Im Isabel Chang (she/her). I did OCDL for 2 years. I do pf now this is my 2nd year.
I've debated with Modernbrain and now I'm a freshmen at Fairmont Prep.

In round: im good with anything

How I vote:

tech ------x------------------ truth

Links are more important than impacts.

Contention debate > fw debate

For impacts probability and timeframe of impacts over their magnitude and scope.

Weighing on the prereq and weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Or comparatively has better links/warrants. Argument interaction is key.

i can send flows after round

Speaks: I try to give people 28-30 speaks but this is my advice: Enunciation, good pace, volume and BE KIND.

-song recommendation for an extra speaker point before the round starts

-if you steal more than 15 seconds prep time, speaks are capped at 27.

-30 speaks if no prep time

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!)

School Affiliation: I attended and competed at Claremont High School from 2016-2020. I am now a senior at Chapman University with a double major in Psychology and Sociology and a minor in the Honors Program.

I participated in speech and debate for 9 years during elementary, middle, and high school and have experience in a few events. I 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.

With that being said, I don't enjoy most theory, spreading, or K's. I can follow some speed and understand basic theory (i.e. Topicality arguments), but please use that all sparingly with me. Evidence is important to a debate, but so is clash! 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 (I hope I don't have to remind y'all of this, but homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will not be tolerated in round!!).

If there's an e-mail chain - add me to it! Just let me know at the start of the round and I'd be more than happy to provide my e-mail. If your case is going to involve sensitive topics that could be triggering to others, trigger warnings will always be encouraged and accepted in any round I judge. I also encourage and appreciate people sharing their pronouns in order to create an inclusive environment for all.

Regarding speaker points, I enjoy when speakers are clear and persuasive. There's not much to say there, just do your best! In the end, I hope we are all ready to create a fun, safe, and overall educational round.

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

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

Hi I'm Isabella (she/her)

currently doing LD debate
Public Forum for 3 years in middle school, i also did spar for a few tournaments
some very limited experience with speech events

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.

Jason Huang

he/him

Email chain or Speechdrop are both fine

jasonhuangdebate27@gmail.com

Debates for Modernbrain

Argument Prefs:

1-Ks/Clash of Civs

2-Larp

3-Theory/T

4-Phil: I enjoy a good phil debate but you have to explain it thoroughly since I don't read a lot.

Strike me for trix

Top Level:

You don't have to call me judge, Jason is fine.

Tech > Truth("The sky is blue" is truer than "The sky is red", so don't go too far)

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

Time yourself because sometimes I forget

Defaults(changed with one sentence): No rvis, drop the argument, competing interps, presumption negates, theory is highest layer

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

Cross ex is binding

Zero risk is not a thing

Don't steal prep---you can take up to one minute to send the email, after that every 30s is -0.2 speaks.

Please don't make me vote on presumption.

Ad hominem and/or making the space uncomfortable is L0.

Accessibility matters. I dislike debates and debaters that don't allow engagement. If you spread 6 off at full speed after the opponent reads a case at conversational speed, I will 100% give you the lowest speaks possible. It's better to have a real debate and win rather than foreclosing the space to win.

T

I love a good T debate, especially if the shell is well-developed and the 2NR isn't blocked. But when the shell isn't that great and the 2NR still goes for it, I don't like it as much.

Reasonability flow aff if they are topical.

Counterplans

Run any counterplan

"Cheaty" CPs are up for debate.

Condo is good and fun, but not really when you read 6 CPs and each has 5 planks.

I will not kick the CP unless you tell me too

PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

DA

I love a creative disad.

Do whatever you want, make sure the link chain is warranted.

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

Link shape uniqueness is true, especially for ptx.

If you go for the DA, give me the plot/story/whatever you want to call it and explain the implications and warrants. I've seen and given way too many disorganized 2NRs that don't persuade in any way.

Kritik

I mostly ran these arguments so I am pretty familiar with how these debates go.

Links are the most important, the K is only valid if the link makes sense. I hold a high bar for K that barely links.

Don't try to use framework to make the aff irrelevant, debate is not "you lose because you don't talk about xyz".

You need more than "Fiat is illusionary"

Kicking the alt is fine, just make sure you are clear. One line that says "we are going for framework" is not enough.

Please explain the literature. I have some confidence in my readings, so I probably understand the core of your ideology. But assume that I know nothing for the sake of debate.

Judge kick is the same for the alt

K affs

I think K affs are cool. But please explain: why the ballot solves, why your method is good, and why your model is good. Affs need to defend their model of discussion and some advocacy. Again, if the aff doesn't change anything, whether in or out of the debate space, I don't see why the ballot matters for you.

Plan affs:

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

Speaker Points

Floor is 28.5

I won't give you 30 speaks just because you told me to, the debate is yours but your speaks are mine.

Creative strategies, clear rebuttals, not doing stupid stuff, debate like yourself and you'll get nice speaks.

Random:

Debate is a community. You will probably see the same people every single tournament you go to, so try to be nice to everyone(it doesn't hurt). I get things can be heated and hostile but let's let our reason overcome the sense like Plato said. Make friends and have fun.

Don't be morally repugnant(sexist, racist, ---phobic, et cetera)

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