Background:

My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.

PF Paradigm:

WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.

If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.

Other stuff:

-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.

-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.

-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.

-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.

-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.

Parli Paradigm:

I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!

Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):

-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.

-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."

-No tag teaming.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...

-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.

If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at mary.chen@yale.edu

Please add me to the email chain for all speeches/ev, and email with any questions: hilary.griggs@yale.edu

For KSHSAA state- PLEASE do not go over time. I have had to interrupt debaters in every round I have judged about going over time in CX and in speeches and it is frustrating :)

Background:

I debated policy all through high school in KS and now coach parli to high schoolers in a UDL.

Speed:

I’m comfortable with whatever, as long as you signpost and are clear with tag lines, plans, and other particularly important bits (CP texts, theory, perms, etc.). I think that effective debate can happen at any speed, but don’t push it.

General:

I spent a lot of time in high school being annoyed by my judges. I don’t want to be one of those judges, and so I keep my paradigm short. I think that, at its core, debate is about persuasion and cleverness, and I am open to anything from both teams. More than anything, I value clarity, good argumentation, and impact turns.

Other fun facts (for my policy debaters):

T:

I will vote on T. I agree with most standard T rules like: run interpretation, violation, standards, voters; T is not a reverse voting issue, it is a priori, etc. But, again, I need aff/neg to make these args in-round.

DA’s:

Please, for the love of god, run your DA’s right. UQ, link, internal link, impact. I genuinely do not care if your DA is the most generic thing alive; if you have a good link card, I’m in. Argue that.

CP’s:

I love counterplans. I think they are a great way to be creative in a round and really push the aff, but they do need to meet the minimum requirements of mutual exclusivity, net benefit, etc. I think debating against a CP can be fun for the aff, too… perm do both.

K’s:

If you run a K or a K aff in the Kansas open circuit, you already get points for bravery. I’ve read my fair share of theory, and I think that k debates can be really interesting and productive. That said, if you run a K, I expect you to know your lit and to argue it effectively. I am not inherently impressed by K args, so it’s entirely up to you whether or not running a K is effective. That being said, framework is incredibly important in this case. A generic policy aff will beat the world’s most beautiful Cap K if they win on framework.

I debated for four years at Stuyvesant. Now I'm a senior at Yale.

I'm open-minded and I like creative arguments and frameworks. If you want to run something risky and fun for our round, I'm into it.

I have a pretty low tolerance for rudeness and anything that excludes your opponent from participating in a fair round (in particular, esoteric debate jargon and excessive speed).

I am flowing. Please make sure summary and FF are super clear and even a little repetitive. If you want me to vote on something, you should cleanly extend it. If an argument is important, really hit me over the head with it. It's hard for me to vote on something that came up for 5 seconds in FF.

If you weigh clearly and starting early in the round, and give me a consistent, coherent narrative to vote on, you will probably win.

Background: I'm a senior and debate for Yale. In high school I did PF four years, CX one tournament.

These are the meaningful places my paradigm differs from many other paradigms. I have other preferences. Don't worry about those because most people don't violate them and at worst they're minor annoyances that won't change my decision. You can ask about them if you want.

1) Limit debate jargon. I think too slowly to figure out if your defense is terminal or if your turn is actually a turn immediately as you speak. Explain why your words accurately apply to your argument. Otherwise, I'll probably miss the next thing you say because I'm too busy determining if your jargon is consistent with your argument.

2) Reading evidence doesn't count as prep. This means: finding evidence, using eyes to look at the laptop/paper your opponents give you – not prep. Writing things down, talking to your partner concurrently with aforementioned activities – prep. On panels, I defer to the strictest timing paradigm.

3) I intervene liberally on misconstrued evidence. Yes, even if your opponents didn't call you out on it. Judge intervention is pretty terrible, but so is taking advantage of short PF speech and prep times to pass off bad evidence. If you tell me to call for a piece of evidence, I will.

4) I try only halfheartedly to be tabula rasa. This is a big one. I'll vote on any topical, well-warranted, impacted argument. But if you want me to feel really happy, avoid gimmicky/marginal/gotcha arguments. Take on large clash and big burdens. Run things that matter. Find the heart of the issue.

Questions after the round to zhengdong@yale.edu. Please don't argue with me thanks.