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

Email chain: ariarielc777@gmail.com

TAS 27'

Policy debater at ADL with 3 years in policy, 2 in smart debate, 5 years of experience in total

she/her

For Smart Debaters/PF:

Confidence is key! Being confident, standing up straight, speaking loudly and clearly, and staying on task contribute greatly to your ethos - credibility - in debate and helps to make you appear more persuasive to the judge when you sound like you know what you're talking about.

Clash! - address your opponents' arguments directly and compare the author's credibility, recency of evidence, or how your argument is just superior based on analysis and logic.

Please tell me WHY - why should I care if hacking causes crimes? Why should I care MORE about disease spread than infrastructure building? Addressing the "why" and giving the judge a good reason to vote for the argument is a very good way to get a judge's ballot.

Don't drop arguments - answering arguments means that you mitigate your opponent's impacts and makes it easier for you to weigh. Think of debate as soccer or basketball or some sport that involves points: you want to score points and prevent your opponent from scoring points at the same time. In order to score points, you need to extend and defend your arguments. In order to prevent your opponent from scoring points, you need to answer their arguments and their rebuttals against yours.

Please be loud and clear - if you want to be fast, make sure you are clear enough as well. I am most likely not very well-versed in your topic as I do policy debate and thus do not know your arguments as well as you do, so being clear helps me as the judge to know the argument well enough to vote on it!

Be nice! - overall, debate isn't just an educational space where you can learn advocacy and reasoning skills - it's a SAFE space to have fun in and enjoy a unique experience with your peers!

For Speaker Points (in general):

To get higher speaks:

Be nice (don't yell and talk over your opponents or insult other people or ignore and deride your judge), be funny (when it's appropriate), give me reasons and warrants to back up your claim, be smart and strategic in your decisions regarding your arguments and time management, and you're good to go!

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

I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.

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.

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.

**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~

contact--huangethan111@gmail.com

put me on the email chain and feel free to ask me if you have any questions abt how I judge

Tech>truth

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. 

Info

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 you have any questions.

Email: ling28@ma.org.tw (btw this is my school email so please write something appropriate).

PLEASE DO NOT ASK HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE LEFT EITHER END THE SPEECH EARLY OR KEEP GOING

In the debate

I am ok with fast but 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 should be clear in rebuttal of what contention you are 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.

Smart debate:

I love impact calc in final focus

Be clear

Signpost

Don't drop arguments

Ask good crossfire questions

Public Forum:

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

WEIGH!!!!

Speaks

- If you are being rude or annoying or inappropriate speaks -3.

- If you don't speak clearly -2.

- Swearing -1.

- 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 :)))

Sarah Maeng she/her

Taipei American School 28'

Email chain: 66checkmymails@gmail.com

Instagram: @sarahmaengg

If you are curious about my judging styles, then please ask me before the round starts!

Good luck debaters!

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.

pronouns: he/him

email: lllucas0416@gmail.com

4 years of smart debate & pf, now at jv/varsity policy

Auto L if you are racist, sexist, hugely disrespectful, anti-LGBTQ+, etc

flow judge, pls time yourself

magnitude > all, same goes w/ logos

dont waste speech time as much as possible

smart debate:

PLS CLASH

final focuses definitely tank on impact calc and dont drop arguments

For constructives READ LOUDLY PLS

if you have ev for rebuttals that is good

i usually give high speaks

28scarletttsai@gmail.com - add me to the email chain !

have fun :)