memorial '25

my school director of forensics thinks my paradigm is a straight lie. its not. im sorry for not caring about how politics works or why this random process cp should be the new meta or whatnot.

maxgu8998@gmail.com

i do ld debate

1 - theory, phil

2 - kritiks

3 - trix

4 - larp

—

tech > truth - my beliefs are similar to sebastian cho. check his paradigm for more info.

tricks need to have warrants

phil -

i love clashy line-by-line debates. complicated phil literature might be confusing to me so err on the side of knowing what you’re saying

k -

ive had the most experience going for the k on both aff and neg. non t affs must be able to defend their model of debate.

theory -

id say I'm pretty knowledged on most shells read on the circuit but please still slow down on analytics

larp -

i have gone for many policy arguments during my debate career. the issue is that ive never had a substantive policy debate because i dont cut cards and do topic research. that is my fault. for that, just because you read policy args does not mean i will not evaluate them. it also means i will boost speaks if done right and is coherent to me. dont blame me if you get screwed though…

trad -

do whatever you want. i enjoy a good ethosy debate.

other thoughts -

i genuinely believe tfw is true.

t-subsets isnt as frivolous as people make it sound.

wipeout is smart if you dont know how to policy debate but must.

how do i know what “reasonability” is and what “reasonable” entails?

speaks -

i start at a 29 and go up or down according to the strategy of your speeches. i feel like people who give speaks based on how good they think a debater are ( 29.2-29.4 - you’ll break | 29.5-29.8 - you’ll make it to late elims) are cruel

i will vote on a 30 speak shells if it tells me why you deserved it.

Pls don’t spread

memorial '27

put me on the chain -- erin.tt.jia@gmail.com

1 - policy

2 - t/theory, common phil, common ks

3 - other ks, other phil

4 - tricks

have fun and be respectful

Hi my name is Brendan Liu- basically the top part/most important thing is don’t be racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist/wtv etc.

Email: brendanliu2010@gmail.com (I prefer either the tab share or make a speech drop)

Call me anything “Judge/Brendan/Mr. Liu (even though i’m kinda young for that)” idrc

I WILL DISCLOSE- If you ask me if I will disclose, then I just won't disclose and do an online decision. That's just a tell tale sign that you didn't read my paradigm

I do debate. Only LD, if speech kids or interp kids or extemp kids get me as a judge, sorry

I’m pretty lenient on speaks and I usually start at a 29. IF YOU WANT 30 SPEAKS, either 1. read set col (unless you speaking is so tragically bad, i’ll prob bump ur speaks) 2. BRING ME FOOD (Don’t bring me anything barbecue flavored, takis, or hot cheetos) 3. A NO DOUBT THIRTY SPEAKS IS THAT I WANT YOU TO GIVE ME M&Ms

MHS ‘28

Tech > Truth

Shortcut:

K-1/2 (the harder the K is, the more it goes down on my list)

Lay if you're a lay debater- 1

Lay if you're not a lay debater- aka just a troll- 5

Policy/Trad- 1/2

Phil-3

Theory- 4 (it’s lowkey boring)

Tricks- 5

If you don't want to read everything down there, basically I just said:

• Policy is great- just don't read the most basic, standard, topic to topic, kind of case unless you have too. It's not that I will vote you down, I'll just be bored but I promise I'll still evaluate it fairly
• Read Ks- i'm fine with any kind
• I'm good with basic phil- explain it to me heavily if you're not running basic phil
• Don't read tricks- I won't catch them unless they're eval.

Main Stuff (Long Version)

I’m good with spreading. Just send a doc in case I miss anything. I still mainly flow by ear. Slow down on Tags, Interps, CP texts, Plan texts, and analytics.

SIGNPOST PLEASE

No new 2N or 2AR args obviously

Im good if u spread the cards and it’s sorta mumbling but don’t blitz through analytics.

I don't really care if you have definitions or not, I personally adopt normal means, I'm not dumb enough to think that without definitions we can't debate or smt, but I can be convined otherwise if you have a good shell against it.

Don't read a one liner for your V/C if you are reading those, I want extensive work.

• If they read a framework, for instance util, and you read the same thing, don't rejustify util, you're wasting time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kritiks- I mainly run kritiks so I love a good K. I’m fine with any alt. I main the Set Col K so if you read that it’ll actually make things interesting. 90% of the time I run a K, I default to set col.

• Don’t read identity Ks if u don’t identify as that group (set col is the only exception because it’s not too intrinsic to that one part)
• PLEASE DON'T DROP A K. LIKE DON'T RUN SET COL in the 1NC WITH A ECON DA AND ONLY GO FOR THE ECON DA in the 2NR.
• I'm fine with K affs. Non-T is stretching it but if you convince me, I'm open.
• Dont reading floating PIKs that just makes me have to intervene and actually figure things out
• Make sure the link is clear and don’t just do some arbitrary link that applies to every topic
• IF YOU’RE NOT GOING TO READ A FRAMEWORK INTERP THEN DONT EVEN TRY TO READ A K, too many randoms just want to read a K for the fun of it but somehow forget to read a framework interp in the 1nc
• I’m fine with Ks that function as DAs or CPs like Cap.
• Please do not read Psycho, I think that it’s a terrible K
• Please do read SetCol, Baudrillard, or Cap (the order goes from most favorite to least favorite of that group)
• If you don’t have an extensive understanding of the K please don’t read it, i don’t want to watch a round that has debaters reading positions to sound fancy. I.E.: (if u have a cx question that asks u to describe the K and your just stumbling and trying to piece together cards, i’ll down u and prob give the opp a win (JK but I will be skeptical of the K)

Policy- I’m down for any plan. I default that the aff can defend subsets of the res but neg can always change my mind with theory. I read policy basically throughout middle school and i'm comfortable with it.

• Don’t run counter plans unless they’re actually a clear cut net benefit. I don’t want to waste my time for penny-less CPs.
• I'm not the best with counter plan competition. If you want to blow up the 2N with how your mutually exclusive by so and so, be my guest. If you can't look at your counterplan and say "yea that's obviously mutually exclusive," then just don't run it at this point.
• Don’t make the advantage title too long, it lowkey is one of my pet peeves. Ex: “My advantage 2 is that the US government passing such plan will lead to increased innovation and productivity”
• Please don’t read the most standard, basic policy unless you have to. I wanna see something interesting

Phil- I’m not too good with mind boggling phil. I’m fine with Kant and other basic ones. Just please do a ton of judge instruction and make sure the ethic is there. I’m down for skep against phil or literally anything.

• Ethics must be....... CERTAIN AND NON-ARBITRARY.
• If you're super confident in your ability to have judge instruction or that you know you can explain complicated phil in my head, I'm fine with it.

Theory-Don’t read friv theory. The only friv theory I like is spanish interpretations (ifykyk). I’m fine with standard shells, disclo, spec, condo, farthest I’ll probably evaluate is going to be a priori spec.

• Don’t read theory as a waste of my time. Make sure the abuse is actually meaningful
• I default that DTD>DTA, condo > no condo, no RVIs > RVIs.
• Don’t cry about no disclo, if u wanna read that theory be my guest but one “new affs are good” is enough to seal the deal

Tricks- Don’t read tricks. Only type I will evaluate is “Eval after the 1NC” (that holds a special place in my heart). JUST SO YOU KNOW, IM SO BAD AT CATCHING TRICKS SO IF I DONT CATCH IT, DONT EXPECT ME TO VOTE ON IT IF U EXTEND IT. Be my guest if you wanna take that risk.

Performance Affs/Negs-just no... unlesssssssss, you buy me a chipotle bowl with chicken, white rice, black beans, a little bit of sour cream, cheese, corn, pico, red salsa on the side, and lettuce. Which I know you won't do that.

What I (personally) default to:

• Permissibility and Presumption Negates but I’m totally open for you to change my mind
• No Spec over Spec
• I'm fine with either TT or CW
• Popeyes over KFC no question

I agree with Kellen Wang.

Hi there,

My name is Oyewumi Emmanuel Oluwatobi, I am a student at the University of Ilorin, Nigeria. I am a seasoned debater, public speaker and judge, with over 2 years involvement in debating. I am currently employing my vast speaking and judging experience to judge speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Public Forum (PF), WSDC, Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, and Declamation

Email address: oyewumioluwatobi2@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE

I think of debate as a way to share ideas on different matters and make those ideas stronger by pointing out flaws and loopholes in them. I also see it as a game of arguments and whoever's argument that has the least flaws, provides accommodations for those flaws or prove why their arguments regardless of those flaws matter wins.

I have experience in British Parliamentary and public forum debate format, both speaking and judging. Though I prefer speaking. I am an ESL speaker, so I would also like people to know that, so it's not hard to understand you when you're speaking.

Lastly, I'm a nice person, and I like every debater in any round I am judging to be nice to one another and learn from each other. So, there is no need to be rude to each other in a debate round.

It's my belief that in every round, even if one loses, there is always something to learn, something to improve on.

Looking forward to working together. Thank you

mhs '26

goodsamaritanparadox@gmail.com

read whatever and have fun!

food = auto 30

for actual args - most comfortable w theory, policy, and tricks. Okay w phil (better for simple phil - ie kant, hobbes). Not so okay w the kritik but i’ll grudgingly understand it.

i do not listen to cross - you should point smth out to be either in cross if you want me to pay attention or just bring it up in the next speech

basically: will vote on anything

stratford 27

actively pf debating

run whatever u want, wear whatever u want, present urself however u want, the only thing ill evaluate is what's on the flow. a few things to note:

• novice debates should be topical
• small schools > disclo
• signpost well
• cx is for you, not me
• no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc

I'll probably seem harsh with my feedback, just know it's for your own good

feel free to postround me and ask about the decision, it's great for keeping the judge accountable. feel free to email (nywang3@gmail.com) or text (346-454-1372) for questions

Please talk coherrently as I'm kinda deaf right now due to seasonal allergy and other stuff. I am not a very experienced judge or debater and competed in very few debate tournaments. Expand and explain your argument if you want it to be weighted, I'm not going to assume anything.

im probably judging novices

i did 1 useless year of nld, 1 actually helpful year of nld, half a year of vld and as of UT 2024 a little over half a year of vpf. I'm clueless on cx besides hearing that theory is traded which I don't really understand

debate in general:

ill try my best to accept all arguments, but my record is uhh not that good

im bad at flowing so i don't flow card names, please explain wut the card is

these aren't what I prefer but what I will understand (and thus vote accurately on) in order:

• policy
• theory
• k and phil (I have NOT done reading on the literature so please explain it or send a speechdoc)
• tricks (why in novice? I'm probably going to judge novice considering I'm still competing)

speaks are based on flow, I start at 28.5 and go up/down.

run anything although i will judge you for seal clubbing novices with tricks if you do

but if you win on it then you win the ballot

non debate stuff:

for interp: I don't really like performances so if I look bored dont feel discouraged, thats probably my preferences

but I have zero experience with those events so I'm not going to be a great judge anyways

for public address, i have no idea how to judge, i guess appeal to debate with good warranting

I have no idea how wsd is judged