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

justinding573@gmail.com add me to email chain

I do LD so I'll vote on really dumb theory

Do whatever but I'll probably not understand really dense theory or Ks

Weighing is really cool

Please understand the arguments you are reading, I've also made arguments that I don't really understand or have blocked out because I thought it was "good". Please dont do this and read things you're comfortable with.

make a kendrick reference for more speaks

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)

Hi I am Mark Kuang,

I have overall knowledge in debate, not really know about speech events.

General

Run what ever u want and speak

Feel free to ask question

Tech => Truth

Shared the doc "Thing" if u are spreading

Signpost: plz give it helps a lot

Clarity is important, if I cannot understand u it is hard to give an ideal rank/decision

Time - you should know how to control time but I will keep time as well

i'll be giving u rank base on the tournament guidelines

1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.

2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.

3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.

3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.

4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.

6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.

7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."