Email chain: ariarielc777@gmail.com

TAS 27'

Policy debater at ADL with 3 years in policy, 2 in smart debate, 5 years of experience in total

she/her

For Smart Debaters/PF:

Confidence is key! Being confident, standing up straight, speaking loudly and clearly, and staying on task contribute greatly to your ethos - credibility - in debate and helps to make you appear more persuasive to the judge when you sound like you know what you're talking about.

Clash! - address your opponents' arguments directly and compare the author's credibility, recency of evidence, or how your argument is just superior based on analysis and logic.

Please tell me WHY - why should I care if hacking causes crimes? Why should I care MORE about disease spread than infrastructure building? Addressing the "why" and giving the judge a good reason to vote for the argument is a very good way to get a judge's ballot.

Impact Calc - compare your impacts with your opponents. Don't just talk about how horrible your impact is - explain why it's more important and why the judge should vote for that instead of the opponent's impact.

Don't drop arguments - answering arguments means that you mitigate your opponent's impacts and makes it easier for you to weigh. Think of debate as soccer or basketball or some sport that involves points: you want to score points and prevent your opponent from scoring points at the same time. In order to score points, you need to extend and defend your arguments. In order to prevent your opponent from scoring points, you need to answer their arguments and their rebuttals against yours.

Please be loud and clear - if you want to be fast, make sure you are clear enough as well. I am most likely not very well-versed in your topic as I do policy debate and thus do not know your arguments as well as you do, so being clear helps me as the judge to know the argument well enough to vote on it!

Be nice! - overall, debate isn't just an educational space where you can learn advocacy and reasoning skills - it's a SAFE space to have fun in and enjoy a unique experience with your peers!

For Speaker Points (in general):

To get higher speaks:

Be nice (don't yell and talk over your opponents or insult other people or ignore and deride your judge), be funny (when it's appropriate), give me reasons and warrants to back up your claim, be smart and strategic in your decisions regarding your arguments and time management, and you're good to go!

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 :)))

jpark.debate@gmail.com

if high school, also add taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

he/him/his

Coaching for the Asian Debate League and Taipei American School

Based in Taiwan, so the time difference will affect my judging. This means you need to have more enunciation and clarity than usual.

TLDR:

---very low econ knowledge

---very bad for K AFFs, fiat Ks, process counterplans, and technical T arguments

---decent for other policy arguments and Ks that are DAs

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

---Not the greatest flow, likes creativity, more likely to care about macro-issues than minor technical drops, avoid jargon/acronyms, will vote on args that promote sedition

---Fully-developed strategies that clash tend to perform better in front of me.

---I think have a higher bar for what constitutes a 'complete argument' than the average college-aged judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion.

---My debate beliefs are malleable. This paradigm might make me seem like an old person (true, though), but good debating can remedy my predispositions. Good ev helps too.

---Largely persuaded that:

(1) incomplete args in the 1NC justify new responses

(2) net benefits should be verbally stated in the 1NC

The justification for both of these will be below.

________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Positives

1---Respecting your opponents (CX, pronouns, don't mercilessly bludgeon less-experienced debaters), be ethical, etc.

2---Efficiency. In your speech, during prep, emailing, down-time. etc. If you don't need 10 minutes of prep for the 2NR/2AR, don't take it.

3---Taking debate seriously. Pay attention, flow, try. But also, have fun! We are all invested, so let's make our debates worthwhile. Ad-homs are bad and not arguments.

4---Research (evidence matters, but so could spin). Vertifical proliferation is better than horizontal proliferation of arguments. Also, likely won't vote for death good.

5---Ethos and Clarity. I am a bad judge for teams that just spit into their computer at 300 WPM at 65% clarity. Lowkey think that debaters that are slow (while being smart, technical, etc.) are *****chefs kiss***** I should hear every single word you say. Please enunciate and recognize that debate is also a communication activity instead of a block-perfecting competition in the 2NR and 2AR. If you are a team that has rebuttals prescripted without any plans of contextualization (such as asserting things happened when they didn't), then please email me your 2NR/2AR blocks, and I will assign your speaker points during the 1AC and vote against you.

6. Organization---speech docs, cards, wikis

Negatives

1---Lack of analysis. You should have framing arguments, judge instruction, contextualization, and argument development.

2---Debates that make me litigate things outside of the debate.

3---Vagueness. It should be clear what your AFF does, what the plan means, what the counterplan does, what your highlighting of evidence means, and what the tags of your cards are intended to communicate. I am likely more amenable to vagueness arguments than most judges.

Misc

I kicked the AFF in a decent chunk of debates I was in. I do not think this influences my judging but my AFF (and NEG) debates would sometimes look really different than a lot of people.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs

T versus policy AFFs was one of my least favorite arguments. It isn't ideological, but I spent most of my debate career debating with 2Ns who were obsessed with it, so I just never really thought about it. I find most T debates dry but I understand the strategic necessity of them. My aversion stems from 1NCs that lack a violation and then debate becoming late-breaking.

To improve my VTL when going for T, internal link explanation is important. 2Ns have seemed to forget that there ought to be a reasonable explanation about how we get from the violation to zero NEG ground ever. Both teams should have more debating about what the interp/counter-interp debates would look like. Assertions of topic biases or quality of generics should be explained with warrants. I am not the ideal judge for a technical T argument.

For some reason, I find ground arguments more compelling than limits/precision. Not sure if this will affect my judging, but I've always thought that limits arguments were hyperbolic. Big topics feel good if the NEG has robust strategies to counter them. When evenly debated, plan-text-in-a-vacuum is a tough sell for me.

Disadvantages

The optimal 2NR is a DA and the case. Counterplans are for cowards. I'm not as big on the modern Politics DA as most Kansas debaters but it's okay. I would prefer not to judge debates about intrinsicness tests.

AFFs teams should have offense on the DA. NEG teams should try to have real "turns case" arguments outside of "nuke war is bad."

Counterplans

I'm mostly AFF-leaning on theory arguments. I'm not wedded to these beliefs, but I have some predispositions. I am not a huge believer in conditionality. This is not a free invitation to go for condo in the 2AR, merely an observation that in-depth debates are better.

My least favorite genre of argument as a debater was the process counterplan. Again, I understand its strategic utility and will judge the debate neutrally. I'd prefer a 2NR that is about why the AFF's bad. Competition debates are dry. Comparative evidence between the AFF and the counterplan's process demonstrating functional competition could make me hate your counterplan a little less. I am also a less qualified judge for complex competition debates.

Case

I am a good judge for presumption and giving a low weight to the AFF advantages. The 2AC and 1AR get away with murder on the case, so the NEG teams should use that to their advantage. This is an area where good debating will be rewarded with nice speaker points.

Soft Left

I enjoy soft left AFFs but framing contentions need to contain offense. ________________________________________________________________________________________

Critiques:

Ks vs. Policy AFFs

I'm better for Ks on the NEG. I will award specificity, especially backed with evidence. I will have a hard time voting on critiques that lack interactions with the scholarship and thesis of the 1AC. If the NEG reads a K impact turn to the AFF's advantage, that is likely the best strategy in front of me. Or, have a robust framework justification with turns case arguments. I seem to care a little bit more about performative contradictions/linking to your own K than some (not for theory reasons). The closer your K is to a soft-left impact turn, the better. I am willing to vote on non-extinction impact-turns (example: heg is racist/causes violent interventions---bipolarity is preferable).

K AFF vs. T: USFG

I have voted both ways but am a bad judge for you/find most AFF offense not intrinsic to T. Explain what debates over the AFF interp would look like. I always thought framework debates were thought-provoking and helped me think about debate. Explain what debates over the NEG interp/TVA would look like. I am open to voting for either fairness or education. I am a believer in research about the topic, so the closer your AFF is to being about the topic, defending a theory of power, being a substantial shift from the status quo, and defending material action, the better. Any lit bases outside of bio power, colonialism, settler colonialism, capitalism, and IR need more explanation.

________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Incomplete Arguments

I am mostly compelled that the 1AR should get whatever it wants in response to incomplete 1NCs. Debates are increasingly rewarding blippy 1NCs, causing debates that are worse to judge and I believe judges ought hold the line on what the debate community constitutes a complete argument. If a 1NC DA shell lacks uniqueness, then why should the 2AC be burdened to make link turn args as to how they reverse the deficiencies of the status quo. The logical conclusion of "you have to answer everything" would mean the AFF would have to read impact d to random floating impacts, which is absurd.

(2) Net Benefits

Whatever the net benefit of every advocacy is should be specified in the 1NC. This is low-cost for the NEG and would improve debates/AFF strategy. CX doesn't remedy this because NEG teams take forever to answer, which is unfair for the AFF because the 1A could be asking good, substantive questions. Instead, I have to listen to the 1N say "everything is a net benefit... wait... <>...then the 2N takes 15 seconds to decide and then lists net benefits to analytical con con, states, the one card Security K, a card-less 15 plank advantage counterplan, and a process counterplan. This take might seem extreme, but I believe it is the least arbitrary and most efficient way to resolve net benefit shenanigans (a time limit feels weird). For most counterplans, they are only complete arguments if they have arguments about solvency AND competition in the 1NC. Counterplans that rely on DAs to beat the perm and complete, so it seems logical that the NEG should be responsible for this. Lastly, I want to award bold strategies. The clearer the net benefits are, the better AFFs will be at straight-turning and NEGs will read better DA + CP combinations.

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com, taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

Coach @ ADL and Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide helpful feedback for any arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. I am currently an engineering graduate student.

--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.

--Quality of an argument matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.

--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.

Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.

Counterplans

Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.

Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.

I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.

AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.

Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.

The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.

Case

A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.

Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.

In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.

I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.

I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

My email is ianwesting@gmail.com, I have been learning Policy debate for some time and has touched PF debates in the past. My preference for the round is for clarity and fair rounds, I don't hope to see tactics that are using trickery. Please speak clearly and flow. The debate round should go fluently and everyone knowing what they should say, it should not be each team extending their own arguments and disregarding the opponent or vice versa.

Patrick

-he/him

-kcis

-Novice policy debater (moving to jv)

-5 years of debate experiences

-Feel free to call me Patrick or judge in rounds, no specific preference

-Quality over quantity

-Be mature during debate rounds. Any racist, sexist, homophobic or fat phobic jokes will not be tolerated.

-Take debate rounds seriously but have fun

-Tech over truth, if your opponents say the earth is flat and you don't say anything, your opponents win the round.

-Look at your judges during speeches and especially crossfire.

@patwang06113@gmail.com

Generally:

Debate is a like a game with strategy and tactics

-Be loud and clear, so I can flow and you can get high speaker points, its a win-win(That doesn't mean you can't speak fast)

-Be respectful to your opponents, your partner and your judge. If you call your opponent dumb etc, that will make me extremely upset and mad resulting you in getting very low speaker points.

-Be confident, deliver your speech like you mean it, be convincing and always trust yourself

During rounds (For SD and PF, good luck :))

-Again, quality over quantity, more contentions doesn't mean you win!

-I like to see cards and arguments not provided in the packet (usually means you've done research and you are extra familiar with the card)

-Explain your arguments! You have to provide clear connection of each argument and impact. For ex: War causes radiation leak is slightly vague instead a better explanation would be war causes radiation leak because nuclear warheads will have a high probability on having radiation attacks

-Flow down your opponent's and yourselves' speech so you don't drop anything

-Dropping, when your opponent drop your evidences, point that out and tell me what that means

-Rebuttals and extensions! Give clashes on why that argument is bad. For ex: If I say dogs are purple, you have to tell me why I'm wrong. Give extensions to defend your arguments and to strengthen it. For another ex: In chess, when your knight is hanging, you need to use another piece to defend it. This is equivalent to a debate. PS. Make sure you don't contradict your points and do not make your argument structure messy.

-Crossfires, ask good questions and be efficient when answering.

-I like brief impact calc in summary, just briefly. Also, clash clash clash!

-Feel free to take prep time whenever you want, don't be embarrassed.

-Death, homicides are never good. -3 speaks if you say their good.

-Weighing! Not only do you do impact calc, you also have to do impact comparisons. For ex: We win on probability because climate change is happening now! (That's impact calc) We outweigh on probability because climate change is happening now however our opponent's impact of cyber-attacks have low probability because of...

-I love impact debates! They are extremely fun! Always do impacts! (PLEASE)

-Counterplans are a bit complex for novice smart debaters but counter plans do spice up the debate.

-Give orders/directions/signposting! (Though it's not necessary, it adds up your speaks and makes the debate less confusing for both your judge and the opponent.

-Links! Links are a bit complex for smart debaters but I do love it when you explain your arguments by saying why the plan causes this!

-Don't be sad when you lose because some may say that the goal of a debate is to learn, improve skills and to have a good time!

-Don't ask about what contention did you read or asking about please explain your argument.

STAY ON TASK PLEASE

Speaker points

25-27: You were rude to your peers.

27-27.5: You spoke quietly and unclearly

27.5-28: Good speeches but could improve on confidence and quality

28-29: You were amazing! You gave good explanations, rebuttals and impacts! Keep up the work!

Above 29: All jokes aside, you made me speechless because of how good you are at rebutting, strategies, debating, answering, impact weighing etc!

Anyways thank you for taking time to read this and I hope you have fun during your debates! Glhf! :)