jasper '24, plano west '26

nats x1, g-toc x1, tfa outrounds x2 (champ x1), record

Bolded is TLDR

Yes, if you are any of the -isms then you will be dropped with lowest speaks possible and be reported to tab.

Overall, I'm a tech judge for substance and a flay for prog.

I'd like to think of my style as judging as fairly simple. I look to the weighing debate first, and whoever is winning, I look to their case. If there's a significant risk of offense, I vote there. If there's not, I look to the other team's case and if there's a significant risk of offense then I vote there. If both teams have no offense, I presume neg but can be convinced otherwise. If both teams have marginal risk of offense, then I'll go back to the weighing to see who's winning under a lens of marginal offense (disclaimer: I will 99% intervene so don't do this to me).

By extension of that, the weighing debate is probably the most important thing in the round since often both teams have significant risk of offense. I'll reward smart weighing mechs with high speaks but oftentimes the weighing debate is where warranting and intuition go to die; please don't add to that. In high school, I used try or die weighing a lot, but it shouldn't a shield to hide behind warranted arguments. There is such thing as 0 risk of offense. Also, if you make link level weighing (e.g. prereqs and short circuits) then you need have it accompanied by other weighing mechs (like timeframe) to uplayer the opposing team's link ins.

Email chains are good. Send docs for all pieces of evidence you read BEFORE you speak. Send marked docs if you diverge from those. I won't flow off them, but it's helpful to be able to check evidence. Do not send Google Docs where you turn off copying functionalities and delete the doc after the round. Send a PDF or docx. For some reason, some people are requiring that you send analytics that are on your flow to the email chain. I personally disagree and think that if you're giving responses off your flow it doesn't need to be in the doc.

Speed is fine. As long as I have a doc and you are clear (I'll say "clear" twice and then just do my best which prob isn't what you want), go crazy. However, if you're obviously spreading your opponents out of the round, your speaker points will often be less than what you want. That being said, speed should be strategic. There's no point in going 300 wpm where every other word is "uh" and you have terrible word efficiency. Not only does it make it more mind-numbing to listen to, but it also can be really bad because I won't know what to actually flow. Also, just because you're spreading doesn't mean you should be devoid of any vocal inflections. I don't want to hear a 4 minute monotone blur of this background noise in your spreading because everybody is gonna tune out. You can speak fast and still preserve your vocal style like you're speaking at a normal pace. Read the idea, not just the words on the page.

On substance rounds, I think that spamming contentions often leaves me in a situation where I don't know how to evaluate arguments and where the backhalf frankly has little to no warranting. Reading 2 or 3 arguments with solid warranting and spikes and maybe a hidden link is far more appealing to me as a judge than 5 blips of arguments. By extension, turns in rebuttal also require all parts of an argument: uniqueness (a little more lenient on that), link, internal link, impact, AND WEIGHING. I'm not voting for a turn without warranting or an impact in rebuttal that somehow gains all of those things in the backhalf.

Conceded arguments are true, but only the conceded parts. For example, if you read evidence that a certain policy leads to a certain bad outcome, but the other team isn't advocating for that policy, then I'm not voting on the argument. Moreover, teams can respond to weighing based on conceded arguments, so just because you conceded a turn or hidden link doesn't mean it's a game over issue for you. If you concede weighing, then it'll be tough but you can still justify why your weighing uplayers.

On theory, I default to yes RVIs, reasonability > CIs, and DTA. Why? So you actually read warrants why RVIs are bad, why CIs are better, and why you should DTD. I don't actually believe it, but just wanna make sure y'all are reading these arguments. An "RVI" for my sake is a defensive argument on the theory layer (e.g. a counterinterp that debaters don't have to disclose is probably responded to via no RVIs while a counterinterp that debaters SHOULDN'T disclose is not an RVI), if you really want to convince me otherwise, you have to explain why when you originally read the shell. Friv theory makes me mad but ig it's fine, but the threshold of responses is incredibly low and if you're doing it against novices, expect your speaks to suffer.

On kritiks, I am definitely not the judge for you to be reading it. I will do my best to evaluate and do all that stuff, but I am a substance debater at heart and especially with K affs am very clueless on the lit and how to break certain areas of clash. If you still wanna read it, go ahead, but explain the argument so a person not well-versed with the lit can understand.

Most importantly, safety is the number 1 priority in a round. If you feel uncomfortable during a round, please do whatever you need to do to make sure that's not the case, and let me or tab know if we have to do something about that.

i do PF at pwest

respond directly to your opponent's arguments and signpost well (on their c1, go to the weighing, etc.)

use crossfire to your advantage to get concessions, don't be loud pls

argumentation is just as important as winning on the flow, you need to be convincing with your logic

will eval anything, play nice

have fun!

I have done Public Forum Debates in the past; however, I do not know how to flow well so please go slowly.

I am not familiar with other debate events so please be patient with me

I will try my best to disclose at the end of the round.

Feel free to ask questions! You will not be able to change my decision though.

Be nice and make the round enjoyable for high-speaks

hi, i'm eric (he/him)! i mainly compete in extemp, but i used to be a pf main

if you want any more info than listed in here, my views on debate are generally similar to aayush appan, ryan chang, and david huston

add me to the email chain - qianeric76@gmail.com

general

discrimination = loss + 20s + tab

tech > truth - dropped arguments are true but still need to be extended for me to evaluate them

give a content warning before speech/performance if you have graphic depictions - i don’t think it’s needed for only mentions of an issue

how i eval the round: whoever's winning the weighing debate, i look to their case first. if they're winning their case, they win. if they're not, i look to the other team's case. if the other team is winning their case, they win. if nobody is winning their case, i presume either the status quo if it applies or whoever spoke 1st if the status quo doesn't apply.

pf

preflow (especially if you're flight 2)

i will not flow off a speech doc, i'll check ev on it if there's some kind of ev issue though (so please send anyway)

defense isn't sticky

i haven't done pf in a bit so i'd prefer that u read substance; even when my partner and i read prog we weren't super familiar w/ it so yeah

i don't really like friv theory either but i'm not gonna stop you from running it

disclo is good, paraphrasing is bad, it’s going to be hard to convince me otherwise

i won't evaluate prog args in novice/middle school

i love a sassy cross but there’s a thin line between sassy and rude so be mindful of that

open cross and flex prep are okay w/ me

i don't care if you stand or sit

if the tournament allows it and both teams are okay with it, i'll disclose and give a brief rfd and critiques

postrounding is good, but please don't make it aggressive thanks

block 30s if the round ends within 45 minutes

extemp

above everything, answer the question

your tags should answer the question

i’m okay with either informal or more formal delivery; i mainly want to see that you’re confident in your personal style

to be honest, i don't pay too much attention to substructure as long as your content makes sense and has a logical flow (substructure just helps you do that)

i love when people explain why we're asking the question now in the background (what recent development made this question relevant?)

for ms extemp - i'd prefer that you don't use a notecard, but if you're js looking for sources/dates and very briefly, i think it's fine

i love a bad pun!!

ask before round if you have questions - good luck!

i LOVE debate

Paradigm:
PFD:

For Public Forum Debate, I don't judge based on cross, but I will take note of points made. Summary is the most important speech of the debate, and it is preferred to be a line by line comparison where the stark differences between both worlds need to be prioritized. When looking at the final focus, tell me exactly why I should vote for you. For evidence, just providing a card is not enough, it needs to be analyzed and explained or it will hold no weight. I am fine with complicated link chains, but I need you to explain it clearly and concisely. Spreading is not something that I prefer, since I personally believe that it is not necessary in this format. Make sure to incorporate persuasion and rhetoric into all of your speeches. I want to see a direct clash of logic and/or evidence and emphasis on significance and solvency. I also prefer to stand during CX and Grand CX.

hi guys! i'm currently attending jasper high school, and i'll be going to plano west in a year. i've been debating for 4 years approx, and i'm well-versed in pf and most ies.

read bold for tldr

PF:

add me to the email chain, rishtish4@gmail.com

for general etiquette, don't be rude/racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. because debate is supposed to be about having fun and education. basically, if you make the debate space unsafe i will drop you and and best give you lowest speaks. please don't be rude in cross or to your opponents in general, just be chill and have fun debating.

i'm generally good with speed as long as you send a doc. I'll flow what i can understand if you don't send a doc. don't spread just for the sake of spreading, make sure the arguments you make are good and can win you the round.

for speaking,try not to only look at your computer the whole time. it's generally a good skill to be able to make eye contact with judges in lay rounds, plus i don't want to hear 1 hour of speeches of a doc because then it's pointless to have speakers.do your best to have vocal inflections. remember, you are still giving a speech. it's going to be really boring to me if everything sounds the same. for big numbers and impacts, having vocal modulations to show me what's important will help a lot.

i evaluate by looking at the weighing first. if you are winning the weighing, I'll look to you're case first and see if you're winning case. if you're not winning case, I'll look to the second most probably link into the weighing if there is one. if neither side links into weighing, ill look to the side with the most offense and the best weighed impacts in the round. that being said,please extend weighing in summary and final. defense is not sticky. i won't shadow extend things for you. also,please do comparative weighing or metaweighing so i get a sense of who's weighing i should look to in round.

substance: I'll understand most arguments but I'll need you to explain them thoroughly in the backhalf of the debate if you want me to vote off of it. i need clear extensions of the whole argument extended in the backhalf. if you want to make responses to their case, the responses should be in rebuttal. I'll grant a little leeway if your extensions of responses are slightly blippy in the backhalf as long as they were super well warranted in rebuttal. make sure you collapse in the backhalf. if you want to go for 3 arguments in summary, that's fine but i'm going to be really confused on where to look especially if you don't weigh. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!

theory: i'm probably not the best person to read theory on. i understand how theory debate works but i've never really debated it much myself. if you're going to read interps, you need to have warrants for every part of your shell. you buy yes RVIs or DTDs or anything, make sure you read warrants. i'll vote on the interp that best wins under the best weighing that is done in the round. the best bet would probably be to read offensive counterinterps and just weigh them.

kritiks: i like k debate but if you're going to read k's or responses to k's make sure you don't just read cards but actually explain what each response means in the context of the round. if an argument only gets crystallized for me in like 2nd summary i'm probably not voting on it. that being said, i won't vote of new arguments past 2nd summary unless there's conceded warrants as to why new responses should be allowed. but also if you're reading k's in middle school what are you doing.

congress:

i don't really know much about congress, but just make smart arguments and be perceptually strong. look at my pf paradigm for info about how i evaluate arguments in general

IEs:

same thing applies here as it does for debate, don't be rude, sexist, homophobic, etc. or i will rank you super low

OI: freytag's pyramid, tell a story and be captivating

binder events: please look up from your binder and don't just read off of it, i won't be able to connect to you as well if i never get to look at your face

memorized events: have fun and use facial expressions, don't just be loud to be loud, if you mess up it's totally okay but just try to keep going, use blocking appropriately and make sure it works with the scene (basically have purposeful movements)

oratory: i'll try to also listen to content just as much as delivery, i will like most subject matter as long as it doesn't discriminate against a certain group of people, make sure your speech is organized (just make sure i'm not confused by the end of the speech), have good organization

extemp: i'm not going to lie i have very little experience in extemp, i'll mostly focus on delivery and how well you present yourself, i'll do my best to follow content so make it easy for me to understand your points, please come to round prepared (one time someone pulled up to round and didn't know he was supposed to draw lol), please use an AGD and have all the components of a speech

just have fun and do your best :)

debated for 4 years for jasper + plano west

email case + rebuttal docs before speech to bradyzeng2005@gmail.com

for my paradigm, read Satvik Mahendra's; his view on debate = mine

Hi! I've had past experience with all speech events besides interpretation and informative, and I've done/do both Extemps, Public Forum, and Congress.

Extemp:

Delivery:
For online, just try and watch the camera. It's tempting to look at yourself to see how it is, but that makes your eyes look unfocused on the camera, and that'll raise suspicions.

I'm old, so I like Extemp Walk, but it isn't required.

Stutters aren't too big unless they're frequent, but swaying/pacing/fidgeting leaves a big mark about you in my head.

For a general style, don't act like you're completely formal; be slightly conversational, engage me and act like you know your topic.

Content:

ANSWER THE QUESTION PROPERLY! Don't duck or dodge around it.

Needs proper (sub)structure, analysis and relations to your umbrella are a must. Nothing too big in content preference.

I need sources, best 2 per point, with at least year if you can. Analyze statistics, don't just point them out.

If there's any hint of personal opinion when it isn't necessary (sexism, racism, etc) you aren't winning the round regardless of the rest of your speech.

PF:

Spreading is ok until it reaches the point where you aren't able to articulate 35% of your case/speech. Then the judges can't hear anything and it gets hard to judge.

Weigh clearly and specifically, I as a judge need to know exactly why I should vote you. Use juxtaposition directly between your case and that of your opponents.

Utilize prep time; hearing an unprepped rebuttal from a confident speaker isn't going to cut it for me, you can definitely do better if you use at least 10 seconds or so to collect your thoughts beforehand.

You can ask questions but I'm not going to change my decision.

I'll do my best to give a verbal disclosure at the end of each round.

Public Speaking:

Confidence is key, any topic can win a round as long as it's presented persuasively and with sufficient research.

Mostly looking for the same delivery I look for in extemp, except stutters will be taken into account more seriously because of the nature of the event.

Congress:

Please don't spread.

Clash is key; I don't wanna watch a boring round.

If you are PO, I expect near flawless performance; you should know what you're doing.

If you're restating a previously brought up argument, add something to it. Don't just say it again for the sake of it.

LD:

I have experience but not as much as other events.

I'll mostly follow the same rules I have for PF, as the only noticeable difference is the number of debaters in the room.

For email chains or questions, reach me at abezhang9@gmail.com

Good luck and have fun!