Chen,+Jemmy

Esperanza High School
Experience: I debated 2 years in high school and have judged for close to 10 consecutive years. I have also judged at the college level.

School Affiliation: Esperanza High School in Anaheim, CA

Number of rounds judged (this year or any other year): I lost count.

My default paradigm is Stock Issues, since that was what I was taught when I competed, but I will accept other frameworks if you present a case for them. You need to give reasons why I should apply your theory or framework, especially when the other team challenges it, and weigh your reasons against theirs.

Topicality: You don't need to say that it is or is not a voter. It is one of the stock issues, so it is a voter by default, unless you present a clear and convincing case otherwise. I weigh the different types of arguments concerning interpretation and definitions in this order: context and framers' intent > fairness > education. I favor arguments based on context of the resolution far more than those based on "fairness and education."

Critiques or Kritiks: I tend to treat these like generic disads, so I like to see case specific links and impacts (they don't necessarily need to involve anything like genocide or extinction). I have voted for kritiks that were clearly presented and explained with direct links to the plan text. I have also voted down kritiks simply because the other side argued that it was "non-unique." Don't just claim that kritiks don't have to be unique; give reasons for why they don't.

Delivery: Clarity matters more than speed. I have seen fast spreaders who are easy to understand and follow. I have also seen debaters speak at a "conversational" pace, but are still hard to understand. Don't just read a string of cards. Take time to give an analysis. Don't wait for the other team to do it for you. Remember that although you get to see a copy of what they read, the judge does not.

I will add more to this page when I think of anything else.