Tabroom.com

NSDA Taiwan Members Invitational

2023 — Taipei, TW

Debate Judge Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sebastian Chan Hire

Last changed on Mon January 15, 2024 at 4:10 AM CST

Email: sebastianchan961113@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

please read everything, I spent quite a lot of time on it and it would really help you during debates

As an educator and judge, I place utmost emphasis on the technical execution of arguments, relegating stylistic or preferential considerations to the periphery, contingent upon the effectiveness of your presented strategy. My overarching objective is to adjudicate each debate with the least interventionist approach, striving to avoid any undue influence stemming from personal biases. I am committed to maintaining impartiality even in the face of arguments I strongly disagree with, as long as they are convincingly won within the context of the round. Just try to debate the way that best suits your preferences, as I don’t want my personal preference potentially hinder any execution of strategies. While my inclination often leans toward rewarding teams that demonstrate brilliant strategic decision-making throughout the debate, I do hold in high regard the elements of well-formatted evidence, the meticulous crafting of line-by-line arguments, and persuasive and articulate speaking skills. Such merits, however, shall primarily contribute to the allocation of speaker points and remain separated from their impact on my final decision. Although a lack of flowing will not directly affect speaker points, note that it can significantly affect the trajectory of the debate, potentially leading to a less desirable outcome. Within the purview of maintaining a semblance of decorum, I endeavor to limit interference in the debate process. However, should situations escalate beyond acceptable bounds, it may necessitate my intervention.

Still gonna put some stuff here to give you more context about my debate style. Just note that these doesn't mean you have to follow any of those as it doesn't matter that much.

call me whatever, just not weird names.

tech > truth

clarity + speed > clarity > speed

there is only one winner and one loser

please don't clip, I hate it

don't ask if want to open or close cx, always open

please know your arguments well, I kind of get second hand embarrassment when someone doesn't know what they are talking about when being asked.

i will not vote on things that didn't happen within the debate round (disclosure theory, personal attacks). I'm not a judge of who is a better person

if a team initiate ethics challenge, if it's successful the offending team will receive the lowest speaks possible and an automatic loss. If it's not found legitimate, then vise versa.

I'm pretty hard to offend. But there is not reason to offend people.

It's good to makes jokes during debate because it lighten up the mood. But just don't make dumb ones or keep making them. If you are funny, then you are. Don't be a try hard.

it will be really nice to start the email chain before round. But you are not obligated to, but it just makes things way easier.

I will try not to show much facial expression that might interfere with the flow of the debate. But sometimes I might unintentionally do it eg. confused about arguments, funny situations.

I will try my best to flow you as I believe I'm quite good at listening but if it's too unclear I will give you a warning and if nothing is changed I will just stop flowing as it's just really tough for me to interpret what you are trying to say.

More in depth policy debate stuff:

a-z spec is the best argument

infinite condo good. condo is just an easy way out for the aff. the aff knew they are not gonna win, so condo is their only chance.

i don't really understand plan text in a vacuum, doesn't really make sense to me

Please don't reference my paradigm in your speech/make arguments based off my preferences

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=417062

I disagree with every word of this paradigm. Take every premise presented within it and assume that I believe the exact opposite. Making mocking reference or tell the person who wrote it that it's completely wrong will earn you higher speaker points and is the only way you can get higher speaker points outside of the debate itself.

Kara Chao Hire

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 11:02 PM CST

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

Brandon Chen Hire

Janise Chiang Hire

Ariel Chiong Hire

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 6:26 AM CST

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!

Joshua Cho Hire

Jacqueline Chu Hire None

Jay Chu Hire

Connor Dennis Hire

Gabriel Esquivel Hire

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 6:57 PM CST

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)

Brandon Gergel Hire

Nancy Hsiao Hire

Chi-Yun Hsieh Hire

Ryan Huang Hire

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 7:55 PM CST

rynhium@gmail.com

FHJH '28, refer to me as "Ryan," pronouns are he/him.

1 year each of varsity and novice policy debate; 4 years of SD/PF @ADL

I usually give speaks around 28.5 unless you are violating debate norms or are really exceptional (like singing your speech)

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:

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.

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

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.

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!

Renee Kuo Hire None

Boney Lee Hire

Nick Lepp Hire

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2024 at 11:52 AM EDT

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and George Mason University. This is my 15th year in policy debate.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this, and I will tell you that your argument makes no sense in my RFD.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

I really do not understand how the economy works. I'm sorry. I've really tried to get it, but I just don't. You absolutely can go for econ DAs and/or econ case turns in front of me, but please be extra careful to explain (in lots of detail!) what you're arguing here.

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary).

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad. Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" even is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate (I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools).

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Gina Lin Hire

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 3:51 AM CST

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 :)))

Elroy Liu Hire

Jessica Liu Hire

Benjamin Lung Hire

Marty Lung Hire

Lily Ottinger Hire

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 8:18 PM CDT

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.

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.

Jose Rodriguez Hire

Maria Sanchez ADL

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 1:46 AM CDT

Northside College Prep '16 - University of Kentucky '20

Please add me to the email chain: mariaesan98@gmail.com

Judging Notes:

Please keep track of your own prep
Please be as quick with tech as possible - I will deduct from your prep time if this becomes unreasonable as I want to be respectful of the folks running the tournament
No tag team CX - I really prefer to hear individual 1 v 1 CX clash and this helps me determine speaker points more easily
Unless this is a reasonable ask, if you care about where a team marked their cards/what cards they did or did not read, then please be diligent about flowing that yourself - I have a very strong preference towards not sending out marked copies of speech docs when there were only one or two marked cards

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about. Please be respectful to both your partner and your opponents and give it your best!

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing as zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated, though it's not the only thing! Being able to communicate what your ev says and why your ev matters is key!

Theory:

Conditionality is good.

Critical Strategies:

I am okay for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading it. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

Ryan Matthew Snow Hire

Alva Tang Hire

Addison Wang Hire

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 7:18 AM CST

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.

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 are fine.

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!

Bernice Wang Hire None

Chloe Wang Hire

Micah Wang Hire

Nathan Weller Hire

Last changed on Sun October 9, 2022 at 3:19 AM CST

1. My background

Debated (policy debate) for two years in high school in New York, USA.
In college, I didn't continue competitively in debate but did "persuasive speech."
10+ years of coaching/instructing/judging debate in secondary education to students and fellow teachers. (Mostly in policy debate, but also some public forum and Lincoln Douglas)

2. How I judge.

It is true that I deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters to an extent. (see below)
I primarily focus on arguments and logical reasoning/connections.
The delivery primarily only is an impact if it makes the arguments unclear to the listeners (myself or the opponents).

3. My judging style and preferences.

Any pace/speed should be okay as long as the speaker is clear and loud enough (I'm not a fan of debaters racing through a preprepared speech thoughtlessly while being barely comprehensible).
I'm not a big fan of a Kritik approach but will accept it if there is enough of a clear, logical connection created by the speaker. (If you use one, you had better be really good with having it connected and possible/believable.)
I attempt to approximate the estimate of the “AVERAGE INFORMED CITIZEN.” (A simple "blank slate" is not an average citizen, so I do somewhat weight points according to the arguments being reasonable. However, you are also not debating against my knowledge of a topic.)
I enjoy hearing counter plans and original ideas but don't like it if a counter plan is remarkably similar to the affirmative plan (has only minor differences/changes).
I DON'T LIKE SPREADING! I would rather have a team choose their best arguments instead of trying to win by just having a large number of minor points that end up being dropped. (If you have a lot of points, that is not a problem that is, if... lots of points are dropped by your opponents, but you can defend the parts challenged are defended instead of quickly dropping them (when challenged) that would convince me that you are ready to defend the other points that were dropped. However, if you spread and then repeatedly drop your own arguments (when challenged), that would lead me to believe that you are only trying to win via numbers alone.)

Additional notes...

I am dyslexic... if there is a lot being said, I might not be writing/typing because it can be distracting from what is being said, but I am keeping mental notes. (Being dyslexic means that it is a bit harder for me to write and listen simultaneously.)
My notes are sometimes messy because they are only intended for me.
I prefer to give immediate feedback instead of long detailed written reports but will write up the more major things in a feedback report.

Email: Nathan.in.Taiwan@gmail.com (ONLY use my listed email if you need it to share evidence or in debate email chains)

Caleb Michael Yang Hire

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 9:38 AM CST

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.

chloe yang Hire None

Bryce Yao Hire

Hermes Yen Hire

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 7:29 PM EDT

I like to think that I enter each debate tab, and I don't really have any preferences. Just make sure that you respect your opponents and your partner, bring in a good attitude, and have fun

yenh@mca.org.tw <-- questions/email chain

Please don't call me judge, Hermes is fine

Don't be late. I won't quite dock speaks, but I'll be less inclined to buy your Bing '37 card about how polar bears lead to rapid economic collapse

Case

Warranting is really what I look for, I don't care that much about evidence and whatnot, just make sure you explain the (internal) link thoroughly. I'm pretty tech > truth as long as it actually makes sense. I actually tried to build an anime case one time - so take that as you will.

I was taught from a young age to go for narratives, so that might be someone worth considering. Narratives help me (the judge) focus on one thing particularly, a strong narrative is often a voting incentive.

Rebuttal & Second Constructive

Really prefer line by line, makes flowing so much easier. Preferable if you answer arguments by extending your own, but it's fine if you don't. Again, warranting>evidence, don't throw cards at me. Analytic arguments are fine. Second team, please frontline in the rebuttal to make the debate fairer. Non-unique and delinks are fine, but make sure you have some offense on rebuttals too - link turns and outweighs. otherwise the argument could go on presumption.

Summary

First team, make sure that you prioritize frontlining, otherwise, I won't be judging your impacts. Absence of frontlines means that essentially you concede to rebuttals, so don't do that.

Remember, summaries and final focuses are about closing doors, not opening them. Be sure to collapse on arguments, please don't give me 38173 gazillion contentions in final.

If you have time, make sure to weigh. It makes the second speaker's life so much easier.

Go down key clash in the debate, explain why you think you won those, and explain why that matters.

(I won't flow new arguments)

Final

Make sure that you limit down, and collapse on the arguments you think you won. Impact calculus is really good, and a necessity for any good team.

Cross

Be respectful, please! In general, close-ended "trap" questions work best, and humor is much appreciated! Just don't be too mean. I don't flow cross, but it's binding and I do listen.

Progressive args

I used to hate them, now I like them. I have some background in policy, so "DA with framing impact" or "Generalized alternative" is good. Just don't abuse this - don't read four different counterplans each with their 20 planks.

Misc

Generally, I'm a-ok with speed, but make sure your opponents can understand. Debate is about communication, not overwhelming the other side (and the judge) with evidence. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing.

Please be respectful in general, and be nice, or else speaks go blop.

Framework is all too often not developed enough, but can be a powerful tool if developed correctly. It tells me how to judge a debate, and I'll default on whichever team has a frame. If you don't respond to a frame with a counter-frame, then there's nothing for me to vote on otherwise, and so will vote on the team that has a frame. Unless it's not warranted, or the team without framing tells me the frame is 1. unfair or 2. uneducational or 3. not topical or 4. not as good. If you just say your frame outweighs or something then I'll still go with whatever frame was provided first. This method is a tad bit unorthodox but I don't like switching frames unless there's something wrong with the first - I do give aff a bit of ground here with framework (as they go first).

Clash is necessary for me to decide the winning team, absence of clash will lead me to vote for whichever team has the most convincing warrants.

I try not to intervene, but find that at this level of debate it's difficult not to.

Policy

case

not much to be said here, big fan of progressive affs - read kaffs at your own risk, make sure YOU understand them and relate them to the topic

disad

make sure you win your impact (this is particularly important to me) as what i think that as long as the aff impact outweigh you, voting aff minimizes risk

please don't run seven off, i do have an innate preference for reasonable dispo. but by all means - go for condo on aff, it's an easy win if neg fumbles

topicality

less concerned with what the intent of nsda putting the reso out and more concerned with in-round implications of what voting neg or aff means.

tldr; make in-round implications

theory

big fan, run theory

frivalous theory - i think it's funny

disclosure - unless the advantage gap between the two schools is really big and they really didn't disclose, won't vote on it

condo - skew neg on dispo (within reason)

make sure k links to case, make sure you understand the k

afropessisim

don't read cards with the n-word unless you're black

fem ir

works better if you have at least one girl on the team

baudrillard

big fan, make sure you explain

cap

offer realistic alts

imperalism

again, big fan

Speaks

i skew high on speaks so i'm not the one that messed up seeding

Don't forget to have a good time!

Login to Tabroom

NSDA Taiwan Members Invitational

2023 — Taipei, TW

Debate Judge Paradigm List

Judges