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)

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 :)))

Add me to the email chain! sarahdebateacc@gmail.com

Background

Taipei American '28 --- Based in Taiwan and will either be early morning or late at night for me.

Prior experience in PF and CX (NATO, fiscal redi, IPR)

2a/1n

------

tldr

Condo is good

defult to judgekicks

affs should be topical

I would prefer not to judge extinction/death good args please

Judge instruction at the top of your speeches esp in 2nr and 2ar.

Tech>truth --- but I will not solely vote on a "they dropped the argument/impact", you must extend a warrant. The claim may be dropped but the implications of the warrant can still be debated.

There should be NO racism, sexism, any "isms" in any of the rounds I judge. Debate should be always be a safe and inclusive community.

Not the best judge for Ks, but I'm fine with the generic ones.

---

For Novice Debaters:

FLOW! I can't stress this enough!!!! I see teams reading turns to a scenario they didn't read/reading impact turns to the wrong advantages, don't be like them.

Don't ask your opponents for a marked doc when they only marked 1 or 2 cards --- you dont need it. Also don't be the person asking for the roadmap right after your opponent stands up/sends out the doc. CHILL please.

I flow based on what I hear and would appreciate you sending out a doc WITH analytics especially since these debates are taking place online and can be tricky to hear whenever people are spreading (unclearly).

Put offense at the top, then defense. Aff, put your advantages first. If your neg, put your offcases first.

Don't steal prep. Make it extremely obvious you're not prepping when the timer isn't running.

Practice timing yourselves, I will be timing but it's good practice to time yourselves for future debates.

------

Speaks

CLARITY>SPEED I should be able to hear almost every single word coming out your mouth. + slow down when reading analytics.

Arguing with your partner will TEAR your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took more prep, or went for the thing you think will lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

The more efficient you are the better your speaks will be. That means sending out the email chain asap, being prepared etc.

------

CX

I'm fine with open CX but don't abuse it. Use CX to your advantage and treat it like a speech. I won't be necessarily flowing CX word by word but I generally will be keeping track of what questions and answers are being thrown --- the more ethosy you sound the better.

That's kind of the general paradigm but if you have anymore questions lmk before or after the debate! Have fun!

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.

Ks

• I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are corny unpersuasive.
• I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR.
• Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
• Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
• Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
• Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.

Lincoln-Douglas:

• If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
• 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

I am a grad student at Georgetown.

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

Coaching Taipei American School and Harvard

jpark.debate@gmail.com

for college: harvard.debate@gmail

for high school: taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

I enjoy case-specific, fully developed strategies that are well-explained and backed with high-quality evidence/persuasion.

I am a bad judge for teams that rely on the brute force of conditionality, proliferate incomplete arguments, and use strategies that moot the AFF and K AFFs.

I am not too deep on the college topic; the high school topic is complicated, so I'd over-explain.

General Judging:

1. Respect your opponents.

2. Be efficient. The email chain should be sent out early. Don't steal prep. CX ends after 3 minutes. Prepare a card document ASAP.

3. Flow.

4. Clarity. I should hear every single word you say.

5. One debater, one constructive, one rebuttal. I will not flow the other debater if they interject or read parts of another person's speech.

6. Net benefits should be verbally specified in the 1NC.

7. Will not vote on ad homs.

8. Teams should disclose and open source their evidence.

My Biases:

1. Vertical proliferation > horizontal proliferation

2. Specificity > vagueness

3. I prefer debates to be topic-specific. AFFs and NEG strategies should be germane to IPR/clean energy policy — this means 2NRs on wipeout, spark, or generic process counterplans are less strategic in front of me.

4. Dispo > condo

5. Plans don't exist in a 'vacuum.'

6. Counterplans should compete via text AND function.

7. Willing to vote for theoretical objections considered 'arbitrary' if the outlined practice is unreasonable.

8. AFFs should be topical.

9. Links should be to the plan.

10. AFF-specific Ks > generic Ks

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com, taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

Coach @ Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide feedback for arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. I am a graduate student studying machine learning at Cornell, but also do topic research. My undergraduate was in computer science and economics.

--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.

--Argument quality matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.

--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.

Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.

Counterplans

Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.

Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.

I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.

AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.

Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.

The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.

Case

A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.

Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.

In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.

I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.

I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

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.

CX

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!