我不说英文。请你慢慢的说话。

Competencies / Paradigm:

The quick version of my paradigm: Argue using whatever method / style you do best, but also be respectful of your competitors and what they are comfortable with.

I have experience participating in college parli debate, some college policy debate, and a few other competitive forensic activities. I have experience judging most forms of competitive debate, and if I am unfamiliar with the structure or new to judging the format, I will let you know at the top of the round.

Delievery:

I am comfortable flowing speed, but PLEASE use clear signposts. Persuasive tone and candor is important and might sway me in a close round, but is certainly not a decision-maker in and of itself. TBH I probably wouldn't knock you for swearing if it happens, unless it is a personal attack on your competitors.

Evidence: My predisposition is to value critical engagement with evidence, and I expect competitors to be clear about what their sources say as opposed to their extrapolations on a given warrant. I tend to reward teams that actively engage with their opponents evidence, including source information and qualifications.

Theory + topicality:

I am a little rusty on flowing theory / topicality, so please make an effort to be clear. I prefer in-round impacts as opposed to theoretical impacts, but will vote on the best argument regardless. Similarly, while I understand the strategic value of throw-away t-shells and will flow them the same as I flow anything else, I do have a relatively low threshold for abuse with these.

Critical Arguments: I am comfortable flowing K's just be clear about signposting. I'm a bit rusty on the literature, please try to be specific, insightful, and overall clear about K's when you run them. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is important to me, for both “policy” and “K” centered arguments.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers (feel free to share yours in round!)

Add me to the chain: melissaglover02@gmail.com

School Affiliation: I attended and competed at Claremont High School from 2016-2020. I graduated from Chapman University in May of 2024 with dual degrees in Psychology and Sociology.

Personal History: I participated in speech and debate for 9 years during elementary, middle, and high school and have experience in most events. I mostly competed on both the California state and national circuit for Congress throughout high school, but off and on I participated in Parli, PuFo, and Policy. I also competed in other debate events like World Schools and Big Questions. For IE's I mostly did spontaneous events (Impromptu and International Extemp), but I have done a few prepared original speeches and have experiencing judging all types of speech. I did not debate in college, I only judged. I work in the entertainment industry now.

With that being said, extensive theory and Ks are not usually my cup of tea. To me, it is often hard to win on theory or Ks ALONE. Have links, make sure they make sense, and I will follow your line of argumentation. I'm pretty well versed on basic theory arguments like topicality. Evidence is important to a debate, but so is clash! I love POIs and good questioning (re: Congress - I value speakers who ask questions that actually clash with the Senator's speech vs just asking a question to ask a question). I would like to emphasize that being rude to your opponent will never be tolerated and speaker points will be docked if you're blatantly bullying others in round (homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will not be tolerated in round).

**Jack Howe 2024: I am judging policy for the first time in a hot minute. I know Ks and theory will end up being a large part of the round - totally chill. As listed above, please just make sure they follow a clear line of argumentation and you can show me why it matters/why it should be a voting point for me at the end of the debate. Yes to DAs, yes to CPs. In terms of spreading, I can handle some speed. Again, if you're making a chain with speech docs/cards - add me so I can follow. Not the most familiar with the topic - it's better to over explain than under explain.

I LOVE WHEN YOU GIVE ME VOTING POINTS IN THE FINAL SPEECH! I think it's extremely helpful to hear from you what you think the main voting issues should be at the end of the day (and then you can show me how you won!). It's totally okay if you don't do this! It will not be held against you! Just a fun little thing that I think can really enhance a case at the end of the day.

Regarding speaker points, I enjoy when speakers are clear and persuasive. Sign posting and having an organized roadmap will always make me happy. If you can't tell me what distinct points you've made by the end of your speech, there is a problem. Overall, do your best!

In the end, I hope we are all ready to create a fun, safe, inclusive, and overall educational round. You can always ask me if you have any questions.

If it matters to you, I used to make critical and performance based arguments. I have coached all types. I generally like all arguments, especially ones that come with claims, warrants, impacts, and are supported by evidence.

Do you (literally, WHATEVER you do). Be great. Say smart things. Give solid speeches and perform effectively in CX. Win and go as hard as it takes (but you dont have to be exessively rude or mean to do this part). Enjoy yourself. Give me examples and material applications to better understand your position. Hear me out when the decision is in. I saw what I saw. Dassit.

Add me to the email chain- lgreenymt@gmail.com

My "high" speaker points typically cap out around 28.9 (in open debate). If you earn that, you have delivered a solid and confident constructive, asked and answered questions persuasively, and effectively narrowed the debate to the most compelling reasons you are winning the debate in the rebuttals. If you get higher than that, you did all of those things AND THEN SOME. What many coaches would call, "the intangibles".

Speaking of speaker points, debate is too fast and not enough emphasis is put on speaking persuasively. This is true of all styles of debate. I flow on paper and you should heavily consider that when you debate in front of me. I am a quick and solid flow and pride myself in capturing the most nuanced arguments, but some of what I judge is unintelligible to me and its getting worse. Card voice vs tag voice is important, you cannot read analytics at the same rate you are reading the text of the card and be persuasive to me, and not sending analytics means I need that much more pen time. Fix it. It will help us all. Higher speaker points are easier to give.

Thank you, in advance, for allowing me to observe and participate in your debate.

TG

Hi, I’m Isabella

she/her

please add me to the email chain: isabellahuang2027@gmail.com

Policy Scrimmage

tech > truth. I will vote on anything if it is warranted out and has an impact.

spreading is fine, but clarity comes first

give me judge instruction on how to evaluate the round, tell me how to write the ballot.

I’m an LD debater, so I haven’t had any experience with the policy topic. Please explain your case well and don’t use too many topic-specific acronyms without explaining them first.

Be respectful and have fun!

Scholars of Speech
I am not experienced in judging for speech so if I'm doing something wrong in round feel free to correct me. Also feel free to ask me any clarification questions about my paradigm/the tournament in general.

大家好，我是Jason Huang

"Debate" - William Li -Justin Ding - Lucas Cao

he/him

I debate for Modernbrain & Tesoro High School in LD. I think I have a good understanding of the topics throughout the year but there's always more to learn!

Email on top: jasonhuangdebate27@gmail.com

I wish I debated like Noah Christiansen, knew everything like Scott Wheeler, inspired people like Elmer Yang, as nice asLizzie Su, and chill like Alex Borgas.

TLDR: Spreading is fine, tech>truth, I'll vote on anything that has claim, warrant, and impact (bar the -isms)

For policy:

Everything below applies. I've never debated policy but I know what each speech is for and will treat it like a long LD round.

Things you might care about

Please call me Jason

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine but as always, Clarity >>>>>>>>>>> Speed. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing afterward.

Time yourself because sometimes I forget

Defaults: No rvis, drop the argument, competing interps, PnP negates, theory is highest layer

If you want me to vote on evidence ethics you must stake the round, if you're right then L25 for your opponent; if you're wrong then it's L25 for you :).

CX is binding, flex prep is fine

Substance is evaluated probabilistically, theory is a yes/no question. No 100% or 0% risk.

Don't steal prep---you can take up to one minute to send the email, after that your speaks.........

Use CX for what it's for please

It'd be great if the chain was set up before the round starts

Top

Debate is about the arguments within the rounds and their interactions, so I will do my best to not intervene.

I also think debate should be a space where both sides gets the most education and best experience out of. So feel free to read arguments that you feel most comfortable defending instead of stealing cases off the wiki or pulling up obscure positions from backfiles that you don't understand. Be yourself instead of tailoring the debate towards me.

That being said, I extremely dislike clash avoidance arguments. Though we always joke about hiding aspec or winning on hidden eval after the 1ac, but let's be real---these arguments are not designed for clash but to be a cheap-shot and an easy route to a ballot. These kinds of debates are not fun to judge because there isn't much "debating" going on. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

Argument Prefs

I don't have an explicit bias toward certain arguments(except the kind listed above), so run whatever you want as long as it's not morally repugnant(racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, et cetera). I have more experience with policy v policy, k v policy debates but clash of civs, k v k, and phil.

1-Ks

1.5-Policy

2-K-affs

3-Theory/T/Phil

Strike-trix

Again, the ranking is not saying I hate certain arguments, it's reflective of the quality of the decisions I can make with them.

Counterplans

Counterplan debates are fun, especially when they have specific solvency advocates and germane net-benefits.

I lean condo good on most condo debates(unless dropped) because the number of offs really doesn't matter. The 1NC reading 12 offs would have worse quality positions than one that reads only 3 or 4 because they are also constrained by time, and bad arguments are easy to answer with smart analytics and rehighlightings. A really good condo 2AR would be how the negative read an super abusive combination of positions that made engagement technically impossible.

You tell me why a counterplan is cheaty

I won't kick a counterplan unless you tell me to, it'll be better if you gave me some kind of warrant just so the 2AR doesn't destroy the one-liner.

Disadvantages

"If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link."---Scott

Give me a clear link story and why it turns/outweighs the case and you'll be good.

For politics, link controls uniqueness. If there's a new uniqueness card coming out every 2 hours, then I'm 100% convinced that not a single person on the planet knows who's winning.

Kritiks

"Link work not framework, K debating is case debating."---Scott

My favorite type of debate, and the one I spend most time reading and researching. I mostly read the cap K. I don't hack for Ks.

I love when links indict every/most part of the affirmative. You're in a good spot if your 2NR revolves mostly along the link and implicates it to the aff. The stronger the link, the less burden on the alternative, and the less likely I will vote on the perm.

I don't like Ks that try to use frameworks and ROTBs to make the aff irrelevant because the debate is not "you don't do this, you lose." The K critiques the aff's ideological commitments, and the aff should defend those commitments.

Generally, I give K tricks less weight. Things like "fiat is illusory", D-rule, and root cause(except K v K) don't really matter to me. Things I would care about are alt solves case, floating PIK, or K-prior.

DO YOUR RESEARCH!!! I like specific links and link walls in the 1NC that are hyperspecific to the aff, it shows that the neg is doing its job in showing why this aff is specifically bad and not some generic card that is just slapped on.

Pre- and post-fiat is meaningless.

Judge kick is the same for the alternative

Plan affs

"If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins."---Noah

Kritikal Affirmatives

I think K-affs are strategic and fun to judge when they: Explain why the ballot is key and what the aff does. There is functionally no difference between a plan-aff and a K-aff, both have impacts, solvency, inherency, and other stock issues, so explaining it as such would be very helpful and clean. I love listening to your theory and how your revolution would succeed but that's insufficient for why I should vote for you in this debate.

Framework

T debating is also case debating, especially for K-affs because the case itself is a massive DA to the traditional policy debate paradigm and the neg framework. Therefore, I think framework should interact with the case to some extent, if not completely.

Carded TVAs are best.

Phil

Calc indicts are not offense

Please err towards overexplaining things because I'm not extremely familiar with many lit other than util, kant, and hobbes.

T

Offense-defense. A clear abuse story is necessary for me to vote on T because most affs aren't EXTREMELY abusive to the point where clash is functionally impossible. If the aff is factual topical, I lean toward resonability.

Please impact out standards even if it's dropped, just like you would for a disadvantage.

Theory

Cross-apply the stuff from the T section.

I hold a very low bar for answering frivolous theory, especially ones that don't have a clear violation and impact. Reasonability should do the job if you give me decent warrant(s).

Speaker Points

Things I think boosts speaks:

-Smart strategic moves

-Non-obnoxious CX and zingers

-Non-offense humor

-Clean, packaged rebuttals

-Making an analytical K link to the aff and winning (auto 30)

Every Marx term/reference is +0.1 speaks(You get two at max if you're running an anti-cap argument)

I won't give you 30 speaks just because you told me to.

Thoughts:

Debate is more than just the W/L and speaks on Tabroom. The best memories rarely happened in the round but always at the lunch table or on the plane. I love this space because it's educational, enriches the mind, and taught me to be a better person and thinker overall. So while competing with the person sitting across the room or next to you, you can also be friends and have fun while you're at it.

"Make no enemies."---Elmer

Favorite quotes:

"Theory debate is just D1 whining"---Elmer

"First comes no tie, then comes Bataille."---Scott

"We say perm do both for funsies!"---Noah

"The aff should lose because it's bad."---Lizzie

"Drop the argument is very goated."---Alex

"The answer to neg terrorism is aff counterterrorism."---Pat

For email chain: yilin@modernbrain.com

1. I did not compete in speech and debate but have been involved in speech and debate since 2016. I’ve Judged and watched a fair amount of rounds, mostly in speech, with some in Congress and PF. Also judged a few rounds in LD and other form of debates.
2. Speech and debate are such amazing activities, enjoy yourself and do your best!
3. Please be respectful and kind.
4. If you see me in a speech round, know that I care about authenticity, evidence, creativity, and presentation.
5. If you see me in a debate round, please don’t spread, and be clear so I can understand you. Tell me where I should be flowing. Tell me why you are winning. Tell me why should I vote for you.
6. Have fun, be nice, make some friends!

SHS’27