Tabroom.com

NSDA Taiwan Members Invitational

2023 — Taipei, TW

Debate Judge Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sebastian Chan Hire

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 Sun May 5, 2024 at 11:32 PM CST

Email chain: ariarielc777@gmail.com

TAS 27'

Policy debater at ADL with 4 years in policy

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.

Impact Calc - compare your impacts with your opponents. Don't just talk about how horrible your impact is - explain why it's more important and why the judge should vote for that instead of the opponent's impact.

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 May 18, 2024 at 12:48 AM 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

My biases:

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

For K's I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.

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

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Brandon Gergel Hire

Nancy Hsiao Hire

Chi-Yun Hsieh Hire

Ryan Huang Hire

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 3:36 PM CST

About

rynhium@gmail.com
Asian Debate League & Taipei Fuhsing - Based in Taiwan (GMT+8) so time differences may apply
Debate Experiences: 4 years of SD, 0.5 year of PF (IMF), 3 years of JVCX (Water, NATO, fiscal), doing VCX this year (IP)
Call me whatever you want

Top

Tech > Truth: Dropped arguments are true arguments. I will try my best to avoid judge intervention (unless I really have to), and prefer not to judge death/extinction good or personal-experiences-related debates, however, dropped arguments with no warrants/blippy reasonings will not be on my flow
I only flow what I hear, not what's on the doc: speeches are for you to communicate to your judges and not merely spreading to such unclarity that I can't understand it - I will say "clear" three times before I stop your speech, and please slow down 80% for online debates
I'm very strict on time. No typing or communicating with partners unless it's CX, speech time, or prep. Technical issues should be resolved pre-round.
CX is always "open," it's never "closed," but there should be a primary speaker for the two CXs to avoid speaker point penalties
Vertical proliferation > Horizontal proliferation (aka quality > quantity)
Automatic voters: Clipping, discriminatory speeches, gaming & doing other things before the round ends, body-shaming, or any sorts of behaviors that undermine the activity
I make my ballots off the question: how will it set precedents for future debates?

Speaks:

30~29.8: Best performances I've seen so far
29.7~29: Top debater in the round
28.9~28: Decent performances
27.9~27: Fair performances
Below 27: Performances that undermine the activity
Speaker points penalties: Shady disclosure, poorly constructed speeches, slangs (more tolerated in higher divisions), interruption, rude gestures
Debate is a chill activity - sense of humors, respects for others, or anything that make it easier for me to judge will be greatly rewarded

Theories/Topicalities:

Substantive wins > Technical Wins: Please don't run utopian fiat, A-Spec, L-Spec, or blippy theory arguments in the 2AR/2NR - almost all theories can be resolved by RANT and are not the models of debate we want to have, there are way better choices in the round
Topicalities: They're good tests of whether the plan is topical or not - Reasonability, we meet, overlimiting, and counter-interps are the best aff answers in my opinion, and if the neg can articulate a clear reason why the aff violated and made the debate impossible then I can vote for both sides
Condo is almost always good, but I can also be convinced otherwise
Develop strong theory arguments early in the constructives - Please don't do 10 sec of condo in 2AC and go full 10 min of condo in the rebuttals just because you're losing on substances
Don't spam cards, explain them: Theories/topicalities should mostly rely on analytics and explaining them to me, but cards or definitions can be helpful
Interpretation/We meet: Give clear definitions on what they violate, what the debate should be like in order to be topical. We meet should always be the #1 strategies for aff, but most teams never explain why PTIAV is the most objective metric.
Links: In-round abuses > Potential abuses: Most theory arguments just rant about how abusive the other team can be, but not pointing out how they're actually abusive in the round, and I will not buy most theory arguments unless there are really in-round abuses that make the debate unfair
Internal Links: If you really are to run a theory, please paint the aff and neg worlds of what future debate models will be like based on their abuses - I struggle on why this will affect future debates when judging most theory arguments
Impacts/Standards: Clash!!! Fairness is an internal link to education. Explain why education is the terminal impacts and how it will affect the activity itself, and please clash against the other teams' theory blocks. Most teams never engage with each other, but merely throw arguments for me to judge.

K affs vs T:

I judge them just like policy affs vs T debates, but except that the K affs will impact turn that topical debates are bad: I'm probably not the best person to judge K affs or Ks, but I'll try my best and I'm willing to vote for both sides
Both teams should persuade me why topical debates are good/bad or why the aff's method/theory of power is right or wrong
Aff: Aff shouldn't just say the rez is racist and sit down - They should provide a method to solve it! I will default to voting neg on presumption unless the aff wins each and all of the following parts: The resolution/theory of power, method/solvency, and impacts, and clash with the neg's answers.
Neg: I believe the plan should be topical, and leans neg most of the time. Neg should defend why a topical model of debates is desirable: Either by demonstrating how debate is a competitive game but the aff gets a strategic advantage of picking the debate and reducing it down to a monologue or about how debating the resolution can encourage debaters to become better advocates for political movements and institutions, and potentially a pre-req to doing the aff. And next they should prove why the aff's method is bad or challenge that their theory of the world is wrong.

KvK:

I am probably not the best judge to judge KvK debates again but I will do my best
Use FWs to force sides to stick to an alt to defend....otherwise they'll be a shifty target

K aff vs Topic DAs?:

Not the best strategy....but I'll try to judge

CP:

Presumption flips aff: When it comes down to weighing the plan vs the CP, the aff will get presumption because they had 8 min of 1AC speech time to introduce the specificity of their plans, and I would be inclined to lean on a more detailed plan assuming the aff has put out a harm, solvency, and impacts --> aff should take advantage of CP to ask about the CP's solvency mechanism
Perms are tests of competition, the neg must win mutual exclusivity and prove that the CP alone is the best option compared to the plan or the plan + CP. There's no such things as "overwhelming perms or time skew," they're not advocates. I may tolerate limited intrinsicness or severance against process or cheating CPs.
Net benefit: Second important thing is neg should win CP > Plan, or CP solves plan but avoids net benefit. Many teams fail to articulate why I should consider the CP at all without a clear terminal impact, and if both impacts are equal then presumption flips aff. It would be good to run a CP with a DA as NB or CP itself if it has a strong intrinsic NB.

DA:

I like judging DAs because they're straightforward and usually the BEST and the most REAL offense the neg can have
Thumpers are good and I will evaluate the recency of the cards accordingly
Link, Link, Link. I buy generic DAs that link to IPR as a general but I will favor specific DAs more. I am convinced that if the neg win 1% of the link then the DA is true (this doesn't mean you won the DA yet because you still have to do impact weighing)
Impacts. Most teams never really touched on this for the entire debate. However, even if you're completely winning on the link if you had a smaller or less probable impact compared to the plan then you're only winning half of the DA (which usually isn't enough to get neg ballot)
I am convinced that the aff's strongest offense against DAs are link/impact turns. Don't double turn yourself. Straight turn to punish the neg spamming blippy DAs.

Renee Kuo Hire None

Boney Lee Hire

Nick Lepp Hire

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 5:26 AM EDT

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and Michigan State University. This is my 16th year involved with policy debate. I finished my PhD at the University of Georgia (go dawgs) in October 2024. My dissertation is a Derridean/rhetorical reading of the word queer.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 12/10/2024

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.

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).

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). Literature should drive these debates.

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 (high schoolers, why are we so obsessed with the fiat K? Didn't we resolve this question 25 years ago? Can't we research and talk about the topic even just a little bit?). 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. The flip side of this, however, is that I almost never find a 2AR that is entirely or almost entirely framework persuasive.

“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" 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, wipeout and/or spark in all of its various forms are indefensible, 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, and I am likely to not vote on this ethics challenge if I don't determine this to have radically altered the debate. 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 Varsity 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 Fri November 8, 2024 at 5:28 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:

MORE EXPLAINING AND LESS READING PLEASE!
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 examinations 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.
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.
Permutations are not cheating

Jose Rodriguez Hire

Maria Sanchez ADL

Last changed on Fri October 4, 2024 at 12:22 PM CDT

Northside College Prep '16 - University of Kentucky '20

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

Top Level Judging Notes:

· Please keep track of your own prep

· Please be as quick with tech as possible as I want to be respectful of 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

When I was a debater at Kentucky I was entered as a "hired judge" for all the high school tournaments we hosted. Even though I never really ended up judging, I had to come up with a paradigm or else. I copy and pasted Ava Vargason's philosophy back then and never looked back. I might write a judge philosophy with my own thoughts at a later time when the world isn't collapsing, but for now, Ava is a brilliant person and her 2017 philosophy continues to encapsulate my thoughts about debate and strats:

"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.

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

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 4:18 AM EDT

Hiiiii I'm Bernice :) you can call me either Bernice or judge, no difference for me.

I've done debate for 5 years. I did policy for two years, currently in JV.

email for any questions of round/topic/anything

email: bernice100207@gmail.com

*speak clearly, clarity is more important than speed always in every debate

*dont ask for the rest of the time during debates just finish what you have to say. If you really want to know, time yourself and keep track of the time yourself. I only time the speech for smart debate students.

*read cards either from class or your own, but you need to be familiar with it (if you're not familiar with it, then just don't use it cuz it will eventually make you contradict yourself -> maybe losing the round)

*crossfire open/closed doesn't matter to me in smart debate as long as both teams agree

*be clear with questions in the crossfire, don't ask for explanations, question their weak points in the card or argument

*clarity is super important in rebuttal speeches or else I assume you drop it

*impact calculus - super important because it affects my decision by weighing the impacts

*keep extending on your arguments in the summary speech during final focus, either just don't bring it up again or extend

*I vote on case turns, impact, and dropped arguments (smart debate).

*if your opponent drops something, extend on it during your speeches & why dropping the argument impacts your side

For smart debate, talking about impact calculus is very important for me because it decides whether or not you bring more effect than your opponent. Include all magnitude, impact, possibility, and timeframe in impact calculus. Each contention needs to be answered if possible, it gives you a much higher chance for winning. The biggest impact in debate is human extinction, so if you can relate it with your contentions/arguments, then go for it. Also do signpost (basically saying your moving on to the next contention/argument cuz it's easier for judges to flow).

For public forum debate, impact calculus in final focus (really do it), it's very important for decisions of the round. Each contention or argument needs to get answered, don't drop arguments. Explain on impact calc. not just saying that your impact is bigger, give reasons!

Speaker points:

inappropriate word/language or simply being rude -3

unclear -2

swearing/roasting your opponent on stuff that's not about the topic -1

speak clear +1

good arguments & good impact calc. +0.5

Chloe Wang Hire

Micah Wang Hire

Last changed on Wed August 21, 2024 at 9:27 AM CST

TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will try to make the correct decision. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for high speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun.

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Substance

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ^‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎X ‎‎ ‎ |

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ |

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ |

Truth <—————‎‎+—————> Tech

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ |

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ |

‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ V

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎Slop

Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.

AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Terrible judge for non-resolutional K AFFs.

CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.

T Things: Don't blaze through analytics or at least send them out. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.

K Things: Don't understand nor plan to learn high theory literature. "No Plan No Perm" is true. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.

PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Won't vote on frivolous theory and will dock speaks for wasting time. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.

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 Wed October 9, 2024 at 7:02 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.

If you have diffculty understanding points 2 and 3, here is an EFL-friendly version below:

>>>How I Judge

I focus on how well you present and explain your arguments. For evidence, I use the Oxford Classification of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM). This means I give more weight to solid, well-researched evidence (like studies and data) and less weight to opinions or stories, unless they are supported by stronger evidence. Make sure to explain why your evidence matters.

Your logic should be easy to follow, and your arguments should be connected clearly. If your speech is confusing or your cross-examinations are unclear, it makes it harder to judge your points fairly. Don’t introduce new arguments at the very end of the debate (during Final Focus or Rebuttals), but you can bring in new evidence if necessary.

>>>Other Judging Preferences

Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. If you speak too fast or try to fit in too much information (often called “spreading”), it can make your arguments harder to understand, especially for teams that may not have the same language skills. This will negatively affect your speaker points and the overall round outcome.

Respect between teams is very important. Bad behavior or disrespect will lower your points.

Counterplans (alternative solutions) are welcome if they are clear and well-explained. Kritiks (critical arguments about the debate structure) should only be used when they are really important to the topic.

I hope this helps make things clear for everyone. Cheers!

chloe yang Hire None

Bryce Yao Hire

Hermes Yen Hire

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 1:56 AM EDT

general info

he/him

yes email chain -->yenh26@ma.org.tw

Currently debate for ADL, HS junior

topics debated: saudi arms sale, criminal justice, water, nato, fiscal redistribution, ipr

I live in Taiwan so inverted time zone, pref accordingly

tech>>truth (a lot of judges say this but have predispositions, i can honestly find myself voting for dropped shoe theory. however, a technically conceded statement is not an argument unless there is a warrant and impact)

time yourself

be good people

case and disad

i think that case is often not leveraged against disads and k enough, the 1ac is the aff's best offense and should be used accordingly. k affs are fine, not the most well versed in k aff lit so don't automatically assume i know what you're talking about. vauge affs that allow 2ac spikes are very infuriating to me as a 2n

disads should have a link and impact card in the 1nc. the more specific the disad links to the aff the happier i'll be. uq overwhelms the link needs to be a thing that the aff leverages more. my favorite disads are very smart politics disads with a very specific link.

not too many thoughts on policy vs policy rounds in general. zero risk can be a thing, but it's not common. if the 2nr comes down to disad+case, 4 minutes of both rebuttal speeches needs to be impact comparison. a 5 second "we access their internal" or "case turns the disad" isnot an argument absent warranting.

fw fw fw

basically the better i understand the alt the more comfortable i'll be voting on the k. more 2nrs need to be the cap k this season. my favorite 2nrs are k turns case, smart root cause/serial policy failure arguments i also like. i feel like the aff needs to go for theory against the k more often, especially ones with cheaty alts. once had a team "normal means" a utopian alt.

not the best judge for identity and pomo, but i will still try my best to evaluate the round. don't pref me high if this is your primary strat though, i'm not too familiar with the lit

functional competition is good, textual competition is also good

cheating process cps are fine

cheating pics are fine

i default to judge kick unless told otherwise

t (not fw)

i'll vote on anything but please read a violation that actually applies

t is a voting issue

default to competing interps, really high threshold for reasonability. too many people are confused for what reasonability is, it's not "if our aff is reasonable there's no abuse" but it's a method ofevaluating topicality. What this means is that going for reasonability looks like "our interp doesn't have to be thebest interp, as long as it's a reasonable interp that allows for a year of sustainable debating it's valid enough"

t (fw)

t usfg is imo the best off against a k aff, and debated evenly a k aff should never win against t usfg.

presumption > ballot pik BUT I honestly don't know what most people have against the ballot pik. if the aff doesn't do a good job of explaining why the ballot solves in the 1ac i will be very symphatic to the ballot pik

misc

debate is a game which means fairness is a terminal impact

i skew high speaks cause i don't want to mess up elim seeding

i think the "judge as adjudicator" model is the best, the role of the judge as an educator is not the purpose of the activity. as a result, i'm much more willing to vote on blippy theory arguments than most

steal prep if you think you can get away with it (be smart tho)

Login to Tabroom

NSDA Taiwan Members Invitational

2023 — Taipei, TW

Debate Judge Paradigm List

Judges