g'mornin....

If you are sharing any evidence, please send it to me as well at: dumbo3435@gmail.com

I debated in high school back in the 80's, I think the state of debate has moved away from logical policymaking towards appeals to pathos.

I would consider myself a progressive judge, I'm open to arguments such as the permutation and topicality.

Please speak slow, like you are in a conversation with your parents. I think the speech aspect debate has devolved into a meaningless slew of nonsense that wouldn't have any grounding in the REAL world.

If I don't understand your argument, or if it's factually incorrect, which I'LL be the judge of, I'm not gonna consider it.

KvK

- This is a whole buncha baloney. I'll flip a coin and vote on that.

Policy v. K

- I'm open to aff "framework" arguments about framing the K in the round. I believe fairness and clash are terminal impacts. Don't drop the alt, and MAKE SURE TO EXPLAIN IT. I find that Kritiks that are predicated on winning "framework" and spamming "links" are nonsense. If I don't know what I'm voting for, it just sounds like an auction round.

FW v. K

- Abuse. I won't buy arguments about framework "excluding" the Aff method. Grow up and defend your method. Again, I think fairness and clash are terminal impacts. Clash turns case is a good argument to go for.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

Email: vuquang.debate@gmail.com

I prefer email chain but SpeechDrop is fine. Please send your files as word docx if possible!

Yerba Buena 2021 - present; 2a/1n for most of my varsity career. I read almost exclusively Ks and K AFFs ever since I learned about them so interpret that as you wish. I have debated policy on both the local UDL circuit and national circuit.

I prefer you to call me judge.

If you have a cat/debate/cat debate (!?!?) sticker for me, I would be forever grateful!!!

Quick notes before the rounds:

Novice please don't be scare! I am here to help you grow.

I'm open to all type of arguments but please makes sure that you clearly explain it well. I will not vote on something I do not understand. I can understand most arguments but if you're reading a really complex K, please break it down for me.

Judge instruction is a must for me. The first 15-30 second of the 2nr/2ar should be a round overview that tell me what I should vote on. I will try to make my decision in the least judge intervention-y way possible. So please make the debate as easy as you can for me and I will reward you with better speaker points.

I'm notoriously bad at keeping time for other people. I will try my best to time you but please time yourself/your prep too.

Spreading is fine but if you're spreading through your taglines don't expect me to catch everything.

Tech > Truth mostly. I consider any conceded argument 100% true. Good truth can gain you ground but it can't outweigh technical skills in my opinion. I will judge purely base on technical skills and will not consider stylistic choices/presentation in my rfd. I will reward good speakers with some speaker points but who won or lose the round will be purely on how good your technical skills are. I believe that judging base on style is invite way too much judge interventions. I also believe that voting on concepts like perceptual dominance and how "presidentially" someone speak is deeply base on sexist assumptions which I refuse to perpetuate.

Topicality:

Not really far from the beaten path here. I think some T args can be a bit petty but I will vote on it if you out tech your opponent. Both team should be comparative about what their interp look like compare to their opponents'. This include giving me a clear case list of what is allow under both interp and explaining why your interp is better.

AFF need to answer NEG standards/impacts line by line or else I find it really hard to vote for you. Same thing goes for the NEG - you need to impact out your T and answer any AFF offense. Both teams should be treating the T standards like DAs.

Please slow down on the T analytics. T is a very analytic heavy argument so slowing down would help me catch all the warrants that I need.

I default competing interp but I'm open to defaulting on reasonability if AFF can win that they are a core topic AFFs.

Disadvantages:

Again not far from the beaten path here. Have a clear link/internal link and a strong impact and you should win the round pretty easily. This mean that impact calculus is a must in these debate. I think one of the best thing that aff team can do is to read good impact defense/internal link takedown in order to minimize the risk of the impact. The stronger the impact debate is the more likely I will vote for you.

If your running a politic disad, the uniqueness evi need to be up to date. If your uniqueness evi is a couple months old, I will start being skeptical.

Counterplan:

I have limited experience with counterplan but I will try my best to evaluate the round to my best ability. I really like a strategical counterplan with a good net benefit. Don't just throw out 5 counterplans and hope for the best.

I'm not really experience with counterplan theory but I am willing to vote for it as long as it's well developed.

Kritiks:

This is the arguments I have the most experience with. I'm fine with essentially any Ks as long as you execute it well. I love framework Ks and extra points if you have an alt that also tie in nicely with it. The more specific the links the better but good contextualization and analytical argument can definitely convince me to vote on a generic link. I also really like a good root cause debate and definitely think that aff team should never ignore it. If the neg win that the K is the root cause of the case, the K can quickly become a terminal solvency deficit to the aff. The aff should also never underestimate the ontology debate against identity Ks. I will be very quick to wash away the aff framework, link turn, and perm if the neg win ontology. In my opinion, alt fail is a good defensive argument for the aff but it not enough to win you the round alone. I will rarely reduce the risk of the alt solvency to 0 so if the neg win the link and sustainability/root cause debate, I will vote neg to try-or-die the K. This being said, the more risk of the alt failing, the more likely I will comfortable to vote aff on the perm or case outweigh.

I am familiar with the lit base of cap, set col, imperialism, model minority, and buddhism. Don't expect me to do any work for you if you're running these though. Your K explanation should still be sound and well-developed!

I am not familiar with high theory, pomo, fem theory, and queer theory so please treat me like a flay judge in these rounds.

**note on set col: I LOVE SET COL but please at least have the basic understanding of the lit. If the debate and your warrants come down to differing variety of "state bad" claims, I will have a lower threshold for aff link turn and perm. Several things that is important to understand to avoid this: ontology (e.g. Indigenous relationship to land, homemaking, what is land, etc.) and settler moves to innocence (there's 6; you should know the basic distinction between them), incommensurability, and decolonization.

K AFFs:

I love K AFFs! I really don't think that fairness is a terminal impact but an internal link to education/advocacy skills. That being said, I will reluctantly vote for it if the aff really fumble the argument. I think the aff need to push more on education being a terminal impact and the more neg team need to go for clash as an impact. TVA > SSD in my opinion but I'm willing to vote on SSD as long as you can out tech your opinion. Debate do shape subjectivity.

I love a good KvK debate but both team need to be really comparative with their methods/theories. I don't really buy that the aff doesn't get perm in a method v method debate. Organizations and activist groups combine methods all the time. This just mean that the perm need to be warranted out differently. Explain to me what the perm look like and specifically how the two methods can be combine.

Neg need to go for more presumption push. While I do believe that the education of K affs do spill over outside of the round, I think that the spill over end here. I think that K affs should be read in debate but I am very open to argument about how they don't spill out to anything.

Theory:

I have been in 0 theory debate in my life. Thus I have no real predisposed opinions on different types of theory args. I will vote on whoever won the flow in these type of debate. This mean that your theory args need to be well developed and explained. If you can't point to instances of in round abuse, I will find it hard to vote for you on theory.

Condo is probably good but I think teams should build their interp around how many condo args does the neg get.

Speaker points:

This is probably where I deviate from your normal local circuit judge. I believe that 95% of your speaker points should be base on how well you executed your strategy and the other 5% should be base on your how well you speak/style. This mean that if you are effectively front-lining your defense and proliferating your offense, you will be rewarded with high speaker points. I will rarely go below 27 speaker points unless you said something really problematic.

30 - Perfect. You should be qualifying for the TOC.

29.5-29.9 - Almost there! You're a couple of tournaments away from being the top.

29-29.4 - Really good speech! You did your thing and executed it well.

28-28.9 - Nicely done. The debate was clean and well organize with some small strategical mistakes.

27-27.9 - Need some work. Either the flow was messy or there were a few big strategical mistakes.

<27 - you know what you did...

Other formats:

I have little to no experience in any other formats or any idea of what is to be expected. This mean that you will have to keep time for me. I will judge these round as if they are policy rounds unless instructed otherwise.

Misc:

I was mainly trained by Robert Burns, Najma Ali, and Addis Arciniega. Please refer to any of these paradigms if needed! Also partnered with Ryan Nguyen for most of my career.

Independence High School 2022-25. I am currently a Junior in high school and this is my second year doing public forum on both UDL and national circuit, and I have experience as both a first and second speaker. I have competed in policy and world schools once, but honestly am not as knowledgeable on the two formats.

Flow judge. I'm fairly open-minded to any well-justified arguments, but please explain it well. I won't vote on arguments I can't understand.

Prefs: I would prefer you to call me judge. Please keep your own time and make sure everyone is ready before you begin. I tend to run more global than domestic impacts, and I like anti-U.S hegemony arguments. The U.S is not the entire world, don't automatically assume I will vote on something because it benefits the U.S. My favorite pf topics have been great power competition, artemis accords, biometrics, and section 230. I LOVE creative arguments (they have to be logical ofc). Debate should be a safe space, and I do accept arguments about ethics in the round.

Here are just a few specifics, feel free to ask any questions.

Rebuttals: I'm going to vote for the team that does the most impact calculus/offense on the other team. (but don't forget to defend your case) I truly think framing is the most important part of your case. If you are using a framework paint a picture and tell me why this is important. (don't forget to extend your framework) If you don't respond to your opponent's framing or rotb, it goes conceded. Rebuttals should be pure offense on the other case. I am expecting at least 45 seconds of weighing/impact calc in this speech. If you don't do this the round is pretty much a wash.

Summary: . I am probably more strict on summary since as the first speaker it's the only speech you really have to worry about. If you don't extend your rebuttals in this speech, practically all your offense is dropped. I don't hate buzzwords, but I need an explanation for why you outweigh. I have a HUGE pet peeve for people who just say "we outweigh on magnitude" and never explain why. Do not just restate your refutations in summary and think this is enough (first it is not proper use of your time, and second it just looks lazy as first speaker) I prefer you to spend a minute extending refutations, a minute defending your case, and a minute on impact calc.

Final Focus: Write the ballot for me in your closing arguments/final focus, I will not vote for any argument that isn't extended throughout the entire round. You should finish off with impact calc/weighing. I personally like finishing ff with our/their world comparison, I think it brings the debate to life. I will not vote for any argument that isn't extended throughout the entire round. FOCUS is key. I would prefer to judge 2 well developed arguments than 10 messy ones.

Crossfire: I don't flow cross, but will be watching for speaker points. Don't give speeches in cross...that's just annoying. Don't be rude during cross. I can appreciate aggression, but this isn't a firing match it's a chance for healthy discussion on complex topics...if you are rude or make any uncomfortable/racist/sexist jokes I will drop your speaks.

Weighing: Weighing is everything to me. The sooner you can do this the better. I honestly think weighing should start in rebuttals. AGAIN FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, explain why you outweigh.

Kritiks: Honestly just run it. If it applies to the topic and you believe it is relevant, then I'm all for it. (but don't just throw a bunch of Ks and hope it sticks in pf. If you want to run that strategy then go to policy....smh) I am genuinely sick and tired of the typical econ/eviro (and nuclear war) arguments in pf. If I have to listen to another nuclear war->extinction argument I will lose my mind. Bring something new to the table, be creative, and just have fun debate is your space.

Tech>Truth honestly I think the most effective use of this activity is your ability to learn technical skills. The result of the round will be purely based on which team outweighs on tech. I view any conceded arguments as 100% true.

Style: While I do appreciate a good speaker within debate rounds, it will not interfere with the ballot. I have had some experience with judges who decided rounds based on perceptual dominance, or on who seems more "presidential" and I think this way of thinking perpetuates sexism within debate rounds, so don't expect to be rewarded for charisma lol. I do acknowledge the importance in being able to convey a message to a layman, that is the entire point of pf, so comprehension is a must. Confidence also helps overall. Speaker points will mostly be based on your technical skills, comprehension, and your ability to frontline arguments.

Speaks: I'll start at 28 (depends on how good the round is)

+2 speaks if you make me laugh

+1 clean speech + good strategy

+1 good weighing/clear frontlining (signposting)

-1 messy flow

-1 offtime roadmap in constructive speech

-3 I literally cannot understand a single word of your speech

-25 rudeness/any isms

Speed is fine, just make sure it's comprehensible. And don't use it as a tool for exclusion.

Evidence: There is too much emphasis on evidence in a lot of PF rounds. Yes, Cards are important for backing up claims that specifically need evidence, however, I think that some debaters are too quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by stating "no evidence" without actually engaging with the merit of the argument. Unfortunately, the overemphasis on evidence has made some debaters afraid to respond to an argument just because they don't have a card on it. I strongly believe that many arguments can be made and warranted via analytics. I honestly prefer these types of refutations because they prompt debaters to think critically within the round instead of frantically searching through hundreds of card files. As long as your argument has warranting, I'll most likely accept it.

Theory: Don't...I have never encountered it in pf, and would prefer you to focus on the actual case. Please don't collapse on theory, I'll roll my eyes and probably vote for the team that doesn't run it. But if you feel it is necessary or that smt within the round was potentially abusive, feel free to call it out.

My judging is premised on 2 main things.

1) Argumentation

2) Responsive Work

1) Argumentation

The key thing here is twofold, a technical weigh up of the argument itself, and a truth litmus test. So first off, your argument needs to have the 3 core components of an argument, the claim, the grounding and analysis and finally the tie-back. Tell me what you want me to believe, show me why it is true and tell me it matters in the context of the debate we’re having. It’s not enough to just have a “true” argument, why does it matter, why should I care about it, and in what way does that argument, on its own, help you in your endeavour to win the debate. Then comes the truth test, is your analysis sound enough to stand in the debate, do you give me reason to believe that what you’re claiming is true and would the analysis convince an average intelligent voter. After all, it’s a game of conviction.

2) Responsive Work

Responses work two ways, they are offensive and defensive. Offensive responses juxtapose your arguments with your opponents’ and show why yours are more important, more relevant and basically warrant more weight in the debate. Does the argument, at the very least, respond to the burdens set upon either side by the motion itself, and the chats that happen during the debate? What’s the strategic importance of the argument to your opponent ,and what does their case look like without that one argument, why is it significantly weaker after your rebuttal.

The second part of responsive work is defensive, weighing up the responses. Why was your opponent’s rebuttal insufficient to deal with your case. And even if it was enough to respond, why is the loss of that one argument not enough to warrant you losing the entire debate?

Always be respectful to everyone in the room, be courteous and Remember that debate is supposed to be fun, enjoy and learn from the experience of debating with different people from different backgrounds

Experience

2 Years judging PF

4 Years judging BP

5 Years World Schools Style

Current Senior Coach for the Zimbabwe National Debate Team