SCU Spring Philalethic Invitational
2017
—
CA/US
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Anuj Aggarwal
Stratford Indie
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:39 AM PDT
Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.
DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.
FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.
OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.
HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)
Ayyappan Arasu
Young Genius
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2018 at 5:13 AM EDT
I am aparent judge and have experience judging LD Novice rounds last year. I generally do not disclose the decision after of the round, but, will leave inputs on the ballot.
I am not comfortable with speed, but if you decide to you must be extremely clear.
If you spread you must flash the case/rebuttal to both me (email) and your opponent. Go slow and sign post on the taglines, analytics and especially during rebuttals. If you don't I probably won't understand the arguments you are making and won't vote on them. If you don't see me flowing/typing or I have a confused expression, I probably don't understand what you are saying and you should slow down. For each card you extend explain the impact and how it functions under the debate, the same goes with framework. I will only vote on things that are extended in your last speech.
K's:
Read slowly and explain clearly. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.
Plan/Counterplan:
I will more comfortable with the plan/counterplan debate and will prefer if you run these types of arguments over K's and phil.
Theory:
I am only familiar with conditionality but I will be able to understand other theory arguments if they are clearly explained and have a real implication to the debate. Slow down on the interp and counter interps.
Have fun debating!
ayyappan arasu
Young Genius
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2018 at 5:13 AM EDT
I am aparent judge and have experience judging LD Novice rounds last year. I generally do not disclose the decision after of the round, but, will leave inputs on the ballot.
I am not comfortable with speed, but if you decide to you must be extremely clear.
If you spread you must flash the case/rebuttal to both me (email) and your opponent. Go slow and sign post on the taglines, analytics and especially during rebuttals. If you don't I probably won't understand the arguments you are making and won't vote on them. If you don't see me flowing/typing or I have a confused expression, I probably don't understand what you are saying and you should slow down. For each card you extend explain the impact and how it functions under the debate, the same goes with framework. I will only vote on things that are extended in your last speech.
K's:
Read slowly and explain clearly. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.
Plan/Counterplan:
I will more comfortable with the plan/counterplan debate and will prefer if you run these types of arguments over K's and phil.
Theory:
I am only familiar with conditionality but I will be able to understand other theory arguments if they are clearly explained and have a real implication to the debate. Slow down on the interp and counter interps.
Have fun debating!
Rahul Asthana
Notre Dame
None
Amulya Athayde
Palo Alto
None
Last changed on
Wed March 29, 2017 at 2:11 AM PDT
I'm a parent judge who has been judging for only a year. My background consists of working in the tech industry for the past 20 years.
Please signpost everything in your case. I won't evaluate arguments that I do not understand. Speak at a normal rate, fully construct arguments with a clear claim, warrant, and impact. I don't have any circuit experience so if you run anything other than stock, try to explain it as best as you can. I treat everything as tabula rasa unless it is inherently rude, racist, etc. Other than that be respectful and have a great debate!
Last changed on
Sun January 20, 2019 at 12:08 AM PDT
I have been judging LD for the past 5 years, and I have a very limited threshold for anything that is not traditional LD. ie NO Ks, NO THEORY, NOTHING NON T. I do appreciate well thought out policy affs and anything stock. Philosophy is ok, but you have to tell me why a phil debate would be productive ie why anyone should care about what our moral obligation is when we have people dying etc.
Speed.
Spreading is fine but include me in the email chain when you are reading your case or any cards. AND SLOW DOWN AT TAGLINES
debbanerjee@gmail.com
Judging Style.
I pay a lot of attention to framework and impact analysis. Did you win the impact calculus and if so tell me why I care and why your arguments matter. If you don't mention a weighing mechanism, I default to Util. Clash is important, don't just reiterate what you previously said.
Good luck and have fun debating!
Geetika Bansal
Notre Dame
Last changed on
Wed January 17, 2018 at 4:15 AM PDT
I'm a parent judge. Please go slowly (conversational speed) when reading case and refutations. Stick to contentions and don't bring in any circuit arguments. Only pref me for a lay round.
Yuet Berry
Palo Alto
None
Laxminarayan Bhat
Young Genius
Last changed on
Thu May 14, 2020 at 2:23 PM PDT
I have been judging Speech and Debate for over 4 years, primarily in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I have judged over 50 LD debates so far. I will not impose my personal values and beliefs, or knowledge about the debate topic on the debaters and listen to you with an open mind. I appreciate the hard work you have put into your case and will do my best to fairly judge which side has the stronger case and debating skills. I do expect that participants act courteously towards their opponents at all times during the debate round.
I take both quality of arguments and speaking clarity into high consideration. I prefer debaters who can directly address the topic with a convincing case supported by specific evidence; use appropriate body language, volume, speed and diction; and clearly articulate logically cohesive arguments.
I will not disclose who won or how everybody ranked, rather, I will provide constructive criticism on your ballot and after the round if asked.
Suresh Bhat
Saratoga
None
Rebecca Biswas
Young Genius
None
Vijendar Bozza
Young Genius
None
Barbara Bryan
Los Altos
None
Ananya Chatterjee
Stratford Indie
None
Vijay Chaudhary
Young Genius
None
Aradhika Chawla
Cupertino
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 7:43 AM EDT
I would prefer the debaters to talk at an appropriate speed.
Another thing I would appreciate asking for cards only when actually its needed, unnecessary demands about cards consume time and also breaks the debate rhythm.
Fang Chen
Golden State
None
Last changed on
Tue September 24, 2019 at 1:51 PM PDT
I am a flay judge. I will flow, but what I write down is limited to what I can understand, so please speak clearly and not-too-fast, and do not assume that I will know what your argument is if you do not explain it(if it is not a stock argument).
I prefer line-to-line refutations that are sign-posted in order to help me follow the round. Clash is good. Emphasize your impacts and clarify ideas/arguments if it looks like I don't understand what you're talking about.
Pet-peeves:
- When a debater claims that he did not actually drop an argument, and had already "addressed it as a whole," whatever that means. Please just sign-post each argument on the flow.
- Debaters who argue about the validity of the evidence over the validity of the argument. Clash is important to me. -
- Arguments about non-uniqueness are weak and unlikely to be convincing. If you argue that an argument is non-unique, you should probably provide some type of solvency to back that refutation.
Mallikarjun Chillal
Cupertino
None
Seshagiri Chilukuri
Miller Middle
Last changed on
Wed February 13, 2019 at 12:14 PM PDT
I am a lay judge, so no spreading, k's and theory please.
Overall, I want to see clash, but please be polite in round. I will buy your arguments if they are logical and make sense even if you don't have evidence to back it up. That being said, use evidence when you can.
Please do impact calculus when possible, but explain ideas thoroughly, I will not make connections for you.
Most importantly, speak clearly, explain your ideas well and have fun!
Annie Chiu
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Sun September 30, 2018 at 3:06 PM PDT
I am a LD judge and have been judged for 4 years. I weigh the round of value and value criterion. Please link back to framework. Also make sure all arguements are topical.
Christina Chu
Miller Middle
None
Tatao Chuang
Miller Middle
Last changed on
Sat March 11, 2017 at 3:13 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. Please do not spread or read debate theory in the rounds that I am judging. I make my decisions mainly based on logic, common sense and sound evidence. Please do not use big words when you can substitute them for simple ones.
Navin Chugh
Stratford Indie
Last changed on
Sun October 8, 2017 at 9:40 AM PDT
I have been judging since mid-2015 and have judged LD (mostly), Speech, Impromptu, and Pofo. I am not a novice but not a pro either; if you are good, you are good (no matter the judge)! Here's what you should know:
- Start with ABC - Always Be Courteous ... respect each other. Remember to SMILE more.
- I take decent notes, provide comprehensive and objective feedback; prefer not to announce results at the end of the round.
- I like clarity in framework - clarity of thought, content and flow in your value, criterion and contentions. Best if you state these explicitly specially your cards to support your arguments. CLARITY AND ORGANIZATION OF CONTENT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. I believe x-exam questioning and responses are critical and supports or weakens your case.
- Speed is ok but don't be supersonic - avoid spreading; you could muffle your own words and speech. Remember clarity???
- Your cards / evidence / stats are very critical in supporting your contentions and rebuttal.
Don't sweat the results - have fun!!!
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:01 AM PDT
Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.
My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.
I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.
Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.
John Cutinha
Cupertino
None
Last changed on
Fri March 31, 2017 at 8:50 AM PDT
- Debaters can speak as fast as they can … but remember if I don’t understand the debater’s point I don’t give debater a point, given that I can understand fast speaking but not ultra-fast speaking;
- I don’t give a win just because someone is better speaker; I look at how good the case is and how well it is supported throughout the debate.
- I take Cross X Q/A (and clash) seriously and how debaters use them to attack opponent case or support their own case.
- If case or argument doesn’t support Value and Value Criterion debater lose. Establish the connection between case and V/VC, don’t assume that it is self-explanatory.
- Confidence is good but arrogance is no go; a strong attack on the opponent case is expected without crossing the arrogance line.
Sankar Dhinu
Fremont
None
Last changed on
Sun September 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM PDT
Hello,
To start off with, I am mainly a flay judge. First off, if you want to start an email chain, then feel free to at anil_dixit@yahoo.com. I would appreciate it if you don't spread in round. Please speak in a clear speed and tone with enunciation. Also try not to run theory. Ks, or any types of tricks or other circuit positions. I will have a hard time understanding them and it may result in me interpreting your positions in the wrong way. However, if you do choose to run circuit positions, spend a little more time explaining them. For example, in theory, clearly explain your opponent's violations in round and explain the voters thoroughly. In general, I am fine with you running circuit positions and I will not vote you down for it solely, but you should spend some more time explaining them.
Try to go with your traditional lay positions and cases that you have (Framework + Contentions). The only circuit positions that I am comfortable with are advantages and disadvantages.
I vote based on framework, impact calculus/weighing, speaking style/speed, and argumentation/articulation. Prove to me how your impacts outweigh your opponents and how they follow with the framework debate. Connect your voting issues with the framework, as it is the criterion towards which the judge evaluates the round.
Finally, please don't go about personally insulting your opponents or swearing in round. This will result in an automatic loss if done.
Thank you and good luck with your rounds. Have fun!
Taisia Dubinina
Young Genius
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 5:24 AM PDT
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2019 at 9:10 AM PDT
Lay Judge
Please don't spread. thanks.
Argumentation
Basic policy arguments and stock cases are preferred. Plans are fine as long as the focus doesn't come down to a T debate.
On neg
Preferably stock negs with a VC. No Ks. No Theory. CPs and Pics are ok.
Like every other lay judge, be nice to each other and have fun.
-This is written by the debater if there are any questions go email cf51888@gmail.com
Lauren Flato
Homestead
None
Patrick Foy
MVLA Youth Forensics
None
Venkatesh Ganti
Young Genius
None
Jerry Gao
Miller Middle
None
Mukesh Garg
Amador Valley
None
Amita Gore
Young Genius
None
Mandeep Gupta
Cupertino
None
Last changed on
Tue September 25, 2018 at 4:20 PM PDT
I have been a parent judge at the various debate tournaments for the last couple of years. I would like the participants to be respectful and courteous to each other and any other people in the room. They should speak clearly, slowly and state any facts if possible to strengthen their arguments. There is nothing wrong or right. You only state your opinion.
Santosh Hambir
Cupertino
None
Don Heinsohn
Young Genius
None
Ken Hiremath
Golden State
Last changed on
Sun March 1, 2020 at 2:14 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. That means in order to effectively communicate to me, you should be slow, concise, and intentional throughout your argumentation. I have been judging slow debate for a while now and I try my best to be fully attentive during each debate. I will keep a detailed flow of each of the speeches and the cross examinations. In general, I appreciate well-developed arguments and despise late breaking debates where the crux of the affirmative/negative argument appears in the final rebuttal. Blatantly new arguments in the last rebuttals will not be evaluated.
Policy:
I am a stock issues based judge. If the affirmative does not fulfill their burdens under the stock issues, I will vote negative. Conversely, if the affirmative proves to me that they have fulfilled their burden on the stock issues, I will vote for them. What is up for debate, however, is exactly what each side's burden is on the stock issues. For example, if the negative says that the affirmative must solve for the entirety of the Yemen war to establish solvency, then I will hold the affirmative to that threshold (if they do not respond). Although I try to be as neutral as I can in this regard, I personally believe that the affirmative is a good policy option if it makes a significant positive departure from the status quo. That means for the negative, I would appreciate a substantive disadvantage to the affirmative or clearly articulated burdens for each of the stock issues.
I believe argument resolution is underutilized in debates. When judging, I am left with two opposing arguments but no guidance on how to resolve them in your favor. The best debaters utilize framing issues and evidence comparison to write my ballot.
Please be respectful in cross-ex. I understand you may have many questions to get through but cutting off your opponent crosses the line when they have clearly not gotten to the substantive portion of their answer. I will award high speaker points (29-30) to debaters who combine my above thoughts with respectful argumentation/composure in the debate.
Hamilton Hitchings
Palo Alto
None
Last changed on
Mon September 24, 2018 at 2:17 AM PDT
I am an amateur parent judger with a few years of occasional judging experience. I usually make a decision based on who addressed all the points sufficiently, either by logic or fact. A good speaker will win points but not necessarily the debate itself. I don't like spreading because I can't catch all the points if you speak too fast.
Last changed on
Mon March 6, 2023 at 4:10 AM PDT
paradigm written by my son (leon huang)
don't read china bad (he will hack against)
Pays attention. Likes logic. If something doesn't make sense to him he won't like the argument (and might drop you). In other words, read warrants and slow explanations.
Ways to get higher speaks/make a better impression/probably win the round:
1. Be confident and assertive, but don't be rude.
2. Crossfire is cool.
3. Be confident during speeches.
If the tournament allows, I can provide you disclosure if you reach out.
Wei Huang
BASIS Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:01 AM PDT
I am an experienced parent judge. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments. I will decide based on the arguments' quality and how well you articulate it.
Victoria Izadyar
Westmont
None
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM PDT
I can flow. No problem with speed. I can and do vote on T and solvency. Not a big fan of kritiks but I'll listen if you provide a legit framework. See myself as a policy maker.
Mathew Joseph
Notre Dame
None
Reema Joshi
Golden State
None
Samir Kapoor
Palo Alto
None
salma khan
Evergreen Valley
None
salma khan
Evergreen Valley
None
Shailja Kirti
Miller Middle
None
Venkat Kondapally
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Surya Koneru
Young Genius
Last changed on
Tue February 5, 2019 at 1:51 PM PDT
no spreading
be polite to one another
have fun and make solid arguments
Gita Kulashekar
Westmont
None
Amol Kulkarni
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 3:43 AM PDT
I judge on how well you are organized, how well you support your points, how well you refute your opponent's points, and your speaking skills.
Last changed on
Wed October 12, 2016 at 8:51 AM PDT
I judge based on the flow. Solid clash and preponderance of evidence is what really does It for me. Dropped arguments and unaddressed points are usually the deciding factors of my rounds but they need to be pointed out to be considered. A priori arguments and Kritiks usually don't work in PoFo so please don't stray from the topic just to derail the conversation. Spreading is frowned upon, but speak at whatever pace you want. If I cannot understand you I will let you know.
Tharun Kuppireddy
Young Genius
None
Murty Kurella
Evergreen Valley
None
Nathan Leal
BASIS Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Sat September 19, 2020 at 12:40 AM PDT
Competition Experience:
Competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.
Flay Judge
Public Forum
I have not done any prep on the Sept/Oct topic so anything that you read will be new to me.
I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.
I do not flow crossfire. Any concessions made during cross need to be brought up in the next speech.
First summary needs to extend defense. Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.
I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.
Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.
Jerry Li
Pleasanton Int'l
None
Wende Li
Miller Middle
None
Julia Liu
Young Genius
None
Zhilin Liu
Cupertino
None
Revatha Loghashankar
Young Genius
None
Qian Ma
Miller Middle
None
Jayaram Madireddy
Notre Dame
None
Pratima Mallipedi
Miller Middle
None
Maya McNealis
Palo Alto
None
Last changed on
Wed January 30, 2019 at 6:18 PM EDT
I am a parent judge and have been judging LD and Public Forum for the last few years. I listen carefully and take notes. I give weight to claims and warrants to support your contentions. Please make sure to show the Impact to make it clear what your prioritized arguments are. In my mind, a well thought through Framework with the ideas tying back to the it make a very big impact. I don't flow during cross-examinations, so please make sure to make all your arguments explicitly during your speeches.
I do not support spreading. I really need to hear all the arguments. If I didn't hear your argument, you didn't make it. If you speak fast that's ok, but its your responsibility to make sure that you are clear and your speech can be fully understood.
Also, politeness and civility is an integral part of the debate. We are all in it because we love debating, so don't be rude to your fellow participants.
Above all, have fun debating!
Last changed on
Tue September 17, 2024 at 7:39 AM PDT
I am a parent judge, please keep the debate simple. No spreading! No theory, T or Ks, I should be able to understand the argument to vote off it. Make sure to explain your arguments, and give me a reason why I should vote for them. The debater who has a better case and weighs impacts better wins over one who simply speaks well.
Please be respectful towards your opponents. I am not afraid to end the debate and drop you for being blatantly disrespectful, racist, or sexist.
I would like to be on the email chain: vrishali.modi@gmail.com
Inder Monga
Palo Alto
None
Saranya Nambinarayanan
Fremont
None
Lisa Nissim
Palo Alto
None
Deepika Pathak
Cupertino
None
Amira Patrawala
MVLA Youth Forensics
None
Kalpana Peddibhotla
Irvington
None
Roopa Prakash
Cupertino
None
Vivek Prasad
Young Genius
None
Ravikumar Raghavenderrao
Leland
None
Annika Ragnartz
MVLA Youth Forensics
None
Esmirna Ramirez
Albany
None
Shrikant Ranade
Westmont
None
Venkat Rangarajan
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Wed March 27, 2024 at 11:05 AM PDT
While judging for LD, I prefer the presenters to speak clearly and not in a fast pace so that the content can be understood clearly by everyone. Also the contestants should be respectful of each other no matter how the other is doing.
Although I pay very close attention to CX, I will not value it as much as the real case and rebuttals. It can be a starting point and will need to be followed on into the rebuttals for me to give it credibility.
Winston Ratnam
Cupertino
None
Subir Ray
Young Genius
None
Rajrupa Raychaudhuri
TCA
None
Balakrishnan Sakthidharan
Cupertino
None
Naveena Salla
Cupertino
None
Jaspi Sandhu
Palo Alto
None
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2020 at 11:44 PM PDT
I am a “flay judge” so I have knowledge of debate, mainly PF. As for speaking preference you can speak at your pace as long as you enunciate your syllables. Do not expect that I have topical knowledge or understand acronyms, explain them in speech or in your constructive. A couple of simple rules
a) No off-time roadmaps as these don't add value to the debate
b) Asking for everyone ready - not necessary as long as prep isn't running then everyone should be ready.
c) Do not exceed your speech by 15-30 seconds as I will deduct speaker points for that
In principle my preference is not to run theory but if you are going with it, please explain it in a logical manner and do not assume that I know a lot of the debate jargon. Explain it in your speech. Keep it short and do not just run theory to throw off the other team; it needs to be purposeful and rarely used, especially in a lay debate such as PF.
I ask that you use argumentation and back up your ideas with evidence. Logical analysis is okay if you use logic and not assumptions. Respond to your opponent's ideas.
WEIGH!! In your final focus, tell me why your arguments matter more.
Sathish Shanbhag
Evergreen Valley
None
Subhranta Shaw
Cupertino
None
Hozefa Shiyaji
Golden State
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 6:06 AM EDT
I am a parent judge and would like debaters to consider the following:
- I will only make decisions on arguments that are understandable to me. So if presenting complex arguments, please try to break them down and explain them clearly.
- Please do not speak too fast; it will be harder for me to follow and process your arguments. Speak at a normal conversation pace and keep arguments clear and concise.
- Please be polite and respectful to the opposing candidate during cross-ex.
Singh Singh
Palo Alto
None
Katherine Song
Cupertino
None
Amit Srivastava
Fremont
None
Wensheng Sun
Young Genius
None
Smitha Sureshbabu
Cupertino
None
Last changed on
Wed October 14, 2015 at 6:18 AM PDT
Please refer to my judge philosophy on wikispaces under my name. https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com
Suresh Thirumandas
Cupertino
None
Samir Thoria
Miller Middle
None
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 2:53 PM EDT
have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.
Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.
The main gist:
Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.
More details below:
-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.
-(LD) Value Debate:
I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.
-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.
-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)
I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.
TL;DR for all forms of debate:
I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).
I drop points for rudeness.
Srinivas Vemuri
Golden State
None
Anitha Vijayakumar
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2018 at 8:18 AM PDT
I want debaters to present their case clearly. I don't like it when debaters spread. I do not give points to others who say things that don't make sense, every single sentence of your case need to prove a point.
Yutong Wang
Miller Middle
None
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT
2022 Update
Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!
2021 Update
You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.
2/4/2020
Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!
4/4/2015
I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.
My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.
I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.
Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.
I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.
I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.
Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.
Jonathan Wei
Presentation
None
Zhi-Liang Wei
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Sat November 18, 2017 at 2:41 PM PDT
Do not speak rapidly.
Wei Xiong
MVLA Youth Forensics
None
Subba Yantra
Cupertino
None
Ting Yu
Young Genius
None
Xinhong Yuan
Stratford Indie
None
Linda Yueng
Amador Valley
None
Steven Zong
Miller Middle
None
Last changed on
Sat September 16, 2017 at 2:05 PM PDT
I like when you have enough evidence to support your argument.
I also like when debaters speak clearly and confidently.