ADL Smart Debate PF Tournament
2021 — Taipei, TW
Debate Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hideexperience:
- done SD, PF, and Policy for the past 6 years
- National WSD 3rd Speaker
- Co-President of TPDSA
general (x = where I lean towards)
- Clash-x-------------No Clash
- Tech---x------------Truth
- Impact Calc-------x--------Impact Comparison
- Speedy-----------x----Conversational
- Flowing CX--------------x-Not Flowing CX (there are exceptions)
- Signposting (please do it) - i.e. let me know where you are going in your speech
notes for PF and SD
- I like it when there is a narrative i can follow
- speak up because if you are too quiet it technically doesn't count on my flow
- don't be rude to your opponents
- please have warrants -- i will not just accept your arguments just cuz you have an author
- extend what your 2nd speaker says
- hopefully your final reflects the summary
- remember that you are a partnership, not an individual person
- don't assume that your judge knows nothing and try to stick to the truth
policy
- If you are gonna do theory, please make sure you understand it
- Same thing with Ks -- also note that my ability to judge these are very limited
- Please give a road map
- Though I like to be included on the email chain, expect me to vote off what I got on my flow and not what I got off the speech doc (I have no issue admitting that I simply couldn't hear what you said and hence could not vote for you)
- let's not spread analytics or theory ←_←
- condo is probably good
- I <3 aff-specific DAs---impact calc/comparison---card indicts/rehighlightings---topicality
Hi, my name is Kris, I am an eighth-grader. I've been really debating for 3 years. I do public forum and policy. Even though I have not much experience judging, I will try to be the best judge I can be.
I am a flow and tech over truth judge. Please don't talk too fast because I am not that good at flowing and might miss some parts but that's why it is important to keep practicing flowing. Please have good evidence and provide reasoning for everything. Always be confident in your speeches and be clear and organized when you do your speech.
If you do policy, I am not good with Kritiks but it is fine with me if you run them. Other else than that I will be ok with.
Email: krischiu1205@gmail.com
I am Kyle Chiu. I am a 10th grader.
I debated since elementary school and have been hooked up with debate for almost 5 years. I am currently doing policy debate.
I am a flow judge. I am a tech over truth guy, which means I disregard the truth but look at how the debate goes to finalize the final decision.
Please, try not to go too fast and be as clear as possible. I suggest you do speaking practice. I am not that good at flowing. I am also not a Kritik judge, but I still understand it. For other types of arguments, I am good with it.
Pronouns: He, Him
I have debated for 6 years, fourth-year in policy
To win the debates you should understand and explain your arguments well. Have clash and do impact weighing. I personally value probability over other things. Also, please time you debates since keeping track of time is important. When you speak, please slow on important tags or arguments so I can flow it.
joshuacho714@gmail.com
For speaker points, I usually give high speaks as long as you are respectful.
-TES'24
-I debate at ADL
-He/Him
-email: 1234jaychu@gmail.com
I will do my best to follow the debate - be clear and do organized line by line
Clarity>Speed (But im ok with spreading)
Clear impact calc for me to evaluate
Slow down on tags and non-evidence args
hi! I'm Emma :) my pronouns are she/her/hers, and I'm a junior (class of '25) debating with ADL and attending TES (for those of you in Taiwan). I'm in my fourth year of CX, but I also do some extemp, world schools, and PF on the side. feel free to email me at eyhchuo@gmail.comfor any questions!
Smart Debate (SD)/Public Forum (PF)
it's difficult to lay out reasons in exact bullet-points for what you should do for me to vote for you (because they depend on the substance and technical debating in different rounds), but here are a few things I believe in which help me judge:
1 --- tech over truth. if you tell me the sky is pink and the other team doesn't tell me otherwise, I think it's true for the sake of the debate round. that being said, I will not vote on that argument alone without you telling me why it matters, which leads me to:
2 --- framing/judge instruction. I need to know how you want me to evaluate the debate --- i.e. which arguments you think matter and why they matter + why you think, under that framing, your arguments matter more than your opponents' arguments. to explain that, you need:
3 --- well-explained link and internal link stories. you need to tell me what your arguments mean for me to vote for you and even make a decision at all! also, if I don't know what your arguments mean, it's likely that I won't understand the ways that you're using an argument (e.g. if you say that your contention A answers their contention B, but not tell me what contention A means, I won't understand why contention A can be used to rebut contention B, which means that I'll probably still give **close to** 100% risk to contention B.). finally:
4 --- impact/why your story matters. you should try to do impact calculus to tell me why your arguments matter more than your opponents'. this way I can decide between two different stories from two different sides.
+ I absolutely LOVE smart link and impact turns so if you can win on that you’re amazing but even if you don’t end up winning on it I’ll give you some extra you’re-a-smart-person speaker points
Speaks
usually I give out speaks within the 27.5-29.5 range; if you get higher than that, you are extraordinary. am literally hailing you you are my favorite speaker ever I tell all my friends about you keep up the good work you are a literal boss. if you get lower for that, it's most likely just because of discriminatory or disrespectful behavior that I do not and will not tolerate in any instance. please please just be nice.
if you're in the bottom half of the 27.5-29.5 range, my suggestion would be to practice your speech more and be more confident in it because it was probably great; speak louder & read clearer. if you're in the top half of this range, congrats! keep it up! for more detailed comments about speaks though, you can always ask me through email, in person, etc.
Others
I do NOT tolerate any discriminatory behavior (racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, or being rude to your partner or opponents). I'll do my best to make this a safe space because what really matters is that you get a place to speak about your ideas --- so please do reciprocate by being nice to everyone.
thanks for reading & enjoy your debates! :)
I have taught public forum debate for a few years.
I prefer quality arguments over quantity. Not a big fan of spreading, so spread at your own risk.
I like cases that have a consistent thread/narrative throughout. I also think pathos and rhetorical skills deserve a bigger place in PF. These sorts of things impress me.
Happy debating~
PF:
spreading is bad.
Policy:
I am militantly tech over truth. I have many thoughts about debate, main one being the goal of debate is to beat your opponent not to demonstrate your bravery (i.e. contrary to popular sentiment going for dropped hidden aspec is good).
There are three that factor into my decision. 1. Ad Homs, call outs are more than dissuasive a RVI. I don’t think anything you’ve done outside of the round should hinder your ability to win. If ballots cause change, then I guess I’m voting against you to prevent more nonsense. 2. Cards must be read 3. Disclosure is good and “debate is bad I had insert experiences” kritikal affirmatives are dissuasive.
For the purposes of your speaks. Unless have a well researched strategy I'd rather you not bother engaging the topic, I would rather adjudicate the game where you 'out-tech people' like I would actually rather you read indexicals or robo-spec then have to see you read a prior to 2020 card on your topic disadvantage... (at least that teaches you some skills...)
Debate background-I have been doing debate for about 6 years. I have done Public forum and Policy debate but mainly focus on PF.
How do I judge?- I would like you to write out my ballot by doing impact calculus PLS WEIGH. If you do this then you will have a higher chance of winning. I don't really care what arguments you have, just don't make it confusing. I don't like evidence debates because how credible your evidence is doesn't really change that much. Its how well you can argue them. Make sure you extend evidence to back up your claims.
Speed-Speed is ok but just make sure your opponents can understand. ngl I don't like spreading in pf so try not to.
Speaker points-If you are clear and at a good pace you would probably get high speaks. You should also sound confident in what you are saying. But if you interrupt speeches and insult your partner or opponents your points will be affected. Being racist, sexist, etc will make your speaks go down to the lowest there can be.
Crossfires-I like an interesting crossfire where things aren't just explaining. Crossfires won't be flowed so if you make a good point, it won't count unless you bring it up in a speech. Don't bully your opponents, if they can't answer your question then you already got what you wanted.
Info
I am Gina, in the round you can call me Gina or judge I don't really care.
I have done pf for a bit and now currently doing JV policy.
Email me if you have any questions.
Email: ling28@ma.org.tw (btw this is my school email so please write something appropriate).
PLEASE DO NOT ASK HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE LEFT EITHER END THE SPEECH EARLY OR KEEP GOING
In the debate
I am ok with fast but if you are reading fast you have to be clear and understandable or else I won't flow it.
You can read your own researched arguments, but you have be sure you understand them (And you explain it in summary and final focus so you can win on that if you want to).
For crossfire you can chose if you want it to be opened or closed but your opponents have to agree.
In cross please don't ask questions like is your author reliable or explain all of your contentions it is useless questions and giving the opponents chance to explain their arguments to the judge.
You should be clear in rebuttal of what contention you are rebutting to, like now rebutting to things, argument, or something close to that or I might think you dropped the argument.
Please do impact calc in final focus and also weighing, it is important to me!!!
If you didn't extend it in the summary then don't extend it in the final focus or I won't count it.
I will also time you but please try to time yourself.
I am one of those judges who mainly votes on dropped contentions so remember to not drop any contentions!
If your opponents dropped something don't just say they dropped this actually explain it and how you win on it.
Also I LOVE debaters signposting (basically just saying moving on to extending this contention or moving on to rebuttals) it will make the debate easier and the judge will be easier to follow or flow your speech.
Smart debate:
I love impact calc in final focus
Be clear
Signpost
Don't drop arguments
Ask good crossfire questions
Public Forum:
Explain your impacts to me
Impact calc in final focus
Don't drop anything
Be clear in signposting and talking
Persuade me with impact actually explain it
WEIGH!!!!
Speaks
- If you are being rude or annoying or inappropriate speaks -3.
- If you don't speak clearly -2.
- Swearing -1.
- If I really like your contention then + 0.5 speaks.
- If you speak clearly +1.
- If you are being nice you will most likely get high speaks.
Good luck :)))
SD/PF
---warrant comparison
---impact calc
RFD
---map out the debate for me
Taipei American School 25’
-Don't be rude
-Weigh y’all’s impacts and show me why y’all are more important.
- The 2nr’s and 2ar’s should basically be the RFD’s
-I'm lazy so I wont do anything thinking for you, make the impacts obvious and explain clearly
-have fun bc debating is fun :)
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.
Alva Tang
Backround:
I debated in Middle and High School (5 years in total)
Some things to know about me:
1. I am a flow judge
2. I determine your speaker points by your overall presentation and the arguments you make
Paradigm:
- If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. That includes case attacks.
- No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
- Make sure your evidence really says what you say it does.
- 2nd Rebuttal should rebuild + extend any portions of case they want to go for in FF.
- Please do not spread (talk fast)
- Please treat your opponents with respect
Side note:
I'm not a very experienced Judge so please don't judge me!
i am currently a high school student at taipei american school -- you can email me at 26irist@students.tas.tw
**last updated for the NSDA taiwan invitational**
i've done 3 years of policy debate and am now in pf - the last policy topic i debated was the nato/emerging tech topic.
i am pretty tech over truth, but obviously any homophobia, racism, slurs, etc. will tank your speaks and may result in a loss
policy:
i'd say i was a pretty policy debater. that being said, i did end up running the k for a bit, so i'm relatively familiar with how parts of the k debate work. however, if you're running a k that is not the cap k, please do dumb it down for me.
for condo, i tend to lean neg, but most things are up for grabs.
tldr: read what you want, but do keep in mind that i haven't touched policy debate in over a year.
pf:
do whatever you want! but if you want something to be in my ballot, it should be in final AND summary (defense isn't sticky). 2nd rebuttal should frontline.
generally, i like extinction impacts and i'm more inclined to vote for those.
i'm less inclined to vote for critical arguments in pf
speaks:
will range between 28 and 30. they will only go below 28 if you're either incredibly rude, or just outright problematic. if you're a great speaker (confidence, intonation, etc.) you'll get above 29s probably above 29.5s
28scarletttsai@gmail.com - add me to the email chain !
have fun :)
TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will try to make the correct decision. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Do not say death is good. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for higher speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun!
Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Will start prep if you are taking too long. Please take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.
AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Terrible judge for non-resolutional K AFFs.
CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.
T Things: Don't blaze through analytics or at least send them out. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.
K Things: Agree with JMH: policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. Don't understand nor plan to learn high theory literature. No good in K v. K. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.
PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Will not vote on frivolous theory or philosophy tricks. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.
Nice People: Debnil. Both Morbecks. Michael B. Cerny. Steve Yao. Delta Kappa Pi.
Mean People: Eloise So. Gatalie Nao. Chase Williams. Kelly Phil. Joy Taw.
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.
Email Chain: broseyose@gmail.com
I'm in 7th grade, I recently started policy debating.
Top:
- "Judge" and "Bryce" are both fine
- I lean tech over truth
-
I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
-
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.
-
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 read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
-
Clarity > Speed
-
Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.
-
Don’t swear in round
(Credit to Lily Ottinger and Jordan Yao for the Paradigm format and inspiration)
"Made by Bryce Y 10/16/2022"
Hi I'm Jordan Y. As of right now I am in 6th grade.
I have been doing policy and PF for 1 year.
PF tournaments: 4
Policy tournaments: 7
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.
(Credit to Tyler Prochazka for the awesome paradigm)
"Made by Jordan Y 5/11/2020"
I like to think that I enter each debate tab, and I don't really have any preferences. Just make sure that you respect your opponents and your partner, bring in a good attitude, and have fun
yenh@mca.org.tw <-- questions/email chain
Please don't call me judge, Hermes is fine
Don't be late. I won't quite dock speaks, but I'll be less inclined to buy your Bing '37 card about how polar bears lead to rapid economic collapse
PF
Case
Warranting is really what I look for, I don't care that much about evidence and whatnot, just make sure you explain the (internal) link thoroughly. I'm pretty tech > truth as long as it actually makes sense. I actually tried to build an anime case one time - so take that as you will.
I was taught from a young age to go for narratives, so that might be someone worth considering. Narratives help me (the judge) focus on one thing particularly, a strong narrative is often a voting incentive.
Rebuttal & Second Constructive
Really prefer line by line, makes flowing so much easier. Preferable if you answer arguments by extending your own, but it's fine if you don't. Again, warranting>evidence, don't throw cards at me. Analytic arguments are fine. Second team, please frontline in the rebuttal to make the debate fairer. Non-unique and delinks are fine, but make sure you have some offense on rebuttals too - link turns and outweighs. otherwise the argument could go on presumption.
Summary
First team, make sure that you prioritize frontlining, otherwise, I won't be judging your impacts. Absence of frontlines means that essentially you concede to rebuttals, so don't do that.
Remember, summaries and final focuses are about closing doors, not opening them. Be sure to collapse on arguments, please don't give me 38173 gazillion contentions in final.
If you have time, make sure to weigh. It makes the second speaker's life so much easier.
Go down key clash in the debate, explain why you think you won those, and explain why that matters.
(I won't flow new arguments)
Final
Make sure that you limit down, and collapse on the arguments you think you won. Impact calculus is really good, and a necessity for any good team.
Cross
Be respectful, please! In general, close-ended "trap" questions work best, and humor is much appreciated! Just don't be too mean. I don't flow cross, but it's binding and I do listen.
Progressive args
I used to hate them, now I like them. I have some background in policy, so "DA with framing impact" or "Generalized alternative" is good. Just don't abuse this - don't read four different counterplans each with their 20 planks.
Misc
Generally, I'm a-ok with speed, but make sure your opponents can understand. Debate is about communication, not overwhelming the other side (and the judge) with evidence. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing.
Please be respectful in general, and be nice, or else speaks go blop.
Framework is all too often not developed enough, but can be a powerful tool if developed correctly. It tells me how to judge a debate, and I'll default on whichever team has a frame. If you don't respond to a frame with a counter-frame, then there's nothing for me to vote on otherwise, and so use the frame offerd. Unless it's not warranted, or the team without framing tells me the frame is 1. unfair or 2. uneducational or 3. not topical or 4. not as good. If you just say your frame outweighs or something then I'll still go with whatever frame was provided first. This method is a tad bit unorthodox but I don't like switching frames unless there's something wrong with the first - I do give aff a bit of ground here with framework (as they go first).
Clash is necessary for me to decide the winning team, absence of clash will lead me to vote for whichever team has the most convincing warrants.
I try not to intervene, but find that at this level of debate it's difficult not to.
Policy
top
I don't have an ideal debate, I'm a big fan of k vs policy, or k vs k, but policy vs policy is just a little big not as spicy for me, unless clash is really good
case
not much to be said here, big fan of progressive affs - read kaffs at your own risk, make sure YOU understand them and relate them to the topic
disad
make sure you win your impact (this is particularly important to me) as what i think that as long as the aff impact outweigh you, voting aff minimizes risk
cp
please don't run seven off, i do have an innate preference for reasonable dispo. but by all means - go for condo on aff, it's an easy win if neg fumbles
topicality
less concerned with what the intent of nsda putting the reso out and more concerned with in-round implications of what voting neg or aff means --> framers intent is a good arg for both sides, more concernced with "real" voting issues eg fairness and educatino.
tldr; make in-round implications
condo - skew neg on dispo (within reason)
k
make sure k links to case, make sure you understand the k
used to not like k, but ever since i started winning cap ks against very liberal affs (ubi, social security) started enjoying ks more and more, obviously i have ideological biases but they won't affect judging at all. make sure k linkk to aff is very explicit, make sure the alt is good, offer a good frame for an easy win -
Speaks
i skew high on speaks so i'm not the one that messed up seeding
Don't forget to have a good time!
Contact: RyanZdebate@gmail.com
Reminders: Please try to be respectful and make the debate a good experience
Experience:
Debated, Public Forum , and Policy (CX)
Judging Style:
Lay Judge
Tech > Truth
Don’t believe in out of round
theory is fine
Yes condo if you prove neg abuse