail.com

About:

• Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
• 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).

Top:

• If I can tell that you are not even trying to flow (eg you never take out a piece of paper the entire debate, you stand up to give your 2NC with just your laptop and no paper) your speaks are capped at 27.
• 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."
• In the words of Allie Chase, "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.
• High schoolers are too young to swear in debates.
• 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 card 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.

Framework:

• 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" < 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.

Counterplans

• 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: 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.

Disads

• Read them
• Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.

Ks

• I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are corny unpersuasive.
• 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.
• 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 - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.

Lincoln-Douglas:

• If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
• 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 persuasive to me. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.

Addison.Wang.NZ@gmail.com

he/him/his | ADL; FPS'26

Hello! I'm currently a high schooler at Taipei Fushing Private School in Taiwan. I mainly do CX debate and am currently in my 4th year of debating CX, but I previously did around 3 years of PF

*This paradigm was inspired by Tyler Prochazka, Gabe Esquivel, and Lily Ottinger's, meaning if you don't understand anything I wrote here, reference their paradigms :D*

General

T/L

I'm open to any argument, but please make sure that your arguments are supported by warrants, even if it's theory. I will not consider your claims without warrants, even if they are conceded. However, if the opposing team fails to challenge a poorly warranted claim, I will assume it to be true unless it's nonsensical.

Make sure you do clash between arguments. This means you answer your opponents' arguments, do line-by-line, and set yourself up for your strategies in your later speeches. Evidence comparison and impact weighing are good. Explain why your arguments are better than your opponents'.

Tech > truth, meaning if you have a card that backs your statement, it only matters to me if you impact it out for me in terms of why that means I buy your argument.

Quality > quantity, meaning develop strong, lasting arguments instead of running a bunch of weak ones. Despite that, I still respect any choice you find strategic but be prepared to defend your choice!

Clarity > speed. You can go as fast as you desire, but if it's not clear or if I can't understand it, then I won't take it into account in my RFD

Frame the ballot! State how the RFD should be written if I were to vote for you. If you do not provide any ballot-directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD based on my understanding of the arguments presented. Therefore, it's in your best interest to provide clear instructions on the RFD.

Make sure you time yourself! I will still time them but it's wise to keep track of how much time you have during your speech.

CX

T/L

Cross-x isn't explicitly "closed," but each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties.

Please do not be racist, sexist, violent, etc in a way that may be hazardous to someone in the debate. I would prefer not to judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments in a debate.

Speaks range from around 26.5 to 29, but I have and will give higher or lower speaks depending on how the round goes.

Please disclose 30 minutes prior to the round. Shady disclosure practices are discouraged.

Topicality

Caselists are very important.

The presence of other NEG positions is not a defense to a ground argument. The AFF being disclosed is not a defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.

I default to competing interpretations, so do a lot of clash and evidence comparisons

Disads

They're great!

Impact turns are underrated.

Counterplans

I will NOT judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise.

Conditionality seems to be necessary for debate, but I agree that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not good. Increased condo usually leads to worse debating, but do what you need to do. I don't lean on any side, particularly for this.

I'm open to any theory arguments as long as you develop clear warrants for them.

PICs of any sort are fine in my opinion.

Kritiks

Not a heavy K debater.

Framework needs warrants and specific impacts to them for both AFF and NEG. Provide judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose the framework interpretation. Weighing the AFF against the K is reasonable in my opinion.

Read specific links to the AFF if you're NEG.

Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.

Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The NEG can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.

Planless/K-AFFs

I hate them with a fiery passion, but you're free to run them if you'd like. I'd probably lean on NEG, however.

T-USFG is a great strategy. I especially like TVA arguments with solvency advocates or examples of SSD. Make sure to explain why your impacts outweigh theirs.

Presumption is also a great strategy against these types of arguments.

SD/PF

In general, make sure you clearly explain your arguments to me. Do line-by-line and impact calculus. I personally value magnitude the most, followed by probability then timeframe, but how you structure and place your arguments is up to you!