BRIAN BWANYA

AGE: 24

COLLEGE: NANJING UNIVERSITY

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: STUDENT

1. What types of debates have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

I have been honored to represent my school as a first speaker back in high school at both provincial and national level during the 2019 season and participated in numerous high school debates in both Zimbabwe and South Africa.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I prefer moderate and composed talking. Fast talking can result in poor word articulation and the judge(s) might miss a curial argument. I do not encourage debaters to use speed rather use substance to overwhelm your opponents. Quality over Quantity.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

It's important to present your arguments with conviction and passion but always maintain a respectful and professional approach. Keep in mind that, the main aim is to persuade others with logic and mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

Well l take into consideration many factors before determining the team which wins. The debater/team who has the most compelling argument backed with concise logic and in-depth analysis, persuasiveness and clear arguments and a team which demonstrated the strongest grasp of the topic at hand has a chance to win my vote.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preferences of the debate?

It's important for me to see clear arguments presented by both sides backed with recent and relevant evidence. I also prefer debaters who are able to remain calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks or insults even derogatory language. Lastly, stick to the topic and avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not directly relate to the topic.

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I look out for objectiveness, evidence, and the capacity to rebut well to make
my decision. I believe every debater stands an equal chance to win a debate no matter which side he or
she is on.

Debaters must make sure they are not only attacking their opponent’s claims but also defending theirs to win clashes.

Including evidence from currents happenings to justify your point can increase your chances of winning a clash

Leaving your opponent’s points unrebutted may score your opponent some points in my evaluation.

In my debate space, valuing fair and thorough engagement is paramount. This involves making logical concessions after proper analysis and engaging in fair, charitable comparisons. Rudeness, discriminatory language, and disrespectful behavior won't be tolerated, and penalties may be applied.

While recognizing the time constraints, avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments – no spreading. Clear articulation is crucial for understanding. Always be mindful of your burdens in the debate; don't just assert claims, justify them. Best of luck!

I appreciate debaters who are able to analyze their arguments and datas beyond simply quoting. Step by step analysis is very important as it will strengthen one's arguments or evidence

I prioritize students with a much structural speech and no one-liner arguments. A peaceful yet competitive debate with clear analysis of their points and arguments are what I hope in a debate round. I prefer a student who did their homework on what points should be bring and what not, a deeper analysis will be great even if it's a small points. And although I valued matters more than manners, manners does make a speech valuable.

surya.krishnapillai@gmail.com

My largest debate influences are Aaron Langerman, Tyler Vergho, and Adarsh Hiremath. Check out their paradigms if anything here is unclear.

I will try my best to minimize intervention and adjudicate the round solely on the arguments presented. That being said, my background is exclusively policy-oriented. In an evenly debated round, I am unlikely to vote for planless affirmatives, you link you lose frameworks, and similar arguments.

The one exception to this is I will not vote on new affs bad, ASPEC, or a similar theory argument if newly read in the block. The standard I will enforce is that theory arguments that could feasibly have been introduced in the 1NC must be.

Answering arguments in the order presented, explicitly signposting responses, and crystallizing the debate into the most important issues during the final rebuttals will almost certainly improve your chances in front of me.

Lastly, I care far less about evidence quality than most. I will spend most of my time after the round going through my flow rather than the card doc. For evidence quality to meaningfully affect my decision, the final rebuttals must provide direct evidence comparison and explicitly impact out relevant evidence.

Hi, my name is Bobby/Zhi Liu (him/his). I am a debater with 7+ years of experience in PF/BP/WSD/AP formats and have won numerous awards, both nationally and internationally. I've done some research on this topic but I'll make sure that I do not use my prior knowledge to judge the rounds (i.e., be in the blank state).

Email me if you have any problem: bobby_liuzhi@outlook.com

Evidence Preferences:

I am largely tech > truth, meaning I will buy your evidence unless your opponents say otherwise, and I will not use my prior knowledge to interpret your evidence if possible. However, I will question evidence that seems outright anti-intuitive and will request an evidence check after the debate if that happens (I can assure you it seldom does). In addition, please do not abuse/cherrypick your evidence, i.e., do not tell me that an evidence proves something when it actually doesn't. Do not expand/contract the range of the evidence and argue, for example, that AVs will create xx million jobs when it is actually the entire AI industry's job creation number. If that happens or if I suspect that happens, I will ask for an evidence check after the round, and if I find out that it indeed is the case, your claim becomes invalid on my flow (unless you have introduced other reliable alternative mechanisms/evidence during the round to prove the same claim).

Constructive

• I’m fine with a case of 750-ish words. I am able to understand a fast speech, but the faster you go, the harder it will be for me to take notes. This means that spreading will make you disadvantaged when I am weighing to decide the winner, as your critical numbers/evidence might not be on my notes. If you decide that the benefits of laying more information in front of me outweigh the harms of having some of them off my notes, then it's totally fine for you to spread, but I would greatly appreciate you sending over your case in advance so I don’t miss anything of great importance.
• It will be an add to your speaker performance to signpost in constructive.
• Please do not run soft stances unless you can really explain why they are unique (which is often as hard as hell. That's why they are called soft stances—to fool judges that cannot make out the difference!). I will criticize a soft stance if you fail to prove its uniqueness, even if your opponents didn't realize it during the debate, and it will affect my ballot (because weighing becomes extremely problematic if teams run soft stances).

Rebuttal

• Please signpost and let me know which of your opponents' arguments you are addressing. Please try to leave an argument alone if you've already rebutted it, instead of constantly coming back and repeating yourself during the speech (I've come across debaters who unconsciously do that).
• It is better to frontline in 2nd rebuttal (i.e., rebutting your opponents' rebuttals) than in summary.
• Start weighing as early as possible. This means that doing it in rebuttal is often not a bad choice at all.

Summary

• Weighing is very, very, very important. Provide a clear comparison between you and your opponents' impacts to prove why your side should win. Don't forget to extend the link in summary and not just repeat numbers from a card. In the end I will weigh your impacts to decide the winner, which means that you will have an advantage if you do it for me.
• If you use weighing jargon, please tell me specifically why that is the case - don’t just say “outweigh on magnitude” and immediately move onto the next thing without explaining, instead, cite the numbers and compare. If you're weighing with the metrics of timeframe or likelihood, clearly explain to me why this metric (instead of the most intuitive magnitude metric).

Final Focus

• No new evidence
• If you are collapsing, make sure you say that and that the argument you're going for aligns with your summary.

Other Random Stuff

• Be punctual in terms of showing up for the round.
• I’ll be timing your prep but please still keep track of your own prep time.
• I probably won’t click into a certain piece of evidence unless you tell me to do so in your speech or unless it is outright anti-intuitive.
• I will be disclosing (telling you the result) right after the debate unless the round is really close, in which case I might be taking a few minutes to weigh and consider before telling you the results, so please wait in the room after round ends.

General Understanding of PF Debate (for anyone interested):

I think the winner of a PF round is mainly decided by weighing the impacts that teams bring up with their mechanism. During the round, teams attack each other's mechanism in order to mitigate/turn/refute their opponents' impacts. At the end of the debate, the impacts that are left unharmed by such attacks (either untouched, successfully defended, or partly remaining due to mitigation) are weighed by the judge to decide the results. That's why I think weighing is probably the most important skill in PF, because no team can guarantee that they can successfully attack and bring down every argument and impact their opponents bring up. Therefore, the better quantity and quality of your weighing, the more I value your debating skills and personal performance. (Of course I also equally value other skills, but weighing is the one thing that I think PF debaters from mainland China is lacking).

Housekeeping:

1. Respect each other and be nice. No racist/sexist/xxx-phobic etc. behavior.
2. Try your best and have fun :)

Age: 27

College: JIANGSU UNIVERSITY

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Economics and International Trade / Business Owner.

How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?

- 6-10

How many notes do you take during a debate?

- I try to take notes on literally everything

What is the main job of the summary speech?

-Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?

- 3/10

How important is framework to your decision-making?

- 7/10

How important is crossfire in your decision-making?

- 5/10

How important is weighing in your decision-making?

- 8/10

How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?

- 4/10

How fast should students speak?

- 1-10 (feel free to speak as fast as you please)

What types of debate have you participated before, and how long is your debate career?

-High school Debate team (2 years)

-Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2020.

-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2021.

-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2022.

How do you consider fast-talking?

-It can be a great skill and strategy to deploy during the debate.

-I consider speaking at around 300 words per minute to be fast, of course words should be clearly pronounced and consistent throughout the speech.

-I type at 100 wpm, so you can be confident I will be getting down everything you say.

How do you consider aggressiveness?

-When the debater is confrontational or actively attacks the opponent’s arguments (expected)

-On the extreme side, when the debater resorts to excessive interruptions, aggression, shouting or personal attacks towards their opponents to undermine their arguments (not tolerated).

How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

Here are the 3 points I use to determine the winner:

-Clarity and organization: The debater who presents their arguments in a clear, logical, and well-structured manner.

-Strong arguments and evidence: The strength of the arguments presented, supported by relevant and compelling evidence.

-Rebuttal and refutation: Effectively addressing and countering opponents' arguments is crucial. The ability to identify weaknesses in opponents' positions, provide counterarguments, and refute their points with sound reasoning and evidence.

Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

-Mutual respect and Politeness go a long way.

-Respect time.

Overview

-archan.debate@gmail.com---please send the 1AC before the round start time.

-Eagan LS, Berkeley US. Coached at Georgetown Day Schools and Head Royce (policy) and Harker (LD).

-Please post-round me if you disagree with me---judges should be held responsible for bad decisions.

-LD at bottom.

-TLDR: Tech over everything. Debate is a game and you should maximize your chances of winning. Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means. You do not need to read anything below this---everything else in my paradigm are my general inclination of how debate works, so you can exploit some of the biases that I've accumulated throughout my time in debate. Regardless of what you go for, I will attempt to judge it as fairly as possible.

-Background: debated as a 2A since 8th grade (immigration, arms sales, cjr, water, NATO) and now as a 2N in college (nukes, MBIs). Read only policy affs and went for a K in exactly 4 rounds. Staked some pretty big debates on pretty stupid args (went for hidden aspec in mich finals and christian wipeout at the TOC). Gone for pretty much every policy arg under the sun: core topic DAs and CPs, impact turns (including warming good, spark, and wipeout), good T interps, terrible T interps, non-resolutional theory, process CPs, and Kant. Qualled 3x to the TOC and got to semis my senior year. I came from a small school, and appreciate being scrappy to make up for prep disparities. Despite the laundry list of bad arguments above, my favorite debates are the ones with the most clash and two sides that are well prepared on core topic controversies. Furthermore, from going for all the bad arguments, I've realized why most of them are bad, and even a couple smart analytics can zero most of them.

-Many decisions I've witnessed have been atrocious. Judges don't vote for args they like even though it was a technical crush, they rep out based on coaches poll rankings, or just don't evaluate the tech because they ideologically agree with one side. I will try my hardest to not do any of those things.

-CX is often the most interesting part of the debate. Show resolve and stand your ground. If you defended something in your speech, defend the logical implications in cross. One of my biggest pet peeves is when teams try to weasel out of hard cx questions.

-Innovation is good---if you have something that is genuinely new to debate, I will be very happy to listen to it.

-Neg terror is good. My most fun 2ACs were always against 10+ off. Aff teams should win theory or counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 1AR, and impact turn everything).

-The point of debate isn't to maximize clash nor to avoid cowardice. It's to win. Go for dropped aspec, don't send analytics, and generally anything that increases your chances of getting the ballot. I will award strategic decisions more than your attempt to showcase your bravery by flexing about how you made the unstrategic decision to take your opponent up on what they're good at.

-If you win a try-or-die claim, I will pretty much always vote for you---if we're guaranteed to go extinct in one world, I'd always choose a different world.

-Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence.

-There is no substantive argument that's off limits: death good, hidden aspec, and spark are all fair game.

-Rep means nothing to me. A lot of my prefs as a small school debater my junior and senior year were preffing around judges who we thought would vote for whichever team had more clout as debaters. I will not care about how many bids you have, where you are on the coaches poll, or what school you go to.

-Read more impact turns.

-Ad homs are defined as logical fallacies.

K-Affs

-Very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool that is strategic because it has so many good tricks, very bad for for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions.

-Meta seems to have shifted pretty much exclusively to microaggressions (or maybe those are just the k teams that pref me). I have unfortunately voted this up many times but I think evenly debated it should be a crush for the neg on tab solves and T isn't a microaggression, especially given the time skew between the block and the 1AR.

-Counter-interps should pretty much never be the 2AR absent large technical mishaps by the neg. Every counter-interp seems pretty contrived and incoherent when held up to scrutiny. Also it probably links to at least some part of your offense.

-Ambivalent between fairness and clash---I think explaining clash is probably easier, but fairness is more true. Go for whatever you're more comfortable with/what you're winning in the round.

-Read more stuff vs K affs---word PICs against un-underlined portions of the 1AC or impact turns to stuff like warming seem to all be fair game.

-Go for presumption. When teams choose to give up fiat, they require winning that voting aff does something. It doesn't.

-I think that I'm more lenient on neg teams for links to DAs. If one of your cards says your method does something, impact turns to that definitely link as it disproves that the endpoint of your research practice as a desirable goal.

Ks on the neg

-Neg framework interps should moot the plan. Trying to debate the K like it's a CP means that it'll lose to the perm double-bind. If the aff gets to weigh their plan, extinction will almost always outweigh.

-Framework is never "a wash". It's a theory debate that has two discrete choices---not a continuous spectrum that the judge can arbitrarily chose their default ideological predisposition from.

-Philosophical competition is a worse version of positional competition (you not only get links off of what the 1AC says, but now the vibes that it gives off too?), but teams mess up on it. No counter-interp to philosophical competition = impossible to go for the perm.

-Use more K tricks. I'm very good for it.

-Defend your method---if the 1AC says that Russia is a threat, then defend that Russia is a threat.

-Beating 'extinction outweighs' relies on you winning an alternative to util (or winning fw to moot the impact).

-More teams should go for theory against alts---most are nonsense and fiat way more than should be allowed.

-If the alt is material, it mostly always has some great DAs to go for. Going for heg good vs basically any material alt is almost always a viable strat.

Soft left affs

-Two types of framing interps that are good:

---Discounted util: defend that consequences matter, but the way that we calculate them should be different in some way that discounts the impact. Eg, probability * ln(impact). Of course, this has some problems, but it's a much better starting point than "probability first".

---Alternatives to util: preferably something that says something like consequences are irrelevant combined with a boatload of "consequences fail" cards.

-Most framing contentions are atrocious. These are some args that are almost uniformly awful in debates:

---Probability first: a 75% risk of a paper cut doesn't outweigh a 74% risk of being tortured.

---Cognitive bias: a helpful tiebreaker, but it's not an interp. Also you open yourself up to cognitive bias claims going in the other direction.

---Conjunctive fallacy: doesn't assume debate where dropped args are true, so the diminishing effect, while true irl, is useless for debate.

---Don't evaluate future lives: might be true (probably not though), but largely irrelevant as if they win their interp, 7 billion * 1% will still outweigh.

---Util is racist/sexist/ableist: it still requires you to have a counter-interp for framing. Even if you win that util is the worst thing in the world, if I don't have some other heuristic to evaluate impacts, then I have to use util because it's the only one introduced in the round.

T

-I don't understand any alternative to plan text in a vacuum that would be good for debate. Pretty much anything else is equivalent to positional competition, which seems like it would be pretty bad.

-Good for T debates. Read more cards, indict your opponent's ev, and win the tech.

-Reasonability seems pretty bad. The only net benefit is substance crowd-out, but that's impact turned by just winning that T debates are good (which I'm pretty easily persuaded is true). It seems to be arbitrary (at what threshold is an interp reasonable?) and the culmination of all reasonable interps seems pretty unreasonable. Despite this, the main answer seems to be "judge intervention," which honestly is probably inevitable.

-Debatability and predictability are often talked about in a vacuum, separated from the actual context of the debate. Everyone agrees that a definition that isn't predictable at all or one that would destroy our ability to debate would be worse than a middle ground that is fairly predictable or fairly debatable. As such, I think teams should spend like time arguing about whether predictability or debatability outweigh, and spend that time explaining how their opponents interp isn't predictable or debatable.

-Tech over truth means that I'll vote on weird interps. Especially if there's some sort of technical mistake (dropping one interp in an interp spam, debatability outweighs predictability, or that overlimiting is good), you should go for it.

CPs

-I've gone for every flavor of bad CPs available: Space Elevators, Future Gens, Consult [x] country. It's very winnable in front of me, but aff teams that know what they're doing will have no problem in easily defeating most of them on competition.

-Saying the words "sufficiency framing" in every 2NC/2NR overview doesn't really convince me of anything.

-All theory and competition debates are models debates. Make sure that you are defending your model, not whatever happened in this round.

-Every CP is a PIC, and they all have a process. Make your theory interp precise.

-I'm very good for condo debates---on both sides. Condo is about the practice, not the number of condo you read in the round---number interps are inevitably arbitrary and devolve to infinite anyways. It's probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team. The only neg impact is neg flex---I don't know why people go for anything other than that in the 2NR.

-Uniqueness matter a LOT in theory debates. Both sides generally agree on the direction of the link (ie, everyone agrees that a world without condo would be harder for the neg), but you need to win uniqueness to make it be a DA against your opponents interp. Obviously there's the generic debate stuff like first/last speech, infinite prep, or 13-5 block skew, but topic specific analysis almost always trumps those. Engage and interact with your opponents warrants for uniqueness, don't just read your generic block back at them.

-Do more work for the debatability DA for definitions.

-Analytical CPs are good. If its obvious how they solve the aff, no explanation is needed. If it's complicated, then you should explain it, preferably in the 1NC.

-Fiating in DAs is underrated and more teams should do it.

DAs

-Politics is a good DA, I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate it. It's a negative consequence of the plan that's probably real for most affs.

-Good for fake DAs that rely on artificial competition. Fiat in more offense.

-I debated on three topics where there was no link uniqueness (Water, CJR, and NATO). Thumpers are extremely useful. If a neg team can't tell you why the link would be triggered by the plan but nothing else that already happened, it's probably a losing DA.

-Uniqueness CPs and CPing out of future thumpers is pretty much always legit in the 1NC, and debatably legit in the 2NC.

-Both sides should read more evidence on what normal means is on most process DAs. Ie, if you're aff facing a resource tradeoff DA, reading ev that normal means is increased congressional funding is often a good argument.

-I think turns case is often overhyped. It depends on the neg winning the uniqueness and link, which the aff team is rebutting anyways.

Impact Turns

-Go crazy. I'm good for anything you have.

-Sustainability is often more important than both sides give it credit for---it frames functionally everything else in the debate.

-Fiat out of aff scenarios!! I will give high speaks for smart CPs---most external aff impacts vs impact turns are very easy to have an analytic CP that solves it.

-S-risks outweigh X-risks. While it's often helpful to have a card for this, I'll automatically assume it absent impact calc from either side and make it a side constraint to avoid a small risk of any S-risk, similar to how judges would evaluate a 1% risk of extinction over anything else even without explicit impact calc.

-Big pet peeve of mine is saying something is "unethical" without engaging the substance of the argument. In most impact turn debates, both sides agree that util is how you frame ethics. So, if the neg is saying that extinction would net increase utility, saying "wipeout is unethical" isn't an argument unless you win that it's worse (in which case, you don't need to say that argument, because you would've won anyways).

-Update your cards---especially for less common impact turns, everyone reads super old cards---don't do that.

-Spark: go for better args. Nuclear winter is obvi made up and is solved by the bunkers CP. Nuclear tornadoes/Saarg is empirically denied and taken out by a CP that spaces nuclear attacks out. UV is better, but people in the poles would probably survive. But, civilizational collapse would eliminate all tech, making us vulnerable to all disasters and elimination potential for beneficial AI and space col. Those are S-risks that def outweigh any neg scenario (which, to be fair, are almost always worse than aff scenarios).

-Wipeout: win positive V2L, alien contact won't cause extinction, MCE solves animal suffering, and some random future tech won't condemn us all to infinite torture. These are all very intuitive and true arguments. In evenly matched debates, the aff would always win. However, due to prep disparities (people who are planning to go for wipeout will spend more time prepping it out than an average aff team), these debates are not often evenly matched.

LD Stuff

My background is fully in policy. I've gotten into LD recently---coaching/judging tournaments, and talking about LD specific things. I will attempt to evaluate everything fairly, but your best bet is to go for policy-like stuff.

However, with that being said, the neg side bias seems pretty massive in LD and I'll probably be sympathetic to aff teams that try to use tricks or cheaty args to try to compensate for that.

Prefs shortcut:

1 - policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, theory

2 -tricks

3 - phil

4 - k v k

5/s -

-Tricks---I'll evaluate them, and I feel like I'll be better than most policy judges as I went for pretty tricky stuff, but I think that I'll still be worse for you than most LD judges. I feel like I'll also be more lenient on newer args because I'm used to a format where there's a lot of time to recover if you mess up. I'll be fine for tricks like truth testing, presumption and permissibility, paradoxes, and calc indicts. Probably not so much for things like evaluate after X speech.

-Theory---I'll be pretty decent for you---I'll eliminate most of my biases, and for some stuff (like yes/no 1AR theory), I won't have any biases in the first place. Look at the CP section above for more advice.

-Phil---I'll be okay. I haven't debated this stuff a lot but I'm deep on the lit. I won't know the applications to debate, so you should explain stuff more than you normally would.

-Learned everything I know about LD from Sam Anderson andAerin Engelstad

JUDGE PARADIGM

NAME: ARLENA NJOKI WAITHANJI

AGE: 23 YEARS

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.

DEBATE ETIQUETTE

Personally, I prefer a moderate-paced speaker as I feel that this allows the debater to clearly articulate their points and guarantees them that all their points are heard by the judges. The debaters should also be confident and explain their arguments clearly. During the debate, certain virtues and manners should be observed. The debaters should not be aggressive towards their opponents because as much as this is a competition, it is also an opportunity for the debaters to learn. In this regard, the debating environment should therefore be calm, and everyone accorded the time and space allocated to them to present their motion without disruption.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

During the debate I employ the format of establishing what claim the debater presented, their justification for the claim and the impact of the claim. In addition to this I look at the logic plus the evidence presented by the debaters to establish who the winner is. Concerning impact, I encourage students to provide justification and demonstrate feasibility. This is because some students might present quantitative data without explaining the mechanism or providing a link to how these outcomes will be achieved.

I would also like to convey to the students the importance of clearly convincing me, as the judge, about what they mean and why their arguments are unique. It is not my role to interpret their claims in any way. They should be persuasive and make a compelling case for why they should win the various contentions they are championing. Additionally, I suggest using crossfire to challenge opponents and attempt to weaken their arguments by addressing any loopholes they might have. Failure to do so only strengthens the opponent's position.

SPEAKER POINTS

When I am allocating speaker points, they vary in different aspects. I consider the English proficiency, manner of delivery, articulation, and overall presentation. Moreover, I assess how well students respond to questions and engage with their opponents during crossfire. In addition to penalizing the use of abusive language and intentional falsification of evidence, I also take into account the organization and clarity of their arguments, as well as their ability to adapt to unexpected challenges or counterarguments. These factors collectively contribute to the overall evaluation and scoring of each participant.

Moderate speaking is preferred. Given that English may not be the first language for many students, clarity could become an issue. Therefore, I advise students to speak moderately to ensure that all their points are heard clearly by both the judge and their opponents. This helps avoid situations I've encountered before where the opposing team asks for a repetition of contentions. However, if you are confident in your pronunciation, then a quicker pace is acceptable to me.

I am eagerly looking forward to learning, listening to, and interacting with all the teams in the debate.

1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

PF and BP. Have 8 years of debate experience. I've judged 20+ TOC, 10+ NHSDLC and 10+ WSDA tournaments. Also, I did a year of coach experience, mainly for PF debate and speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

This requires a combination of the clarity of the debater's delivery, as well as the accuracy of the delivery. If the debater can emphasize the key points by using voice intonation or appropriate pauses. It is acceptable to speak at a fast pace if the articulation is clear and the arguments given are detailed.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

This depends on the specific situation, if it does not involve personal attacks on the opponent with insulting words, or radical political statements, as well as discriminatory and racist content. It is only the personal debate character of the debater, will be expressed in the speed of speech, or emotional ups and downs fluctuate strongly, this is acceptable.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

I would consider the following three sections:

First, the completeness of the structure of the speech. From the constructive speech whether to establish a detailed framework and definition (not just repeat the motion's content), rebuttal speech performance (including: whether to carry out effective rebuttal, and based on the constructive speech on the output of new extensions), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes properly, and point of valid view comparison (not just repeat the previous point of view needs to be summarized and condensed), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes and point of view comparison (not just repeat the previous arguements needs to be summarized and condensed). The performance of the rebuttal speech (including: whether there are effective rebuttals, and whether there are new ideas based on teammates' constructive speeches), and whether there are clashes in the final focus/summary speech, as well as the comparison of ideas (not just repeating previous ideas, but summarizing and condensing them).

Second, the overall performance at crossfire. Including: strategy design, whether to be able to ask effective questions (do a good job of attacking). As well as the ability to answer questions to improve their own side of the argument, to enhance their own side of the position (whether the defense is in place). Extra bonus points for performance: the ability to catch the other side's loopholes and contradictions in the answer to carry out many repeated attacks (here is the test of the team's two-person cooperation).

Third, how well the team works together, whether the pacing of the two people stays synergistic/complementary, and whether both people are on point when it comes to wrapping up at the end of the debate.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

I don't have any preference for debating styles, but I hope that everyone will be able to have your thoughts and not just concentrate on reading scripts/flows just for the speed of speech and debate.

I am very attentive to the logic of each team's debate, as well as your interpretation of the topic and demonstration of your arguments. I hope everyone can respect the competition and your opponents, and don't be rude and interrupt when others are speaking.