Hi! I'm Winston (he/him). San Marino High School '26. I mainly do Policy debate (2A/1N), but I have also done PF, Parli, and LD. Ask me if you have any questions about my paradigm or feedback after the round. I don't mind answering questions. Do what you do best. Tabula rasa, but true tabula rasa is impossible, hence this paradigm.

If there is an email chain, or if you need to contact me for any reason, my email is winwinchou@gmail.com

Please include tournament name, round # and which teams are debating in the subject line. (i.e. Bees Invitational Round 3 XY High School AB vs ABC High School YZ).

THIS IS A MUST: Be respectful and kind. Auto-drop for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Use your common sense.

Also Important: if there are any accommodations that need to be made (accessibility stuff, etc.) let me and your opponents know before the round starts.

General stuff:

1. Yes, email chain. Let me know if there are rules or exceptions. In other forms of debate with other norms, don't make an email chain just for me, but I would appreciate one.

2.tech>truth generally.

3. Please try to adapt to the least experienced person involved in the debate (opponents and judges). I think this is just like a being nice thing, but if you want to just spread your opponents out, I will still begrudgingly vote for you, potentially with low speaks.

4. If you're spreading, speech doc is HIGHLY PREFFERED. I will yell, "CLEAR" if you are not clear. I will stop flowing after the second time I have to clear you. Slow(er) for analytics.

5. Debaters first- If your oppoent says no flex prep, or closed cx, that will be what I go with. This is your round, not mine, so this goes for other stuff in the same vein as well.

6. I tend to nod/be expressive during rounds. You shouldn't take this as meaning anything. Nodding probably means I'm following along, not that I necessarily agree.

Prep time:

1. Don't steal it.

2. I don't like it when teams use CX as prep and don't ask questions (obviously your partner can prep). You'll most likely end up like this. So TOC champions and finalists I guess.

3. Prep ends when you're done making the doc, so sending it out isn't prep.

4. I'm good with flex prep, if everyone else is.

CX:

1. I really like spicy cross-exes, so have fun, but still be respectful and don't take it too far.

2. I DON'T flow cross, but I will take mental notes. Still, I won't consider anything said in cross-ex when voting, unless it is extended in a speech.

3. ANSWER THE FLIPPIN QUESTION--- don't be shifty.

4. Remember, it's perfectly fine to say "I don't know" in cross.

5. Whatever you say is probably binding(?)

6. Tag-teaming/open cx is chill.

Theory:

1. I lean disclosure good, condo good, fairness good, education good, clash good, extra-t bad, no RVIs, and I default to competing interps.

2. Good debating can easily convince me otherwise.

3. Impact out standards.

4. Friv theory- read it, but I'll be more generous to your opponents.

5. Things that affect multiple flows (e.g. condo) are probably reasons reject the team, otherwise it's probably reject the arg, but I respect if you blow it up.

Framework:

I default to util unless told otherwise. I don't think my bar for being convinced to use a different framework is high at all.

Kritiks:

1. I am probably pretty good for the K, my partner and I went for 1-off a good amount.

2. Assume that I HAVEN'T READ your literature.

3. Generic links are fine (if you win them), but specific links are better.

4. Have an alt, but I don't think you need one to win.

Planless/K Affs

1. I have read them before.

2. Err on the side of over explaining and assume I DON'T know whats happening.

CPs:

1. Read them, I will vote on a CP (do people not?)

2. I default to not judge kicking. It's your job to decide what the winning 2NR is, not mine (this is something my partner and I disagree about, so if you're here from his paradigm this is different).

3. My partner and I went for the K a lot so I'm more used to FW level competition than I am complex textual/functional competition, but I'm familiar with a good amount of stuff (trust me I know what an intrinsic perm is guys).

DAs:

1. As a 2A, smart case turns or turns case analysis makes me very happy.

2. I believe in zero risk and 100% risk.

LD Specific:

1. No (dumb) tricks please, especially not ice spice.

2. With Dense phil, I think I can somewhat manage, but it might be a bit riskier with me. And as always, assume I DON'T know what you're talking about.

Speaks:

I probably range from low 28 to mid 29.

+ for good ethos

+ for clarity

+ for doing things across flows

+ for funny

+ for good cross

- for I can understand you but not super clear

- for relying on your partner too much

- for not following your order

- for obvious doc botting.

For the events I have no experience with:

I have never done Congress, or any speech event, so I'm sorry if you get me, probably won't be your best judge for any of these.

Congress: I don't like judging this event. That being said, because I am a debater, I will appreciate it if you engage more with the other side's arguments. Other than that just do what you normally do, I don't really have preferences.

Speech: I really don't expect myself to be judging speech, but if I do for some reason, my understanding of speech is very basic, so don't expect high-quality judging or in-depth comments. I understand like the different types of events (interp, platform, limprep, and whatnot) but other than that, little to no knowledge. (Are speech judges even supposed to have paradigms? idk.) I do have friends who do speech and I have watched a few rounds before, if that helps you gauge my understanding of speech.

Thank you! Looking forward to a great round!

hi

yes email chain, but don't start one just for me: davisliang6107@gmail.com

if it is policy, add smhspolicy@gmail.com

bold = no time to read this overly inflated paradigm, just the important stuff

San Marino '25

he/him/his

lmk about any accessibility things

read whatever you want, all my ideological preferences can be overcome with good debating.

it is better to win with dishonor than lose with honor

tech > truth

i agree with winston chou and emma yu

obviously no bad-isms

have fun !

email me abt my decision/feedback if you have questions bc i dont think scdl allows us to disclose decisions in round---open to any questions you may have, but i generally try and be detailed in my rfd (see above for congress exceptions)

feel free to ask me any questions you have before round

i will flow, and render a decision based on the flow -- this means that i will compare at the end of the debate the world of the affirmative and the world of the negative, then decide which i would prefer to live in. the final rebuttals will shape both of these heavily for me, so make sure your judge instruction is there.

PLEASE don't steal prep! It's an unfortunate growing trend that people will be furiously typing when a speech doc is getting sent out, or when someone is giving the order, etc. for those that don't know what this means, when there is no timer running, you cannot prepare for any part of the debate. sending evidence outside of prep is fine.

i am very expressive in rounds, though not always correctly. which is to say, sorry if i make a weird face or giggle during your speech, it doesn't mean you're wrong :)

me nodding is a good sign that i at least understand what you're saying

my rfd/judge comments will likely be long and nitpicky, many apologies - i try to keep my criticism all constructive because i believe debate is, at its core, for the purposes of fun and education - i do not want to restrict that. i am sorry if my rfd seems harsh. i am a very nitpicky person, though i never want to come off purely as such. it is all intended for the benefit and educational value for the debater(s). congress people you don't have to deal with this bc i doubt i will be giving good rfd for congress. if I do not mention something in feedback as a point I thought you could improve upon, then it likely means I thought that area was something you did quite well.

i believe each debater wants to win the round. there can be incentives external to this. logically, i find it hard to accept that there is a team that does not want to win the round. if so, why would i not just automatically vote against them?

debate is a game. it can be more.

--cross-examination is a speech. that being said, you can totally take it as prep. i don't understand the people who are anti-"cross as prep". because like. just ask why condo is good and then prep. ask them to explain their position in their own words. it's the same thing as running It as prep and requires you to just ask something once your opponent finishes talking. there seems to be no check on this that we could reasonably impose. also I just don't see the disadvantage to letting people have more prep. if it means that they have less ability to reference cross-ex as the basis of competition arguments/links/whatever, then that's their strategic decision.

--flex prep is fine with me. i do understand people who dislike this. however, as a frequent flex prep user myself, I am in no position to deny you on this one.

--good with tag team cross. please see: everything i said about flex prep

--Debate your case - demonstrate you know what you're talking about and you're not just picking up a varsity member's case the day before the tournament

--evidence comparison is underrated in novice rounds

--good cross-ex questions/answers are underrated in novice rounds

--good impact weighing is underrated in novice rounds. so many times i have heard impact weighing that just sounds like "we outweigh because we're more probable, we outweigh bc we have larger magnitude, we outweigh bc we have faster timeframe" and no explanation or actualweighing. impact weighing requires an analysis of impacts from both sides.

--prompting is fine. it will lose you both points, but I will flow the argument. (idk how strict non-policy events are on this, but unless it's explicitly written in the rules - which you should let me know about, by the way, because chances are I haven't read them in-depth - then I don't really care and will just let you do whatever you want)

--rehighlightings are good. i like them a lot. you should get to insert them if the tag accurately describes the evidence. is there a brightline for this? probably not. if it introduces a new section of the card, you should probably read the re-highlighting. that being said, I think that getting to spam them will tend to increase aff/neg evidence quality which seems like a good thing. most objections to this feel hyperbolic. i do not think that a team would ever get away with inserting a card with every sentence highlighted, because the judge would quickly agree with the other team when they pointed out, "hey, there's no part of this card that says this, and the re-highlighting didn't prove anything". almost every theoretical objection to a rehighlighting (at least those that generate offense) don't really make sense in the context that the other team could just...not do a rehighlighting and assert the same argument. both would be given weight, but only one has evidentiary proof if true. in the same sense "their card concedes democracy good" and then moving on...isn't a complete argument, so supporting it doesn't really mean anything. I'm sure people much smarter than me could come up with great reasons why rehighlightings are bad but I think they're good and until demonstrated otherwise, I will continue believing this.

--i don't love the style of debate where it's "aff, neg,then impact weighing". just do the relevant weighing on the page where you have it. good chance i can follow it. i understand the strategic appeal of this, especially in front of judges who aren't flowing, but please don't do it in front of me, it'll save both of us time.

--the fiat k is a viable 2nr

--the death k is a viable 2nr

--wipeout is a viable 2nr

--i think most judge opinions should hold up to scrutiny as though it were a theory interp. many judges will say "no morally bad arguments like death good" but this presumes something about what we consider as morality. if someone read this in a round to dispatch the death good turn, then it would almost certainly lose on a lack of brightline.

--in that vein, if something is so egregiously morally wrong (like genocide good), then the other team should be able to easily explain why it's bad with minimal effort. where i will make an exception for this is for arguments that are genuinely violent towards a participant in the round, because that seems to be an issue that (1) implicates the tabroom, and (2) are a question of whether the debaters can even continue debating.

--ditto for arguments that are "trolling" -- that should mean rejoinding them is simple, and you should have no issues winning the round having gained a significant time advantage on your opponent that chose to introduce the "meme" argument.

--i will not make something a "wash". i don't understand this, especially on more traditional circuits, but it seems to be happening more where an RFD will begin with "XYZ was just a wash, so I defaulted to this other page" or a competitor will instruct the judge that "even if you think xyz is a wash, ABC argument still wins" (to be clear, you should use 'even if' statements, just not in this specific scenario). charitably, this is a response to debates simply becoming extraordinarily messy and difficult to resolve. my more cynical take is that judges simply do not want to resolve a part of a certain debate, and intervene arbitrarily by just ditching a sheet of argumentation. in either case, I will try very very hard to not do this. almost every single debate I've judged or been in have arguments that can be resolved in one way or another. even the messiest debates I have had to resolve from either a competitor or judging standpoint have never ended in me saying that something is a wash.

--condo, judge kick, and disclosure are good norms until demonstrated otherwise

--i read k affs

--i read ks on the neg

--what i read personally will determine how familiar i am with the round in front of me

speaker points:

points are tournament dependent.

you don't need to bother with the MLK quote.

speed is fine, clarity first -- i will make it obvious that i cant flow because my pen/typing will literally stop

Card names are like Louie '24...not Louie 24'...what are you removing at the end of the year?

i think speaker points are a referendum on your ability to skillfully and persuasively deploy arguments, obviously this will mean that being composed, sophisticated, etc. is an unavoidable component of this, but in my view, they are much more reflective of what you're saying rather than how you sound. so monotone deliveries won't exactly be appreciated, but will be preferred over a very passionate defense of incoherent buzzwords.

San Marino High '24 Vanderbilt '28

Email: hwalker1848@gmail.com. Make sure to add me to the evidence chain when sharing evidence.

Hey everyone! I am Harrison (he/him). You all can feel free to call me that but the judge works just fine. I am a recently graduated senior who has competed in Speech and Debate since 7th grade in the Los Angeles Area. I competed in Congress and Platform qualifying for nationals two times in the East Los Angeles district and quaterfinaled my junior year. I have also had multiple years of experience coaching middle schoolers and novices in both speech and Congress.

General Things

1. Be respectful and kind, I automatically drop people who make racist/sexist/homophonic jokes and arguments in rounds so just be a good person.

2. Do not be overly aggressive on cross. This is mainly a thing for Congress people but I have seen it in other events like PF and Parli

3. Speak clearly and NO SPREADING. Spreading will result in low speaks and you potentially dropping the round.

Speech

For Speech, I judge on a few things. The first is your content. Regardless of the event, I expect every speech to have inspiring and thoughtfully worded content. In Extemp, I may fact check you if your sources are sus but I do not expect them to be memorized word for word. A good extemp speech should have at least 5 sources and a top scoring rank should have around seven. I also expect all high-ranking speeches to have strong eye contact, vocal intonation, and facial expressions. Do what you would already do in a speech to rank well. If I am judging you in POI or OPP, I do not like these events so I am sorry for your loss.

Congress

As a formal Congress competitor, I understand firsthand how difficult it is to judge so I strive to be very active and different from the judges who judged me during my Congress career. For POs, I value a good one, especially one who can keep the round in control. Most POs will be ranked in the Top 6. As a PO you will only be ranked outside of the Top 6 if you do not know what you are doing, the round is not equitable, and/or the round runs late and you potentially be ranked outside. Bascially the round has to be a dumpster fire for this to occur. Other than that POs will be ranked in the Top 6. If you make a few mistakes but correct yourselves I will be forgiving. Especially if you are an inexperienced PO. I will and have given an exceptionally good PO the rank of 1. When it comes to debate, please refrain from making inappropriate jokes or intimidating your competitors. in the round. I have been in multiple rounds when this has occurred and it has resulted in people losing TOC bids or not breaking at the National Tournament. I value unique arguments and refutations. Please interact with arguments starting after the sponsor's speech and crystallize towards the end of the round. When it comes to circuit tournaments, I value debating three bills over two in the round so I can hear fresh arguments. Also, DO NOT SHUT OTHER PEOPLE OUT FROM SPEAKING. If you are trying to do this or being trigger-happy with the previous question you will automatically get the nine.

Lincoln-Douglas

Generally with LD, I am chill with most things. I do flow so make sure you give me a brief off-time roadmap. Be clear with your argumentation and general stuff you should do. I am chill with counterplans but you should not not be running K's and other more technical forms of Debate in LD. If you want to do that stuff do Policy. If you run clever arguments and unique arguments, it may give you bonus points with speeches.

Public Forum

Same thing with LD, I am very chill with most things. I have seen PF rounds at Nats which sound like Congress rounds (i.e. Nats 2024 final round) so please don't make your PF speeches like Congress. Give me an off-time roadmap so I can flow. The purpose of PF is to not have technical forms of debate like K's and counterplans. If you want to run those you are doing the wrong event and should be doing Policy. If you run these I will drop you. The same goes for spreading. There is no place for these in PF. If you run clever and unique arguments, it may give you bonus points with speeches.

Policy

I am going to be honest Policy debate is not my favorite and you need a very experienced judge in the event to be effective at judging. Generally, I do like like K's so please refrain from running them. I am chill with Counterplans though so you may run those. Spreading is a big no as it detracts from one of the most fundamental purposes of speech and debate which is to communicate your ideas in a clear manner. The only thing spreading is used for is to gain an unfair advantage over your opponents by evidence-duping and preventing inexperienced teams from flowing correctly. If you run clever and unique arguments, it may give you bonus points with speeches.