He/Him, email: joshuachen1208@gmail.com

Experience: Currently a HS Policy and PF debater for ADL

For Public Forum:

PF does not require spreading so please go through your speeches with clarity. Signposting is really important and for summary speeches please give a clear overview as to what ur contention is. Lastly, please be respectful during crossfire if not it will piss me off.

For Policy Top:

Be quick on sending emails

I will time but please time yourselves.

Truth is important but I'm persuaded by logic and presentation

Both teams should prioritize internal link explanation over impact explanation.

Weighing your impacts

Don't go too fast on analytics.

I don't flow CX, but I'll comment on it if there's anything I liked or disliked

Fairness has a great impact, but I also like impacts about iterations, research, and clashes. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist.

If it's dropped it's true but explain why

Don't make the debate boring

Explaining your link chains,

OVERVIEWS ARE A MUST-HAVE

Aff top:

I would appreciate it if you guys take the initiative to start the debate as well as exchange your case and past 2NRs. I don't really like K Affs, 1A Please be clear when transitioning between cards or advantages. Clear overviews of the advantages during the 2A are needed.

Couterplans

• Cheat counterplans that simply "reword" the Aff are pretty funny but I won't vote on them.

Disads

• Politics DAs are fun ig
• Turns case is extremely valuable framing for the neg.
• the aff should have offense when answering DAs. It's always helpful to have the option to shake things up in the 1ar.

Ks - I love them

• But I dislike lazy link debating.
• Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
• Alt shouldn't be too complicated
• Fiat and perm can be answered with framework.

Please stay respectful and have a good attitude, especially during cx, or else I’ll get pissed

Hello my name is Prince Dennis Jr. I am currently 14 years old in the ninth grade of Taipei American School. I started debate when I was in fifth grade, back then I was someone who argued a lot but never had a specific main point. From debate I learned the ability to make well reasoned and well thought arguments with a specific main point. I believe I am a flow judge. I know that there are a lot of shy people that are good debating but bad at presenting themselves well so I am not harsh on body gestures, eye contact and all those things. As long as I can understand your argument and I can hear you most of the times that is good enough for me. I like speed, I like it when one can finished their arguments fast. But I don't like it when someone speaks so fast that no one else in the room can understand what they are talking about.

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

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.

For K's 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 am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.

I listen first and read your evidence second. If you are clear, this distinction shouldn't matter. If you aren't clear I'm not comfortable reading your blocks and cards to fill in the gaps for you.

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)

Hello debaters! I'm Maricruz and I've been involved in debate (especially in college) for a couple of years. My experience includes MUN & Parly Debate.

When evaluating debates (and with crossfires in particular), please address the oponents points directly and have fun with the clash! Also I will encourge you to be very clear making it easy for me , other judges and the opponents to understand. Regarding my evaluation criteria, I prioritize the adherece to the topic, a logical sequence and the public speaking habilities. I believe in expressing your ideas with your own words, can lead to an effective persuasion and defenitley shows understanding of the topic.

I particularly appreciate direct arguments during CX's [, and I tend to be persuaded by how the oponents specifically address the topics. For me, the speaker performance it's the key to succcess! Some factors such as clarity, organization, strategic use of time, and engagement with opponents' arguments. After rounds, I typically provide feedback regarding the topic and I will definitley provide some tips for the next round.

In summary, my paradigm revolves around your hability to express ideas and clarity. I look forward to judging your debates and providing valuable feedback for improvement!

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 examinations 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.

Ks

• 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.