Tabroom.com

NSDA Taiwan Invitational

2019 — Taipei, Taiwan, TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

David Arnett Hire 8 rounds

Karen Baba Hire 8 rounds

Mira Baba Hire 8 rounds

Ryan Bu Hire 8 rounds

Jessica Chen Hire 8 rounds

Janise Chiang Hire 8 rounds

Janet Chiu Hire 8 rounds

Jacqueline Chu Hire 8 rounds None

Jay Chu Hire 8 rounds

Miria Chung Hire 8 rounds

McKenzie Engen Hire 8 rounds

Ryan Engen Hire 8 rounds

Gabe Esquivel Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 6:57 PM CST

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.

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.

I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. 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 work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.

Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.

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)

Glen Frappier Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 2:02 PM EDT

Glen Frappier

Gonzaga University

Years Judging College: 24

Updated for 23-24

Rounds Judged on Nukes Topic: ZERO. FREE STRIKE!

If there is an email chain going around with the speech docs please include me. gfrappier@gmail.com.

I appreciate smart, quick and clear debate. If you’re unclear I will let you know once or twice but after that it’s on you.

I prefer argument characterized by depth and substance and generally despise when a laundry list of unwarranted claims is passed off as good argument. The best debates seem to be those where the debaters are doing a lot of comparison of the arguments and evidence. I always thought Ross Smith's lecture on "Extending An Argument" did an excellent job of capturing the essence of the depth I appreciate. If you haven't seen it, you really should google it.

Speaker Points. I find I award speaker points based on the 3 broad categories or content, organization, and delivery. A smart, quick, articulate debater who reads good evidence, makes well reasoned arguments, and effectively manages the flow can expect good points. Flashes of brilliance and displays of exceptional debating are always rewarded. Poor debating, bad evidence, being mean, poor decision-making will all hurt your points. The scale has clear trended up over the last few years and I intend to adapt to those broader trends.

Evidence. This is the lifeblood of a persuasive argument. We all interpret evidence differently so if yours is open to multiple interpretation tell me what your reading of it is and why thats the preferable interpretation. It should be qualified. Evidence from experts in a field with a lifetime of experience thinking, researching, writing and publishing on topic is more persuasive than a blogger with no credentials, or an undergrad working on their degree.

The affirmative should advocate for a topical example of the resolution. I’m open to different interpretations of how plans/advocacy should function, but I tend to believe that a community agreed upon controversy/topic serves as a valuable point of stasis.

Cross Examination is binding. I do my best to pay attention and flow CX. Great CXs payoff in points (and sometimes wins).

Counterplans. There are those I find more of a stretch than others theoretically, but generally tend to err neg on most theory questions.

Critiques. Sure, why not. If you have a link to the aff and an impact then it sounds like you have an argument and i'll listen to it. Still, i don't read much K lit these days and probably will not be familiar with the literature you're relying on for your argument. In those cases its in your interest to slow down and explain.

Brandon Gergel Hire 8 rounds

Jackson Hoffmann Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 5:09 AM CDT

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

Jonathan Hsu Hire 8 rounds

Nick Hsu Hire 8 rounds

Noah Huang Hire 8 rounds

Fiona Kao Hire 8 rounds

Jenny Kuo Hire 8 rounds

Audrey Leu Hire 8 rounds

Adam Lin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 9:39 AM CST

----for ADL tournaments----

IF you go for an impact turn and win I will give you 30 speaks

IF you buy me food I will give you 30 speaks

IF you are a good debater I will give you 30 speaks

IF you roast Ray Wang or Micah Wang in your speech you will get 30 speaks.

bad jokes = -0.5 speaks - do it at your own risk

POLICY

----About me----

Taipei American School '23, Northwestern '27

I have been debating since the immigration topic.

I have been 1A/2N, 2A/1N, and double 2s.

I have qualified for the TOC twice.

I have zero knowledge of the 2023-2024 topic.

----Generic----

1. I will not flow crossfire/CX unless something is conceded.

2. I will time prep if you ask but it is still your responsibility.

3. Please add me to email chain: 23adaml.debate@gmail.com

4. Please set up an email chain or prepare whatever you need prior to the round.

5. respect your opponents and judge, please

----TL;DR----

tech over truth (most of the time)

strike me if you're gonna read high theory - I never have/never will read them, I don't vibe with them

warranting + explanation > spreading thru cards

condo is probably good

depth over breadth - especially in the block

overviews are nice unless it trades off with clash

YES:

aff-specific DAs

impact calc/comparison

card indicts/rehighlightings

agency CPs

some process CPs are fine

judge kick

blue highlighting

NO:

death good

lopez

rider DA

kicking planks

any kind of hate

yellow highlighting

----T----

Well-debated T debates = highest speaks

I probably won't vote on Ts about punctuation/"of"/"The"/"Resolved"

FXT, Extra T are hard to vote on solely based on it

reasonability is a bad argument

fairness is a terminal impact only if dropped

----DA----

ptx DAs should have an overview

Thumpers are great

warrant out all your cards - most DAs end up being just a ton of random cards

diversify your warrants don't just spam cards in the 1NR

If the scenario is absurd I'll probably not vote on it considering the risk

If the DA is creative/I haven't seen, +0.2 speaks

Aff-specific DAs, if executed well/is true, +0.2 speaks

I often find teams not doing the internal link debate, which is usually super weak - I do vote on this

impact calc is essential to a W

turns case scenarios are nice - but tell me why you turn them not they turn you

----CP----

Judge Kick is the default unless the Aff says something and that's dropped

Kicking planks is okay unless the Aff gives a reason why not

Multi-plank counterplans can be strategic, but I often find them abusive.

Would vote on cheaty process CPs

Consult CPs are disgusting

I will vote on sufficiency framing unless the aff specifies a solvency deficit that outweighs the net benefit (modelling etc.)

I will "reject the argument not the team" especially when the CP is super abusive (specifics on theory)

----K----

I've been a policy team my whole life so you need to explain if the lit base isn't cap, set col, bioptx, security, etc.

Not the biggest fan of K affs unless it is well explained. That being said, I'm all for K affs that are somewhat related to the resolution, especially teams that explain to me why the alt is key for solving a specific thing. Being vague is bad.

Framework v. K Affs - I'm easily persuaded by fairness as an impact. That also means I'm susceptible to impact turns, which means that winning competitive models of debate is key to winning the ballot - i.e. why your model is more debatable.

Aff framework v. Ks - almost never the voter, aff should get to weigh the aff, neg should get the K, link debating is the most important

Generic K links are bad - please read specific cards and explain it well. Long overviews are nice but make sure it doesn't trade off with clash. If generic, you must somehow spin it/contextualize in a way that makes coherent sense, otherwise it's hard for me to give the neg a link

no baudrillard

Aff impact turns against cap and security are nice, often find myself erring aff on them

If you're not black, don't run afropess

99% of the time, defense won't be enough for an Aff ballot

----Theory----

I probably won't vote on theory unless there's clear abuse (ex: lopez CP, 4+ CPs in 1NC, etc.) that means even if not dropped, spending enough time explaining that abuse can win you the ballot

Dropping theory isn't an instant voter - you still need to explain to me the abuse that has happened within the round

T outweighs theory - don't BS me

any DA theory is BS

severance is a reason to reject the argument 99% of the time

going for theory = lower speaks (only a bit) cuz I do think substance should be the core of debate

2AC theory should be in the doc - I find that teams just spread through a one-liner and hope they drop it

----Misc----

Speed - The only thing I care about is clarity (separate tags from the card itself, signposting is good). Don't read speed Ks. If the opponents are too fast, chances are I can't flow them either. I will intervene when it's too unclear.

Organize speech doc and speech in general and please highlight the cards. Don't say 'stop prep' and take 2+ minutes to send the doc - if there's a problem, tell me. Do send cards in the body of the email.

Don't be too pressing and be nice during cx - it can be a determinant of speaks if done well. I also think cx is binding. Avoiding questions will lower your speaks

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum

I probably don't know the topic that well, so a clear explanation/overview is very important.

1. In round behavior matters - Be nice and kind

2. Speed doesn't matter, as long as both the other team and I can understand, be CLEAR

3. No preference for specific arguments

4. Crossfire should be done in a civilized way - don't speak loudly at the same time as opponents.

5. Don't extend cards without explaining the warrants and linking it to the args.

6. It's good to compare different parts of different arguments on both sides to show how you outweigh.

7. Please do Line-by-line if possible, at least show what argument you are moving on to. Organize your speeches and flow.

8. You MUST show me WHY and HOW you win the debate in order for me to vote for your team. PERSUASION IS KEY!!!

9. I will vote on RESOLVED arguments, if there are random arguments that are left unanswered or not clear, I will not vote on that. Also if an argument is dropped, you must mention it or I will disregard it completely.

----Speaker Points Rubric [for both]----

30-29 hands down you're a great speaker. A few minor flaws could affect your speaks but it already exceeds my standards.

29-28 You are doing well, but there are probably some key things that you missed. Great speaking overall!

28-27 You're gonna have to work on your speaking a little more.

27-26 This is the speaks I will give to someone who I can't really understand/sounds like clipping/interrupting others.

<26 Forfeiting a speech, offensive language, or inappropriate behavior in general - please don't!!!

Benson Lin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 12, 2022 at 11:39 AM EDT

As far as my judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as you should know what you need to do).

Public Forum

Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.

First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.

Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.

Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.

Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.

Speed – spreading is okay but hopefully you're not doing it in PF. Clarity > speed, always.

Policy Debate

Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.

Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.

Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.

Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.

DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP

CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.

Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.

Include me in your email chain: benson_lin@brown.edu

(work in progress)

Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.

Good luck and have fun!

Henry Lin Hire 8 rounds

Gavin Matthews Hire 8 rounds

Joel Mounts Hire 8 rounds

Lily Ottinger Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 8:18 PM CDT

Email chain: lily.coaches.debate@gmail.com

About:

Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).

Top:

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-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties."
I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
High schoolers are too young to swear in debates.
Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
If you are asking questions like "was x card read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.

Framework:

I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.

Topicality vs policy affs:

Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" < debatability.
Case lists are good.
The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.

Counterplans

When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
Conditionality: I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.

Disads

Read them
Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
I do not think permutations are cheating.
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.

Kelly Phil Hire 8 rounds

Cher Pradhan Hire 8 rounds

Tyler Prochazka Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:04 PM CST

Email: tynews2001@gmail.com

I participated in four years of policy debate in high school and I debated four years at Western Kentucky University.

I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.

When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.

If you are running critical/performance arguments, please be familiar with the argument and able to intellectually defend it. My personal preference when I debate is usually policy-oriented discussions and my personal bias is that switch-side policy debate is good, but I don't let this inform my decision in the round. At the same time, I think that non-traditional forms of debate are an important component of the community and have an important message to broadcast, and as such, I have voted for performance affs in the past.

The following is a preference and not a requirement. It is common for me to judge teams running non-traditional forms of arguments and personally be unfamiliar with the literature base. Thus, it is probably in your interest to ask if I'm familiar with a non-traditional argument prior to the round unless you plan to explain it extensively in the round. An argument is inherently less persuasive when the messenger also does not fully understand it, and the debate is probably less educational for everyone involved as a result. In general, I think you should be familiar with any argument you read before you deploy it in-round, but I've found this is more frequently an issue when high school debaters deploy the critical literature base. If I don't think you are familiar with your argument, I won't hold it against you in my RFD (although it will inform my speaker points), but it will probably influence whether you are able to effectively deploy the argument on the flow, where I will vote.

Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the RFD should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.

Ethan Tai Hire 8 rounds

Joy Taw Hire

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 11:44 PM BST

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

Edwin Tham Hire 8 rounds

Yvette Tseng Hire 8 rounds

Chloe Wang Hire 8 rounds

Ray Wang Hire 8 rounds

Nathan Weller Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 9, 2022 at 3:19 AM CST

1. My background

Debated (policy debate) for two years in high school in New York, USA.
In college, I didn't continue competitively in debate but did "persuasive speech."
10+ years of coaching/instructing/judging debate in secondary education to students and fellow teachers. (Mostly in policy debate, but also some public forum and Lincoln Douglas)

2. How I judge.

It is true that I deliberate on the overall presentation of debaters to an extent. (see below)
I primarily focus on arguments and logical reasoning/connections.
The delivery primarily only is an impact if it makes the arguments unclear to the listeners (myself or the opponents).

3. My judging style and preferences.

Any pace/speed should be okay as long as the speaker is clear and loud enough (I'm not a fan of debaters racing through a preprepared speech thoughtlessly while being barely comprehensible).
I'm not a big fan of a Kritik approach but will accept it if there is enough of a clear, logical connection created by the speaker. (If you use one, you had better be really good with having it connected and possible/believable.)
I attempt to approximate the estimate of the “AVERAGE INFORMED CITIZEN.” (A simple "blank slate" is not an average citizen, so I do somewhat weight points according to the arguments being reasonable. However, you are also not debating against my knowledge of a topic.)
I enjoy hearing counter plans and original ideas but don't like it if a counter plan is remarkably similar to the affirmative plan (has only minor differences/changes).
I DON'T LIKE SPREADING! I would rather have a team choose their best arguments instead of trying to win by just having a large number of minor points that end up being dropped. (If you have a lot of points, that is not a problem that is, if... lots of points are dropped by your opponents, but you can defend the parts challenged are defended instead of quickly dropping them (when challenged) that would convince me that you are ready to defend the other points that were dropped. However, if you spread and then repeatedly drop your own arguments (when challenged), that would lead me to believe that you are only trying to win via numbers alone.)

Additional notes...

I am dyslexic... if there is a lot being said, I might not be writing/typing because it can be distracting from what is being said, but I am keeping mental notes. (Being dyslexic means that it is a bit harder for me to write and listen simultaneously.)
My notes are sometimes messy because they are only intended for me.
I prefer to give immediate feedback instead of long detailed written reports but will write up the more major things in a feedback report.

Email: Nathan.in.Taiwan@gmail.com (ONLY use my listed email if you need it to share evidence or in debate email chains)

H Dylan Willett Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 3, 2023 at 10:39 AM CDT

Email me if you have questions and please put me on the chain: dylan.willett8 at gmail dot com as well as taiwanheg@gmail.com. I coach for the Asian Debate League. I debated for UMKC. In college, I mostly went for framework, topic DAs, and an assortment of topic critiques. As a coach I mostly have spent the last year working on random policy stuff, but have spent a lot of time working with critical approaches to the topic as well.

Be bold, read something new, it will be rewarded if you do it well. Analysis of evidence is important. I have found that over the past few years I have grown my appreciation for more of the policy side of research not in an ideological lean, but rather I am not starting from negative with process counterplans, I appreciate clever disadvantages, etc. If you have good cards, I am more willing to reward that research and if you do something new, I will definitely be happy.

I begin my decisions by attempting to identify what the most important arguments are, who won them, and how they implicate the rest of the debate. The more judge instruction, including dictating where I should begin my decision by showing me what is most important will help determine the lens of how I read the rest of the arguments

I find that I am really annoyed by how frequently teams are asking major flow clarifications like sending a new file that removes the evidence that was skipped. Please just flow, if there is an actual issue that warrants a question its obviously ok, but in most situations it comes across as not paying attention to the speeches which is a bit frustrating.

I like good, strategic cross-ex. If you pay attention and prepare for your cx, it pays dividens in points and ballots. Have a plan. Separate yourself and your arguments here!

I am a big fan of case debates that consist of a lot of offense – impact turns or link turns are always better than just pulling from an impact d file.

I think that I mostly lean negative on theory arguments – I would be really sad if I had to parse through a huge theory debate like condo, but am willing. I think I start from a predisposition that condo, PICs, etc are okay, and change based off the theory debate as it develops. I think theory is an important part of an affirmative strategy versus good, and especially cheaty, counterplans. I don't think education is a super persuasive argument in theory debates I have found. Way easier to go for some type of fairness argument and compare internal links versus going for some abstract notion about how conditionality benefits or hurts "advocacy skills".

In framework debates, the best teams spend a lot of their speeches on these flows answering the nuanced developments of their opponents. AFF or NEG teams that just say a different wording of their original offense in each speech are setting themselves up to lose. I am interested in hearing what debates would look like under each model. I like education arguments that are contextual to the topic and clever TVAs and impact turns are good ways to get my ballot while making the debate less stale. I find the framework teams that lose my ballot most are those that refuse to turn (on the link level or impact level, in appropriate manner) AFF offense. I find the K AFF teams that lose my ballot most are those that don't double down on their offense and explain how the NEGs impacts fit in your depiction of how debate operates.

Ks, DAs, CPs, T, FW, etc are all fine to read and impact turn – as long as I am judging a round where there is some attention to strategy and arguments are being developed, I will be happy. Definitely willing to vote on zero risk of a link.

Steven Yao Hire 8 rounds

Judy Yen Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

NSDA Taiwan Invitational

2019 — Taipei, Taiwan, TW

Debate Judges Paradigm List

Judges