I am an early STEM professional with ESL mentorship and science communication background from California/Taipei. Expect "average, informed citizen" level knowledge from me in regards to policy topics.

This is my first judging event, so I value clear delivery and secondly, coherent logic. Being respectful of the opponent's viewpoint is highly appreciated; arrogance and "big words" as power play against opponents do not help the score, nor does a strategy that only focuses on refuting their points. You will not be judged for stuttering, pausing, or accidentally saying a word wrong, but please be mindful of your speed and pronunciation clarity.

Congress Paradigm for 2023 TOC:

Delivery: delivery will be a factor in my decision, but only a moderate one. Ideally, speakers adapt to their audience, have poise and confidence, and consider word choice carefully. Two notes I write for congressional speakers often are: 1) Stop yelling at me (please adjust your tone to be appropriate for this environment, and 2) please use a tone appropriate for the topic of debate.

Evidence usage: evidence weighs strongly in my decisions. I'm not only interested in the quality of the evidence, but I'm interested in how you use and analyze it. More is not always better.

Analysis: analysis may be the largest factor in my decisions for rankings in Congress. I really like to see debaters thinking critically, weighing arguments well, and finding nuanced ways to discuss legislation. Speakers who simply expand on arguments already made are going to struggle to do well on my ballot.

Decorum: be respectful, be kind, and follow the rules. I assume you will do this, but if you don't, that will not sit well with me.

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.

Hello Debaters

I'd like everyone to reduce their speaking speed for better clarity.

Limit or explain technical jargon.

Be respectful.

Arguments that are well thought out and rational appeal to me. First-time judge at international school.

I was Public Forum captain in high school, but that was 12 years ago! I did policy/CX debate for two years and then public forum for another two years, so I am somewhat familiar with both. Since it's been so long though, I may need a refresher on the structure.

As a judge, I will do my best to emulate a tabula rasa paradigm, but I recognize my unavoidable implicit biases. I think the strongest opinion I have on judging debate is my dislike for over-emphasizing appeal to emotions. In the age of fake news and attention manipulation, when I recognize that my emotions are being manipulated over rationality or fact, I tend to react negatively.

This is my second time judging for NSDA. I would like you to be very clear concerning the meaning of biometric recognition technology.

All the best!

Please support your arguments with logic and examples.

All Debates

My General Paradigm
In my view debating is more like a game. It must be fair, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of the game will be played in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Flowing
I prefer line by line debate, but I don't have a problem resetting the flow if the new organization makes sense. Overviews are helpful, but please apply your arguments. A dangling overview is just an introduction. If you don't apply overview arguments to the flow, don't expect me to. Also, please do not machine gun your theory arguments. They should have a warrant and enough explanation to give me time to flow effectively. 2-3 complete sentences will usually get the job done.
Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel obliged to. I prefer that debaters help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. I view truth vs. tech to be a false dichotomy; truth and tech are two different aspects of a debate and both weigh in my decision. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Hello, debaters. My name is Matthew Neil, and I am an English teacher. For a while now I've also had the privilege of coaching our school's debate team and judging numerous local, state, and national debate tournaments.

As a debate judge, I take pride in helping to shape and facilitate an environment that encourages intellectual growth and critical thinking. What excites me the most about judging is the opportunity to witness firsthand the development of future leaders, advocates, and changemakers.

My love for judging stems from my own experiences as a high school debater. I understand the rigorous mental preparation that goes into each debate, the rush of adrenaline when delivering an argument, and the sense of accomplishment when a point lands successfully.

A debate for me is a chess match of words and ideas. It's a platform where young minds can explore, contest, and refine their worldviews. And it's genuinely inspiring to see the passion and dedication that each of you brings to your arguments.

Remember, my goal as a judge is not to dictate the outcome of the debate but to provide a fair and unbiased assessment of the arguments presented. I believe in clear reasoning, solid evidence, and respectful discourse. I look forward to hearing your ideas and seeing how you navigate the complex world of debate. Good luck to each of you!

www.speechcraft.tw

1. What is your debate background?

• Debated in university level and above.
• Thrice Champion and Finalist of international British Parliamentary and Asian Parliamentary tournaments in Taiwan.
• Best EFL Speaker of Asia, United Asian Debating Championship 2013 - Adjudication Core of Northeast Asian Open 2013 & 2014
• Coach of WSDC Team Taiwan
• Coached Taipei Fuhsing Private High School

2. How do you judge?

I judge based on how teams fulfil burdens of the motion by providing relevant and coherent logical linkages towards certain claims. Teams are expected to engage with each other to the extent necessary to fulfil the opposing outcomes are more likely to be true or the opposing objective more desirable, rather than merely refuting how certain claims are unlikely to be true. Facts and matters are highly appreciated as auxiliary materials to reinforce logical linkages.

3. Please explain other specifics about your judging style

I have no particular preference over speech style. Irrespective of their speed, accent or structure, speakers will be credited for their relevant content as long as the speech is understandable within my capacity. Conversely, speakers are expected to deliver and justify their argumentation in ways that can reasonably be understood by a supposedly average reasonable person who isn't particularly inclined towards certain worldview or an expert in a particular field.

CV:

WSDC 2020 Team Taiwan, Open Quarterfinalists

Cambridge Asia British Parliamentary Open, Open Champions

King’s College London Open 2022, Open Gold Finalists

Asian World Schools Debating Championship 2021, Open Grand finalists

Hong Kong Linkbate Championships 2020, Junior Champions

Taiwan Debate Open 2019, High School Grand Finalists

Paradigm:

a) fulfillment of burden

b) substantiation

c) engagement

No preference on speaking styles

Background

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.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

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.

1. What is your debate background?

- Debated in in-school debate competitions (middle school)

- 2004 IASAS Original Oratory contestant for Taipei American School

- HSNU English Debate Coach 2015-2018

- CKHS English Debate Coach 2017

- Taoyuan Wuling Senior High School English Debate Coach 2018-2020

- Yan-Ping Senior High School English Debate Coach 2020-2021, 2024

- Taiwan High School English Debate Regionals/Nationals Judge 2018-current

- Co-founder of Education Legion education team

2. How do you judge?

I am deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters. My basis for evaluating evidence strength is the OCEBM (Oxford Classification of Evidence-Based Medicine). In other words, expert opinions and case reports do not sway me unless there is a specific and necessary reason to mentioning such kind of evidence, or is coupled with other stronger pieces of evidence. Failure to do so would make me more critical about the presented evidence that the debater(s) strives to put into use to tie into their assertions or claims.

Link your logic together and do not scatter like a shotgun shooting its pellets from long-distance. It is your responsibility to engage not only with your audience but also the judge(s). A messy beginning and unclear crossfires/cross-examinations make it hard to delineate or see what is going on from one or both sides, which means every part of the debate counts.

Do not bring up new arguments during the summary/final focus (PF) or rebuttals (CX). New evidence is allowed, but at this point it would be kind of late to do it.

3. Please explain other specifics of your judging style.

Even though I have no problem keeping up, I am not a fan of spreading. The purpose of debate is communication, not word blasting. If you abuse your education advantages that give you better language mastery and/or preparation time, to pummel less privileged teams, it will impact negatively on your speaker points and the outcome if it interferes with the debate.

Sportsmanship and basic mutual respect must be adhered.

Kritik should be used only when necessary.

Counterplans are fun as long as they are clear.

Debates should have a clear and consistent framework from construction to final focus. Refrain from speed talking, as your contentions and refutations should be clear and coherent. Strong and relevant evidence should clearly link contentions to impact. Creative thinking is a bonus. Take a deep breath and have fun!