As a former judge and debate speaker myself, I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters then choose the team with better constructed argument and clearer communication to be the winner. Both sides should use logic and evidence to support their side and contradict the opponents arguments. Excellent speeches in the summary and rebuttal.

Speak clearly and concisely. You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood. Debating a fast talker is not a problem remember to be friendly to your opposing team.

I write notes throughout the debate, assessing the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution.

Previous tournaments judged

1. Suzhou NSDA tournament January 2021
2. Tiger tournament hosted in Shanghai 2019, 2021, 2022 (July and November)
3. NSDA Wuxi tournament 2021
4. WSDA Guangzhou 2022
5. BIBSC Guangzhou 2022(December)
6. BIBSC Shenzhen Bilingual (January)
7. WSD Shanghai offline April 2023
8. WSD online (October 2023)
9. WSD Hangzhou offline (November 2023)
10. Lozo Shanghai offline (Nov 2023)
11. BIBSC Guangzhou online ( Nov 2023)
12. General Pool at TOC Pumpkin Spice Cup Shanghai Offline
13. TOC ICE CUP Hangzhou December 2023
14. BASIS International Nanjing 2024
15. TOC Winter Invitational Shenzhen Offline 2024
16. TOC Winter Invitational online 2024
17. NHSDLC Winter Invitational 2024
18. TOC Egg Hunt Cup Online 2024
19. BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu 2024

Judge Philosophies 1. Judge’s Name: Nobert Hlabangana 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]

a. I have never judged debate before.

b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]

a. I have never debated competitively before.

b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c. I debated other formats for less than a year.

d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?[d]

a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

It depends on the format and rules of the debate. However, in other formats, such as PF the second rebuttal speaker may focus more on extending their own team’s arguments and attacking the opponent’s case rather than directly engaging with the first rebuttal.

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b]

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d. Other (Please Specify)

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

A: In public forum debates, I determine the winning team by a combination of factors including clarity and organization, strength of argumentation supported by evidence, effective rebuttal and clash with opponents’ arguments, strong speaking skills, adeptness in crossfire exchanges, efficient use of time, clarity of impact, and overall strategic approach to framing the debate. The team that presents the most compelling case, effectively refutes opponents, and demonstrates superior debating skills typically emerges victorious.

Judging a speech I evaluate the speaker’s content, structure, delivery, engagement, persuasiveness, originality, adherence to time limits, and overall impact.

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

A: I prioritize clear and logical argumentation, effective rebuttal, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate

I am a debate coach with 20 years experience, and have coached all speech and debate events.

Congressional Debate:

In round, I reward strong research/evidence, solid understanding of the topic, and advancing the debate by bringing points and clash together. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Different speeches (authorship, refutation, weighing, etc.) have different purposes, and accomplishing the purpose of each speech is more important that battling in a waiting game, always trying to get the last speech. Every argument and claim should be effectively supported with warrant and data from evidence. Questioning should be won by smart questions and answers: CX should not be a shouting match or full of interruption.

Presiding officers should maximize time given to speakers and questioners, and minimize PO narration as much as possible through direct communication and strong word economy. POs should keep things fast, professional, fair, and within the rules. The debate session should maximize debate time allotted.

For questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

LD:

I am a traditional judge. I judge what's on the flow. Truth and tech both matter. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Framework and Value/criterion/standard are very important. I'd rather hear arguments grounded in real world data in the literature on the topic, but also am open to philosophy arguments. I am not a fan of theory that would end up substituting for debating the actual topic. Please don't spread. It's rarely necessary. If opponents or I call for evidence, please provide it right away- there shouldn't be delays related to evidence searching. Don't call for evidence too often or without good reason. Please be cooperative, civil, and professional in CX when you are questioned.

For email chains/questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

PF:

I judge what's on the flow. Truth and tech both matter. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Framework and warrants and data are very important to me. Every argument should be clear, warranted, and supported with data/examples/evidence. Keep cross ex civil and polite, and an equal sharing of speaking time. I prefer to hear grouping and strong weighing in summary and final focus, so definitely collapse the debate to a few key issues instead of covering a ton of different thoughts in a line by line style. If opponents or I call for evidence, please provide it right away- there shouldn't be delays related to evidence searching. Don't call for evidence too often or without good reason. I strongly prefer arguments grounded in the literature of the topic, with data and real world examples, over efforts to avoid debating the topic, such as disclosure theory or other theory. Public Forum debate was created to develop skills related to communicating with the general public, and that intent should be embraced by PF debaters. No need to spread in PF at all.

For email chains/questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

EXTEMP:

I am a traditional extemp judge. I like clear and straightforward organization. I reward strong research/evidence, solid understanding of the topic, and strong well supported argument. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Every argument, idea, claim, should be effectively supported with warrant and data from evidence. Ideas and evidence should come together smoothly and well to answer the overall question. Body paragraphs don't need an agd- if they have agds, they should enhance the body paragraph and link perfectly to it without muddling the flow of the speech and without taking tangents. Cross examination should be won by smart questions and answers.

For questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

DAVID BRIAN MUNYAO PARADIGM

Age: 23yrs

College:Beijing Institute of Technology

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student

1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

A reasonable number of debates more than 2 years

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking Provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in contest we good focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

According to the teams ability to defend their argument with amble evidence and impacts clear articulation,logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness,how well can debaters respond to their opponents arguments and counterpoints.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

-be clear and concise in your arguments and support your points with credible evidence

6. How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?

A. 0-5

7. How many notes do you take during a debate?

A. I try to take notes on everything.

8. What is the main job of the summary speech?

A. Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? 9

10. How important is frame work to your decision making? 8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 8

14. How fast should students speak? 7

1. Debate career?

I have previous judging experience with NHSDLC the past several mothns. Judging PF online and offline tournaments.

2. Fast-talking?

Fast-talking can be impressive and effective in some cases, but it can also be overwhelming and difficult to follow for some people. As a general rule, I prefer a moderate speaking pace is preferable as it allows the debater to communicate their points clearly and ensures that I can follow along.

3. Aggressiveness?

Aggressiveness can be useful in some debates, particularly when the topic is emotionally charged or controversial. However, it's important to maintain a respectful and professional tone, even when challenging an opponent's arguments, also ensuring your points are well delivered. Personal attacks or insults or gestures like throwing hands when an opponent is speaking are never acceptable and can undermine the credibility of the debater.

4. Determining the winner of the debate?

To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well argued out logical responses.

I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed.

In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.

Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.

I look out for objectiveness, evidence, and the capacity to rebut well to make
my decision. I believe every debater stands an equal chance to win a debate no matter which side he or
she is on.

Debaters must make sure they are not only attacking their opponent’s claims but also defending theirs to win clashes.

Including evidence from currents happenings to justify your point can increase your chances of winning a clash

Leaving your opponent’s points unrebutted may score your opponent some points in my evaluation.

I started to debate in 2017 as a high school freshman and accumulated extensive debate experiences which were but mainly in Public Forum. I ranked 10th in the national debate ranking in China and had won various awards in tournaments. Graduating from high school in 2020, I began my judging career as a college student and have since then judged more than 200+ rounds of public forum debate (both online and on-site). Overall speaking, I have judged and debated on a wide range of resolutions, social, political, economic, etc.

My judging philosophy is rather simple: Rule of Logic. I deliberate my decisions with a number of factors: argumentation (logic), quality of evidence, impact evaluation, and debating style (eloquence). (ps: evidence before impact for quality of evidence might decide if impacts are real and solid; for example the methodologies in which the research in your evidence was conducted clearly influences the relevant data)

I don't have a particular preference about speed but debaters must speak with clarity (don't let speed compromise your content) otherwise i might not be able to understand and thus fail to judge your arguments.

General：

1. Don’t make assertions, always back your statements up with cards and warrants, with analysis the best. Whatever you say in a debate pls make sure it has evidence.
2. Evidence is important to my judgments, but logic matters more. I would prefer you debate from both logical and evidential perspectives.
3. For me each speaker will have 5 more seconds at the end of each speech to finish up if exceeded then I’ll interrupt.
4. Speak fast as long as it’s clear. Don’t mumble words and expect me to hear everything.

Crossfire:

1. You are allowed to interrupt during crossfire. But I don’t accept very rude debaters, and I'm not able to judge if everybody is talking over each other. Please don’t run crossfire into your own rebuttal speech or summary, be sure it is used efficiently.
2. Please challenge your opponent whenever you think there is a mistake in their cards. It will be very compelling to me if you can turn a card over.

Summary/Final Focus:

1. I would like an organized summary speech with clear clash points and impact weighing.
2. I don’t recommend bringing up too many new cards during the summary (and no new cards at the final focus) because it's more about showing me how you have won. Instead, you should focus more on linking back to your team’s FW, constructive, and rebuttal.

Logistics: suyanglisusie@gmail.com if you'd like to start an email chain or doc for evidence checking.

Preferences:

1. Signposting > roadmaps
2. I appreciate well-reasoned empirical evidence, extra points if you can explain the mechanism/reasoning behind the facts.
3. I appreciate impact calculus and world comparison, even better if you have a framework that you reference consistently throughout the round.
4. I appreciate assertiveness and confidence but please do not be rude to your opponents at any point in the round.
5. I'm okay with spreading as long as you're strategic about what to drop vs extend in the second half ie. summary & FF. In the end I'm voting on your impact/weighing/frameworks, not solely on whether an argument was dropped without a good explanation of its significance.
6. Please keep your own time in speeches and crossfires. Repeatedly going over time will result in a lower speaker point.

K@sh

Age: 30 years

University: NCWU

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student of Phd

1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

I have participated in academic debates, environmental conferences, and training and development-related debates. My debate career spans nearly three years as a professional, following the completion of my degree. I also engaged in debate activities intermittently during my educational journey.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking in debates, also called "spreading," means talking really fast to say a lot in a short time. People do this to share many arguments and evidence, make good use of time, and sometimes confuse their opponents. But whether it's okay or not depends on the debate's rules and what's normal in that debate community. Speaking quickly can be good for covering a lot of ground, but it can also make things hard to understand for judges and the audience. So, debaters should speak in a way that fits the rules and what's expected in that particular debate. If it's clear and easy to follow, it's usually fine.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I consider aggressiveness as a factor in evaluating debaters. It can be effective when it conveys passion and assertiveness in presenting arguments and engaging withopponents. However, it must remain respectful and professional, avoiding personal attacks and derogatory language. Aggressiveness should be accompanied by well-reasoned arguments and effective rebuttals, and it should enhance audience engagement without causing confusion or hostility. Rule adherence is crucial, and excessive aggressiveness, such as interruptions or dominating the discussion, should be avoided to maintain a balanced and productive debate environment.

4.How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

As a debate judge, I evaluate debaters based on a set of key criteria, including the strength of arguments, effectiveness of rebuttals, clarity and organization, use of credible evidence, respectful conduct, time management, adaptability, adherence to the debate format and awareness of resolution. The winning debater or team excels in these areas by effectively presenting their case, countering opposing arguments, following the rules, and maintaining a respectful demeanor. Clarity, credible evidence, impact full rebuttals, and adaptability are particularly valued. It's essential for debaters to tailor their approach to the specific debate's rules and expectations, as judges may have different preferences.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

As a judge, I value well-structured and clear arguments that are supported by relevant evidence and logical reasoning. I appreciate debaters who engage in respectful and constructive dialogue, focusing on the substance of the argument rather than personal attacks. Please be concise and to the point in your responses, and avoid going off-topic. It's important to address your opponent's points directly and provide counterarguments or rebuttals where necessary. Additionally, while passion is important, I encourage debaters to maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the debate. Remember that clarity, relevance, and logical coherence are key to winning the debate in my view.

6. How many Lincoln- Douglas Debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?
A. 0-5



7. How many tournament have you judged in the past year?

6-10

8. How many notes d you take during a debate?

I write down the points that I think are important.

9. What is the main job of the summary?

Highlight the major clash points and show how your team won them.

10. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? (1 -10)

10

11. How important is framework to your decision making?
9

12. How important is crossfire in your decision making?
7
13. How important is weighing in your decision making?
7
14. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in decision making?
10
15. How fast should student speak?
8

Kaye Esperanza G. Elizalde

Age: 28

College: University of Southeastern Philippines

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Public Speaking Coach

1. What types of debate have you participated in before and how long is your debate career?

I am an English Teacher from the Philippines since 2018 and have coached debaters as well. Since I have just recently moved in China, my first judging event was when I participated last WSDA Dec 2-3 Competition. I have judged both Middle School and High School Public Forum. I have also judged Spontaneous Debate as well as Original Oratory and Expository Speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking in general may be challenging for others to follow. It can be due to conveying excitement or delivering information with a sense of urgency. However, in Debate it is quite a talent to Fast Talk during Constructive and Rebuttals speeches since it is time limited. However, when one does fast talk yet cannot articulate well the words, it removes the purpose of giving information and will just be unclear for the receiver of the message.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

I view aggressiveness as a tool to overpower the opponent. It can also be used to show confidence in what you believe and are trying to say. It is being persuasive. In a debate, both parties must present their sides with ample assertiveness to persuade the judge about their claims, warrants and impacts to win. However, being aggressive alone still cannot impose certain victory. It’s only an aid to convince the people.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

I always take down notes especially in the Constructive. Usually, both parties are starting strong about their claims. However, I notice that during Crossfires and Rebuttals, one team dominates the other. It’s about who can answer logically and with a more reasonable rebuttal. Also, I am looking for evidence that supports their contentions. Lastly, I am very particular with the team who cannot rebut quickly. It shows doubt towards their information and unpreparedness.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

First, I tell them that whenever you deliver a speech, raise your volume 20% higher than your normal speaking voice. A lot of debaters are almost inaudible. Next, I tell them to think before you speak. Learn to conjure questions directly that the Judge and Opponents understand. Debate is time limited, most debaters waste Crossfires due to a lot of unnecessary phrases like repeating contentions rather than directly asking their questions. Overall, I judged according to logical reasonings, their thorough preparedness and their speaking ability.

KASONDE CHILESHE

Age:24

Location: Hangzhou, China

College: Zhejiang Universty of Science and Technology

Current Occupancy: Student in college

Tabroom email: kaykasondechileshe@gmail.com

1.What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

I have participated in Public Forum and British parliamentary styles of debating as a competitor for over 10 years. I have judged Public forum and WSDA debates for a little over 2 years to date.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Its good as long as one takes care to fully pronounce their words and finish sentences while maintaining to stay on track and taking care to articulate ones arguments with as much coherence as possible.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

A little of it done in a modest manner with finesse is good. One needs it to give their arguments in a manner that shows an utmost belief in ones arguments and position. Without it, one can be taken for granted and be interjected unnecessarily throughout the debate and general life settings.

4.How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

By analyzing the overall impact from the debaters. Considering the framework one uses and their coherence to it while giving arguments whose impact is both logical and applicable to life settings that it is easy to support ones arguments. The delivery and articulation of ones arguments also factors in when deciding the winner of a debate.

5.Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

In articulation of arguments, pick a framework and stick to it. Either go in with force and clearly and logically analyze ones arguments or go in with softness of voice yet stern to give ones arguments. Also take note that a well analyzed argument with enough points backing it will do more than multiple arguments that ain’t thoroughly developed

6. How many public forum debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?

A. 0-5

7. How many notes do you take during a debate?

C. I write down the points I think are important and focus more on the overall presentation.

8. What is the main job of the summary speech?

B. Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making?

10

10.How important is framework to your decision making?

8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?

8

12. How important is weighing in your decision making?

5

13.How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?

7

14. How fast should students speak?

Enough to be thoroughly understood and for them to communicate with their intended audience( the Judges and the other team)

Age: 27

College: JIANGSU UNIVERSITY

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Economics and International Trade / Business Owner.

How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?

- 6-10

How many notes do you take during a debate?

- I try to take notes on literally everything

What is the main job of the summary speech?

-Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?

- 3/10

How important is framework to your decision-making?

- 7/10

How important is crossfire in your decision-making?

- 5/10

How important is weighing in your decision-making?

- 8/10

How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?

- 4/10

How fast should students speak?

- 1-10 (feel free to speak as fast as you please)

What types of debate have you participated before, and how long is your debate career?

-High school Debate team (2 years)

-Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2020.

-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2021.

-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2022.

How do you consider fast-talking?

-It can be a great skill and strategy to deploy during the debate.

-I consider speaking at around 300 words per minute to be fast, of course words should be clearly pronounced and consistent throughout the speech.

-I type at 100 wpm, so you can be confident I will be getting down everything you say.

How do you consider aggressiveness?

-When the debater is confrontational or actively attacks the opponent’s arguments (expected)

-On the extreme side, when the debater resorts to excessive interruptions, aggression, shouting or personal attacks towards their opponents to undermine their arguments (not tolerated).

How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

Here are the 3 points I use to determine the winner:

-Clarity and organization: The debater who presents their arguments in a clear, logical, and well-structured manner.

-Strong arguments and evidence: The strength of the arguments presented, supported by relevant and compelling evidence.

-Rebuttal and refutation: Effectively addressing and countering opponents' arguments is crucial. The ability to identify weaknesses in opponents' positions, provide counterarguments, and refute their points with sound reasoning and evidence.

Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

-Mutual respect and Politeness go a long way.

-Respect time.

I think weighing is the best way to win voting issues, and I usually vote on one to three voting issues. I prefer condensed arguments in the second half, and please, please extend arguments into summary and ff. Points dropped/new evidence should not be brought up. Comparative weighing/world comparison, etc., is very important as it really shows which argument I should evaluate more and vote on. Probability weighing is also helpful, especially for high-impact low probability arguments, e.g., nuclear war and extinction.

Arguments: I don’t mind how many you make, but make sure there is time to explain each one, e.g., warrant, claim, and impact. Logic and evidence together win me over rather than each by itself. Develop and condense your arguments in the second half, and don’t bring up dropped arguments randomly. I also like having analogies/narratives in contentions, making things easier to understand.

Time: You can time yourself. I'll be timing sometimes to ensure there aren’t overtime speeches, but I’m happy to let you finish your last sentence. I accept off-time roadmaps but don’t give an off-time speech. After that, please tell me where you are starting your speech.

Evidence: Take prep to ask for evidence. Don’t fake evidence. Please don’t take an eternity while pulling it up. Also, I value reliable sources, so don’t use anything too absurd.

I am fervently engaged in debate and public speaking. With six years of diverse debate participation, I emphasize clarity, articulate arguments, and a balanced approach. Advocating for respectful discourse, I value passion but caution against excessive aggressiveness. My evaluation criteria include content strength, logical reasoning, evidence quality, and persuasiveness. Framework clarity, evidence reliability, and efficient time management are pivotal in my assessments. As an objective adjudicator, I encourage debaters to present compelling and relevant cases while maintaining a respectful tone.

Good luck to all!

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

CSUF

Assistant coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

A significant part of how I think is influenced by Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough, and Raunak Dua, along with Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topic knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. If I don't know what you're saying by the last speech, my rfd coherence will reflect.

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.