I'm a parent judge who brings a multi-cultural and international sensibility to my role, a perspective also informed by more than 25 years of practice in the field of law. With clients that have included hi-tech companies, venture capital funds, and a governmental agency, I have always sought a fact-based and science-driven outlook that values substance over style and rationality over rhetoric. May the best debaters prevail!

Debater at TJ, HAVE LEGIT 0 TOPIC KNOWLEDGE ON ARCTIC.

i wont flow off of speech doc

tech > truth but i wont vote off of BS

keep it under 225 wpm pls

Copied From Will Sjostrom:

Debate is first and foremost a safe and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I really enjoy debate so do what you are best at.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal

More specific stuff:

Arguments:

I don’t really care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at and I'll judge it accordingly.

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I won't have any issue flowing any speed you decide to go.

Theory:

I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any other theory arguments just need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be tough to impossible to win in front of me.

Evidence:

I'd really prefer you read cut cards. Debate is an activity about high quality research not writing a persuasive english paper. If you do paraphrase then you really need to have the cut cards ready at a minimum. A card is not cut if it does not have a complete and correct cite as well as the important/ cited parts of the card being emphasized. Evidence should be able to be sent when asked for in a timely manner. If it is not sent quickly it may be dropped from the debate.

tjhsst '24 he/him (some parts of my paradigm are stolen from alec boulton)

Add me to the email chain dli447890@gmail.com (feel free to email after with questions!)

tech = truth (a dropped argument is true, unless it's just plain wrong. The more goofy an argument, the lower my threshold for responses is)

grand cross is a grand waste of time. if you skip it +0.5 speaks, and no, you don't get any extra prep time if you skip it. In terms of the other crossfires, I don't pay attention to them, so tell me if something important happens.

Speed trades off with clarity, the faster you go, the less likely I am to be able to flow everything you say. If it's not on my flow, it doesn't exist, and I don't flow off docs. So basically, don't spread.

-Traditional-

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Dump if you want, but at least be responsive. I don't care for your other contentions or "DAs," get good at debate and use your brain. All your responses should be warranted and implicated. Turns or link-ins need to be weighed.

Second rebuttal needs to frontline. It may be strategic to collapse.

Defense isn't sticky. If it wasn't in summary, it no longer exists.

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is 100%, unless their evidence specifically says "there is an x% chance this happens". Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact. What does 20% GDP lead to?

-Progressive-

don't lol

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly biased and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's disappointing.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and take speaks off or give you the L depending on how bad it is. If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything (I require evidence in constructive though). The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of what we are doing debate for. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Use your brain, it's a good one. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

good evidence = good analysis > bad evidence > bad logic

-Speaks-

I will go from 27-30, 28 average (unless you're racist or something). Speaks decided based on crossfire, rhetoric, & strategy. Being funny or entertaining will probably boost your speaks.

W30 if you rap every speech

+0.5 speaks for a good forehead joke

+0.5 speaks if you roast your partner in speech/cross (it must be a good roast, and must be tied to the debate in some way)

Email for chain/questions: davidxli2006@gmail.com

General

- WEIGH!

- Warrant, extend & weigh well if you want me to vote on them

- No new responses in summary

- Send doc if case longer than 850 wpm

Prep

- Keep track of your prep and opponent's prep

- Time your speeches

Round

- Read content warnings with anonymous opt out google forms

- I will try my best but try not to read prog arguments

- Be Chill

she/her || tjhsst '24

add me to email chains: gracexyliu@gmail.com (won't look unless you ask me to in a speech though)

for any questions: fb messenger

general (wip)

- will try to be as tech as possible

- WEIGH! metaweighing > almost any weighing > no weighing

- things need to be warranted, weighed, extended & explained well if you want me to vote on them

- frontline in 2nd reb

- no new implications past summary unless you're responding to something new

- cross doesn't matter, anything you want me to consider has to be in the next speech

- speed is okay until it's unintelligible without a doc

prep/timing

- keep track of your own/your opponent's prep, i won't

- will time speeches, won't flow anything overtime

- stay unmuted while calling for and sending cards

other (important) stuff

- PLEASE read specific content warnings with anonymous opt outs (google form) for potentially triggering arguments

- have fun

speaks

- speaks for an "average" team ~28.5

- don't be rude or _-ist

ishara shanmugasundaram (she/her)

debated @ tjhsst for 2 years

isha9shan@gmail.com

general

• weigh!!

• no spreading please

• no theory, tricks, or k's

• tell me why i should prefer your ev over your opponent's ev

• warrant all arguments

• second reb should frontline

• no new arguments during ff

speaks

• +0.5 speaks for every taylor swift reference

• +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the wiki if you let me know before round starts

• if i feel like you're being unnecessarily rude during round you will lose speaks

• if i feel like you're taking too long/stalling while sending cards (>1 min) you will lose speaks

• any -ism is an auto L 20.

misc

•add me onto the email chain - preferred over google doc or flashing

• will disclose after round if tournament allows

McLean 25 (2 years parli, 3 years natcirc pf)

pf:

add me to the chain: aileenw0303@gmail.com

tech > truth, i'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's warranted and extended

COMPARATIVE weighing

collapse

prefer substance, dk that much about prog (other than basic T shells/Ks) so run at your own risk (still i think para bad and disclo good)

i like flay debate

fine with speed

second rebuttal should frontline

TJ JZ - 2023

Debated at Thomas Jefferson Sci & Tech for 4 years

Email Chain or Google Doc for evidence sharing would be appreciated: edwardbzhang@gmail.com

Tech >> Truth

PF

TJ Intramural Edit: I have noexperience with this topic so it would be good to treat me as a flay and explainstuff. Don't expect that I know the stock args and what you are talking about this topic.

Defense isn't sticky extend in all speeches

Most importantly: Don't be confusing. If I don't know what you're talking about, then I probably have no idea how to vote for that particular argument. This probably goes without saying.

-2nd summary needs to frontline

-Do weighing by summary

- Please extend

-New implications in final are fine

-I'm fine with theory

-Haven't read Ks other than Cap, so I might not be the best judge for that

-Don't read tricks.

- I'm fine with speed, but if you think you are on the verge of spreading then send a doc

Presumption

Presume neg? Presume aff? Presume first speaking team? I don't know.

If you truly feel that there is no offense left in the round, then I might buy arguments for why I should presume you.

In general, I think most judges don't like to presume teams unless explicitly told so, so if I think that there's no offense in the round and no team gives voters for why I should presume a specific way, I'll probably either vote off of risk of offence or whichever team has the best defensive arguments. Maybe even presentation too, idk. Just debate good.

Speaks

I'll generally give high speaks unless you do something that warrants me dropping them

You can improve your speaks by impressing me with smart strategy decisions like collapsing early, doing weighing, and meta-weighing

If you are reading my paradigm before a tournament and aren't sure what some things here mean, then feel free to send me an email and I can try to explain it

updated for the 2023 plastic toc

put the public in public forum. we will still flow but anything >800 and you'll be docked points/closer to losing

we are lawyers from the intercity of new york. we care about crossfire and vote off final.

onto the paradigm

he/him - tjhsst '24 (3 years natcirc pf, 1 year nat/intl worlds on USA d-team)

put me on the email chain: bzhou2024@gmail.comand tjhsstpfdocs@gmail.com

TL;DR: I will flow; keep speech speed limited; all offense must be weighed; prefer no progressive arguments past theory; I prefer quality>quantity in responses and please implicate them

etiquette

wear & do whatever makes you feel most comfortable

content warnings must be explicit and mentioned before case - please send an anonymous opt-out form as well. don't do a cw and then jump into case what is the point.

important stuff

if you know worlds, treat me like a worlds/flay judge

framing > metaweighing > weighing > cleanest arg > presumption, but cleanest arg w/ contested weighing will probably always win

the second speaking team must frontline

extend extend extend, extend the entire argument

please extend what you are going to go for (including defense not responded to, but you can keep it short)

from andy wang:

presumption

i will presume the team that lost the flip, otherwise first speaking team unless told otherwise

prog

yeah I'll vote on disclo if you warrant it well

i have zero experience with k's or tricks, you can run them but don't spread, make it understandable, and run it at your own risk

speaker points

speaker points are pretty arbitrary and flawed so i'll try to give good speaks, here are some arbitrary ways to get speaker points

L20 for spreading / prog against newer debaters

If both sides agree to drop a new roast/analogy to David Li in each speech that's relevant in the round, I'll give you all 30's for this round & the rest of the tournament. here's some: forehead, you me date, 0 rizz, swim districts, the rest is for you to find :)

+1.0 for an accurate reference to the Game
+1.0 for every funny contention tag
+0.5 for every Oakton HJ joke
+0.5 for mentioning Churchill HT
+0.5 for https://youtu.be/lCe5M3dWx30

paradigms i agree with

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=201071
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=141113
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=60721
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=192404