Pretty standard flow judge.

General Stuff:

Don't speak too fast.

Please weigh.

Be organized+signpost.

Don't mislabel turns.

I value humor.

Rebuttal:

-I like overviews/terminal defense.

-I prefer good logic over just dumping a bunch of cards on me. If you read evidence, contextualize it. If you just have a massive card dump without explanations, I won't flow the responses if they are not immediately understandable to me.

Summary:

-Structure summaries around voters.

-You are much better off collapsing arguments into one/two voters, rather than blippy extensions

-Don't extend through ink

-Summary overviews are also nice

-Please weigh in summary and provide actual justifications for your weighing.

Final Focus:

-I will not really consider any offense in Final Focus that was not in Summary

-Provide specific voters that carry from Summary.

Crossfire:

-I don't really flow Crossfire, but I will pay attention/write anything down that is important. If you want me to consider it, it needs to be brought up in speech.

Fiat:

• I grant Neg pretty much 0 fiat. I think this is the intention of the vague "no counterplans in pf" rule that people bring up all the time.
• This means that if you're negating a normative resolution, I think you are restricted to defending the status quo.
• if you're running some sort of alternative solvency on neg, you need to prove to me that this alternative will occur in the status quo, but that the affirmative advocacy is preventing the alternative from happening or trading off with it in some other way.
• I grant the aff the weakest fiat possible. You can fiat that the resolution will happen, but beyond that, you're pretty much restricted to defending what would most likely happen in the real world given the conditions set by resolution. This means you can't fiat out of political conditions like backlash, political capital, cutgo, etc.
• Also, this means that your advocacy should be a likely implementation of the resolution in the real world. If the resolution says we should send ground troops to Iraq, you can't fiat that this means we should send troops to only one specific village in Iraq because realistically, this isn't how a ground intervention in Iraq would go.

Have fun and do your best.

I don't flow cross fire.

Everything in your final must have been said in summary for me to flow it. I handle speed well, but speak clearly.

I will not intervene in the round to make a decision unless the round was somewhat of a wash and can't be decided without it. Please don't make me have to do that.

Weigh as much as possible, otherwise I'll have to weigh the round myself and you'll probably disagree with the way I do it.

Speaks:

30: Debating at a varsity level as a novice. Great speaking and great coverage of the flow.

29: Debating very well at the novice level. Above average coverage of the flow and above average speaking

28: Debating slightly above the novice level. Overall, a good speaker and debater, but they make a few common novice mistakes throughout the round.

27: Debating at the novice level. Makes a lot of mistakes, but hey that's the learning curve.

26: The debater is doing the bare minimum when it comes to flow coverage and speaking.

25: The debater is being mean or unprofessional, or can't be understood.

Any lower means you probably punched someone and that's not good.

One of you won't agree with my decision, but that's life.

My son does debate, so I have judged on and off for a few years on the local and national level.

Please respect everyone in the room. I'll try my best to take notes and keep up with you and your opponents' arguments. That being said, there is no need to speak too fast because I find that it detracts from your arguments and your persuasion. If you have any specific questions, please don't be afraid to ask me and have fun!

As a former participant and coach, I've judged hundreds of rounds. As a New Yorker, I can handle some fast talking. And as a professional speechwriter, I'm paying attention to how your speeches are organized to present the arguments and responses efficiently and effectively, and how well competitors are listening to each other (including their partners) to advance the debate. For partners, that means building off of each other, rather than simply repeating the same points, always connecting back to the resolution and why each argument is important. I appreciate when teams can focus on the most important aspects of clash, and am listening for depth rather than breadth (more substance, fewer stats without implications), and for teams that can convey their understanding of a complex topic in a simple way that others can understand too. The skills I learned from this activity and still use in my job: Clarity, precision and persuasion, thoughtful repetition, organization, an understanding of the audience, and engaging presentation. By the end of the round, you should clearly answer the question why your side should win, based on everything that's come up.

jennakjung@gmail.com

I'm also on FB, Jenna Jung

Feel free to hit me up and ask questions any time

Hello there, welcome to my paradigm:

Conflicts: Bronx Science anybody

Experience: Circuit VLD and CX one time for Bronx Science 2014-2018

SHORT

· Speed is ok

· You do you

· Send me speech docs: jennakjung@gmail.com

· I don’t like friv theory/t and tricks and SKEP

· Open to everything else (I like ks and am good at judging k rounds)

· No disrespekt

LONG

*Respect is so so important. Any disrespectful or discriminatory behavior is not tolerated and I will drop you through the floor*

How to get better speaker points with JEnna

· WEIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

· Be good at sitting on things in the last speech – don’t go for everything

· Make strength of link to framework clear

· It's better if you speak slower and give coherent arguments rather than spread incoherently

· Be a nice, wholesome person

· Teach me something new

Speed

- Cool full speed ahead – sending the doc is cool

LARP

- Be very clear in the link chain

- Run with solid framework, if you run the generic util, please please be able to defend it

- really hate judging basic util rounds

Ks

- Love them, mainly debated Ks, have good knowledge of a lot of k lit, so I will know if you are misconstruing or miscutting

- It is very important you know the argument and internal warrants of the K

- I love a good k

o Bonus points for a creative one with an actual link rather than your generic link back files

- ROB debate crucial

Performance

- Love it, did it in high school, I think it can be super powerful when you full heartedly care about what you’re talking about

- ROB/ROJ function for performance is a MUST if you want me to buy it

- !!!!!

o Performance is not reading eDgY speech doc and saying “I read 10 sec quote, therefore DROPP THEM”

- Always remain respectful

T/Theory/spikes

- Am very open to it if you make compelling argument of abuse

- Won’t vote off

o NSDA rules theory

o plans bad theory

o "need an explicit text" interps

o Disclosure against novices and traditional debaters

- Be aware of how abusive your opponent is being – the argument is more compelling if there is actual abuse lol

- Not fan of spikes

o Don’t like flowing 5 min of spikes ever – you will probably lose if you do this in front of me

High Theory

- I’m for it if you actually know what the authors are saying

- Explain the link chain to me very very very clearly (a must in the last speech at the very least)

o If you explain it well, I’m game

Oh and don’t read skep. I do the angery

My central policy is that you should be debating to convince me, not the other team. The other team will never switch over to your side, but I will, and I make the decision whether you win or lose. This means...

1. Don't spread. Speak at a pace where you are able to be understood. If I can't understand you, then what's the point?

2. Face me during CF/GCF and speak to me. (I will not weigh CF/GCF unless you mention it in a later speech. I will note your performance and it will show in your speaker points, however.)

3. Signpost! Make your arguments coherent and organized, and I will be that much more convinced.

4. Repeat yourself and stay consistent. Unlike a writing assignment or essay, I can't go back and re-hear what you said. Repeating a point you think that you are winning and has gone unresponded to means I will take that point into more consideration.

5. Finally, weigh. If you do not weigh, I will weigh it for you. That means if Pro says 50 lives and Con says 50 dollars, unless a team gives me a reason to weigh one over the other, I will weigh the one that I personally liked more. You will not like that. So you should weigh.

-I did PF back in the day, and I've judged a lot of it (New to other formats though).

-I love to see strong warranting in debate, and more generally a logical progression of ideas.

I love impacts. 

Pretty standard flow judge.

General Stuff:

Don't speak too fast.

Please weigh.

Be organized+signpost.

Don't mislabel turns. 

I value humor.

Rebuttal:

-I like overviews/terminal defense.

-I prefer good logic over just dumping a bunch of cards on me. If you read evidence, contextualize it.  If you just have a massive card dump without explanations, I won't flow the responses if they are not immediately understandable to me. 

Summary:

-Structure summaries around voters.

-You are much better off collapsing arguments into one/two voters, rather than blippy extensions

-Don't extend through ink

-Summary overviews are also nice

-Please weigh in summary and provide actual justifications for your weighing.

Final Focus:

-I will not really consider any offense in Final Focus that was not in Summary

-Provide specific voters that carry from Summary.

Crossfire:

-I don't really flow Crossfire, but I will pay attention/write anything down that is important. If you want me to consider it, it needs to be brought up in speech.

Fiat(Copied from Uzair Qadir):

• I grant Neg pretty much 0 fiat. I think this is the intention of the vague "no counterplans in pf" rule that people bring up all the time.
• This means that if you're negating a normative resolution, I think you are restricted to defending the status quo.
• if you're running some sort of alternative solvency on neg, you need to prove to me that this alternative will occur in the status quo, but that the affirmative advocacy is preventing the alternative from happening or trading off with it in some other way.
• I grant the aff the weakest fiat possible. You can fiat that the resolution will happen, but beyond that, you're pretty much restricted to defending what would most likely happen in the real world given the conditions set by resolution. This means you can't fiat out of political conditions like backlash, political capital, cutgo, etc.
• Also, this means that your advocacy should be a likely implementation of the resolution in the real world. If the resolution says we should send ground troops to Iraq, you can't fiat that this means we should send troops to only one specific village in Iraq because realistically, this isn't how a ground intervention in Iraq would go.