I have 4 years PF debate experience and have attended several NSDA and NHSDLC regional and national tournaments in China, as well as Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley annual debate tournaments. I've been coaching debaters in several debate camps in China during 2019, and I have worked as a PF debate coach from 2021-2022. In turns of judging experience I've judged several regional PF debate tournaments and the 2019 NHSDLC Nationals for both MS and HS divisions, as well as Stanford/Harvard annual debate tournament.

In terms of judging PF debate, I would like to hear more weighing and impact comparison from both sides, and debaters to directly engage with opponents' arguments instead of simply presenting defensive arguments. I prefer contentions with strong logic links and data/evidence and line-by-line rebuttal.

I have four years of PF debating experience and attended many regional and national tournaments (NSDA and NHSDLC) in China, as well as the Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley invitationals. Aside from being on the debate team at my college, I served as a camp instructor in several NHSDLC debate camps and voluntary debate coach at Shanghai Tongji High School.

Besides the winter camp invitationals, I judged the 46th Annual Harvard Invitational as well as the NHSDLC 2021 Christmas Invitational for both JV and Open divisions.

When judging a round, I would prefer to hear more impact-weighing and the evidence from each side. Line-to-line rebuttals with clear (and not too fast) deliery would be much appreciated.

Hey, this is Brenda!

I am an engineering professional with strong interests in judging. I have over 3 years experience in judging. I enjoy debates that flow well and have distinct framework as this makes the debate well structured. I believe logic and evidence go hand in hand and well thought through debate. Moderate speaking pace, clear speech and confidence is what wins!

I debated in Public Forum in high school and currently participated in BP in university. I also coached debate in school debate clubs, debate camps and judged at tournaments.

Normally no judging preference. But it will be better if debaters could give more reasonings and weighing besides evidence.

I was president of both English and Chinese debate team during college, now work in the field of licensing. Started to judge different tournaments for DLC since 2015, both off-line and online.

In terms of preference, I value clear presentation and direct logic, simply repeating how strong your cases is not helping you to win, identify your opponent's logical flaw then rebut or defend analytically, ideally to connect with your prepared evidence, or to rebut basing on the real clash. As for speakers point, being kind and clear is the key. And please, don't yell.

I am a junior at Smith College, double majoring in quantitative economics and psychology. I debated in Public Forum for four years in high school. I have judged multiple tournaments in China and in the states.

In terms of preference, I normally focus on clashes in the round and the use of weighing mechanisms. Explicit weighing would be useful. Debaters should also be able to explain the logic of the evidence they used instead of simply listing it to prove their arguments.

I do not encourage being aggressive during the crossfire.

I look forward to seeing debaters' ability to identify logical flaws in their opponent's case and connect their analytical response with their prepared evidence in the rebuttal. Reading blocks without any engagement cannot win the round.

I started to debate in 2017 as a high school freshman and accumulated extensive debate experiences which were but mainly in Public Forum. I ranked 10th in the national debate ranking in China and had won various awards in tournaments. Graduating from high school in 2020, I began my judging career as a college student and have since then judged more than 200+ rounds of public forum debate (both online and on-site). Overall speaking, I have judged and debated on a wide range of resolutions, social, political, economic, etc.

My judging philosophy is rather simple: Rule of Logic. I deliberate my decisions with a number of factors: argumentation (logic), quality of evidence, impact evaluation, and debating style (eloquence). (ps: evidence before impact for quality of evidence might decide if impacts are real and solid; for example the methodologies in which the research in your evidence was conducted clearly influences the relevant data)

I don't have a particular preference about speed but debaters must speak with clarity (don't let speed compromise your content) otherwise i might not be able to understand and thus fail to judge your arguments.

Both slower speaking pace or a faster one are working for me. Frameworks are crucial for me to evaluate Public Forum debates. I would prefer well-developed arguments over many arguments that are not as developed. I prefer evidence with logical analysis compare to the arguments that are logical but lack of sufficient evidence. If both team can try to calm down in the crossfire and present efficient and useful questions, it will be my pleasure to judge them.

I debated PF for three years in high school. I have experience coaching debate teams and camps, and have judged many tournaments.

When judging PF debates, my primary focus will always be weighing of impacts. Explain to me why I should care. Do not expect me to make any judgement based on the arguments alone. Remember it is not my job to evaluate your individual cases, but rather to evaluate how well of a job you did defending your own case while attacking your opponents'. If you want me to take something into account, make sure you tell me in your speeches.

Likes:

- Linking back: It is important to me that you link everything back to your main argument and framework in all of your speeches, especially summaries and final focuses.

- Clarity: Make sure you speak loud and clear. When taking delivery into account, I care most about the clarity of your speech. I do not care much about speech speed, English proficiency or pronunciation, and dislike it when debaters take advantage of these (i.e. speak super fast so the opponents can't understand what you are saying; overcomplicating cases by using too much jargon...)

- Structure: I will allow road mapping before official speeches, and urge you to use signposts throughout the debate. This helps me and your opponents to better keep up with your case, avoids creating misunderstandings, and makes the debate much more efficient!

- Communication: I love seeing communication between partners and opponents! I strongly urge debaters to make wise use of their prep time by not only prepping for speeches, but also talking with their partners or asking their opponents for their cards/cases.

Dislikes:

- Debate on evidence: While I do believe that having credible evidence is crucial for building strong arguments, I dislike when too much time is spent on arguing who has more authoritative sources.

- Scripted debate: Many debaters like to prepare lots of cards and blocks beforehand, which is a smart thing to do, but I still value the improvising part of speeches. I strongly dislike when debaters spend the entirety of their speech time reading off a document full of pre-written responses.

- Chaotic crossfires: I will NOT flow crossfires where two or more people are constantly talking over each other.

- Rude behavior: I have ZERO tolerance for any rude behavior. This includes but is not limited to yelling or shouting, discriminatory language, ad hominem attacks, overly-aggressive attitude, and rude physical gestures (finger pointing, eye rolling, table slamming etc.) Rude behavior will affect your team's results as well as your individual speaker points.

Experiences:

3 Years PFD experiences

2 Years Judging PF (NSDA/NHSDLC)

(I know a bit of PD)

WARNING:

Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, it definitely doesn’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction, though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with the lowest speaker points.”

Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:

-Racism, sexism, or anything offensive to anyone

-Belittling someone in round

-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable

-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.

-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one

Please always remember: the debate is a safe space and should be treated as one.

Delivery:

I’m fine with speed. But the clarity is always prior to speed. You need to be aware of your delivery skill.

Roadmaps:

Love a good roadmap, but your roadmap should be something along the lines of “aff case, neg case. I’ll be starting on x argument”. Anything more than that, and you’re wasting everyone’s time.

Ks/T:

Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well.

Framing:

I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I feel pretty vague in framing to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I usually would.

Speaker Points:

I was once told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” 26 will be the avg point I give.

Evidence Check:

If you request an evidence check, you need to address that card or at least mention that card during the following speeches. Otherwise, I’ll consider that as the way you steal the prep time, especially when you request several pieces of cards.

Crossfire:

CX is a section for question and answer, not individual speech. Don’t be rude. Don’t yell. I’ll deduct your speaker points if you make me mad. I’ll not flow CX, which means you must mention the important info during the NEXT speech.

Summary:

I prefer a frontline summary. Clashes are fine, but make sure there’s a real clash in this round. Don’t take clash as an excuse for messing the round.

Don’t simply repeat your arguments. Do extensions.

Final Focus:

Idc Pathos.

FF is not simply another 2mins summary for the 2nd speaker. You’re supposed to weigh your impacts, show your terminal impacts and give the voting issues. You’re supposed to be the one to help me to write down the ballot through your final focus. I was hoping you wouldn’t give me the chance to help you do the weighing coz you cannot imagine or predict how I will consider your impact.

Flowing:

I flow on paper or on an excel sheet depending on where I am.

Strategy:

Going for arguments/impacts/scenarios that your opponent dropped and contextualizing it to the round is the best thing you can do. Too often, debaters don’t notice dropped/under-covered arguments, and it’s super frustrating for me bc I already see my ballot written. If you go for more complicated arguments, you’ve made your job harder and mine, so I’ll be less happy.

Any other questions feel free to:

Email me: Jacksonyufang@gmail.com

Or ask me before the round

Hi! I'm Yuling (she/her). I graduated from UCLA with an econ dgree, I have 10 years of PF debating/coaching experience (yeah my life is that boring).

wangyuling1999@gmail.com for email chain/questions before or after round.

On top of my paradigm: I'm judging in a different timezone i.e. if you are doing a US tournament that means I may be judging at 2/3 am; that means I probably won't be able to handle spreading that well.

Bottom Line: be nice/don't be discriminatory in round.

Preferences:

Narrative Debate shapes my view of debate. Give me a cohesive storyline on why your side's view on the topic is more correct/important really helps me a lot in the decision making process.

Weighing matters, need extension and comparisons in the second half of the round.

Arguments need to be responded in the next speech - i.e. frontline in the second rebuttal.

Speed:
I am able to handle first constructive here (actually a bit faster than this is fine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxiQYogqyIs&t=38s

but not really https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnDL_bIDEqg

Eventually I'll vote on a team that clearly tells me where should I vote on, how did you win there, and why should I vote there.

Theory/Ks: It's still new to me / the circuit I coach in. I'll try my best to flow and understand, and I also appreciate a chance to get educated on progressive debate, but the reminder is I'm probably not qualified enough to decide this type of round.

Since 2015, I have been judging for National High School Debate League of China, including dozens of online debates and offline regional tournaments in Chongqing, Chengdu, Shenzhen and Guangzhou.

For the whole debate, I expect clear expression with appropriate speaking speed, which actually is an essential requirement that many debaters neglect to meet. At the beginning of one debate, I pay extra attention to see if there’s a complete structure of the constructive speech, especially that the framework should be a requisite. As to the crossfires, I appreciate effective evidence to support strong logic. Bear in mind that an argument is a claim and warrant with an impact. I don't like arrogant debaters showing no respect to either the judge or their opponents.

I have a lot of experience judging Public Forum debates, having served as judge since 2016.

I tend to focus on the clashes in a debate, and it would be great if debaters could weigh their contentions against their opponents'. The ability to point out flaws in the opponents' logic is another thing I look for in debaters.

This is my eighth year in the speech and debate community. I competed for four years in high school, three years in college, and this is my second year coaching at Wilson High School. I'm familiar with all forms of high school debate, but CX debate is where I feel most at home. I believe each type of debate is unique and should be treated as such - if you want to do policy debate, do policy debate!

I expect policy Affs to uphold the resolution and critical Affs to link to the resolution. I admittedly have a bias for real world policy cases, but I'm willing to vote on the K if it's ran well. I have seen critiques ran well on the college circuit, but yet to see one convincing enough to vote on while judging high school debate. Flashing does count as prep time; when the flash drive is out of your computer I will stop the timer. Prep time will not be taken for your opponents to open up the file. Tag-team CX is not allowed and if competitors repeatedly do it then speaks will be docked. I have two thoughts on topicality. There's 'legit' topicality and then there's 'its's another argument' topicality. If it's obvious the Aff isn't topical I will have a bias for the Neg's topicality arguments. If it's obvious the Neg is running topicality just to throw it out there, I'll treat it like any other argument. Speed is fine. Just slow down on the tag/cite.

Tell me how to vote in the final speeches. (What I should value / what matters and why.) If no framework is given, I generally default to utilitarianism.