John Lewis SVUDL Invitational formerly SCU Dempsey Cronin
2020
—
Santa Clara/ Online,
CA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Marwa Abourayya
Monta Vista High School
None
Anuj Aggarwal
Kennedy Independent
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 ;)
Ouahiba Ahriz
Westmont
None
Sana Aladin
The Harker School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:46 AM EDT
Hi, my name is Sana and I graduated from The Harker School in 2017. I competed in Speech during high school, and while I have never judged Debate, I was exposed to it through being a long-time member of our Speech & Debate team. I will listen attentively and judge the arguments you make--feel free to debate as usual!
Harish Ananthamurthy
Leland High School
None
Venki Ayalur
Cupertino High School
None
Harveen Bal
Leland High School
None
Vidya Balasubramanian
Ocean Grove School
None
Ramesh Banda
Notre Dame San Jose
8 rounds
None
Arushi Bansal
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat July 6, 2024 at 12:11 PM PDT
Hi! I just graduated from Notre Dame High School (San Jose, CA) and will be studying Political Science/ Economics at the University of Chicago this fall. I did LD (5 years, lay and fast), OO, Imp, a little PF, and Worlds Schools Debate.
General
Most important thing is to weigh all impacts from your case and on the flow (I don't want to make any decisions that aren't brought up in the debate itself). Make sure you go slow for this part so I catch everything.
Please refer to evidence by tagline/ what it's about instead of author's name and date, since I don't often flow that in super detail. Make sure it's clear when you're reading evidence through a clear citation.
Please don't use acronyms that aren't defined earlier in the round, since most likely I haven't researched the topic you all are debating.
A good CX/CF will boost your speaker points. Just don't be overly aggressive and keep the debate friendly. Any form of being rude to your opponent/ xenophobic commentary leads to LOW speaks and potentially a loss depending on what's said. Let me know before round if there are any questions. :) Good luck!
LD
I prefer a lay/flay round (minus any fluff like quotes at the beginning and unrelevant analogies) but if you want to go fast please read below:
Speed: Please go at a fast conversational speed for me (no spreading). If you spread I probably won't catch what you're saying since I was never good at flowing spreading + I won't be flowing off a doc. Also online audio isn't the best time to practice your spreading skills on me. I will call slow as many times as needed, but if you don't slow down, I won't flow, and I can't vote on an argument I never flowed.
Theory: I'm fine, but I don't like frivolous theory or disclosure theory on a small school/ new debater or on a lay debater that has no clue what theory is. Make sure you go slowly through your standards (have 2 good ones instead of 10 one-line standards) and weigh the impacts.
K's: I'm down for most mainstream K's like cap but I never really liked Baudrillard/ Wilderson (but you can run it, you just have to go slow for me). Make sure you explain the K in your own words for it to come across clearly for me.
I'm good with a stock case of advantages, disadvantages, and counterplans. Sketch counterplans are fine with me as long as you run it well and are prepared for theory.
PF
If you want to go fast or anything, read what I wrote above regarding LD. Otherwise, a fast conversational speed works for me.
If a rule is violated in the round, you should point it out to me (during your speech, not mid round) since I don't have PF rules memorized. Make sure to compare evidence, have good clash in round (instead of just repeating your own points), weigh arguments, and keep the round friendly.
Anshu Bansiya
Basis Independent Fremont
None
Kabba Barua
Cajon High School
None
Gaurav Batra
Cupertino High School
None
Brittany Berg
Claremont
None
Stevi Kay Berry
Blue Springs South High School
Last changed on
Fri October 15, 2021 at 5:37 AM CDT
About Me
Hiya! My name is Stevi Kay. I am a Kickapoo Speech & Debate alumni and an aspiring debate coach. During my time in debate, I competed in nearly every event SWMO debate offers. My personal favorite events were LD, POI, OO, and INFO.
Judging Debate
Please have a copy of your cases available to me.
Despite my debate history, I am not your 'traditional' flow judge. I avoid spending a lot of my time on the flow because a) a good debater should be able to convince even a non-flowing judge of the superiority of their arguments and b) because I want to let your public speaking skills shine.
Speed - Please do not sacrifice your skills to read faster. I do not care how many cards you read, I care how well you explain and argue the ones you do. If you read too fast, I will ask you to slow down.
Volume - Speak up! I am here to hear you and your arguments.
Value - I love to weigh values as much as the next guy, but do not make it the entire debate.
Topicality - Unless the case is obviously untopical, I'd rather not listen to a T debate.
K - Unless you know it like the back of your hand, do not run a Kritik.
Abuse - Please do not call something abusive unless it really is abuse.
Attitude - If you have a bad/smug attitude, I will dock you and I absolutely will make a note on your ballot.
Judging Speech
In speeches, I love comedy and cleverness.
In OO, INFO, IX, and DX I will judge on : speech structure, flow, and overall presentation.
In POI, DI, HI, and DUO I will judge on : blocking, flow, emotion, and impact. Particularly in DI and Dramatic POI, the impact is very important. I want to feel your character.
Can't Wait
I can't wait to judge you today! Speech and Debate really is my first love. I am not here to judge you, not really. Speech & Debate is about education, my role as your judge is to help you learn how to improve your public speaking skills by offering feedback. If you ever have questions for me, you are welcome to reach out to me.
Good Luck,
Stevi Kay
Rhian Beutler
Redlands High School
None
Chase Bezonsky
Athens Debate
Last changed on
Thu February 1, 2024 at 12:00 AM CEST
I debated in high school LD and PF and was a college Parli debater, so I have a good amount of experience. I was a quarter finalist in CA for LD and a TCFL State Qualifier in LD (if that matters).
LD is first and foremost a value debate. Be sure to keep that in mind.
- Be cordial to each other. There is no reason to be rude to your fellow competitors. For zoom competitors, that means no giggling or whispering when your mics are off. Treat it just like a normal round.
- Time yourselves and each other, please.
- I am fine with speed, but I do not like spreading. I can keep up but I think that it's poor practice and your speaks will be reduced.
- Sign posting is extremely important to me. Always tell me what contention you are talking about or responding to.
- It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit and reiterating them.
- While I am more of a traditional judge, I am open to progressive debate (K, T, Theory, ect.) but give substantial explanation.
- I love clash. Be sure to actually respond to your opponents arguments rather than just say they don't matter.
- Apologies for any weird faces, I am processing and writing notes!
For speech competitors:
- Do your thing, I have no strong preferences!
Vishakra Bhadra
The Quarry Lane School
8 rounds
None
Brian Borders
Leland High School
Last changed on
Tue January 1, 2019 at 2:21 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. No preferences
Adrian Caesar
Silver Creek High School
8 rounds
None
Tyler Campbell
New Roads School
None
Melody Cao
The Golden State Academy
None
Srivani Chadhuvae
Monta Vista High School
None
Adriana Chan
Velásquez-Liangyi Leadership Academy
None
Jayanti Chandramahanti
Washington High School
None
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran
Cupertino High School
None
Kartik Chandran
Homestead HS
None
Vinod Chathoth
Archbishop Mitty
None
Yue Chen
Monta Vista High School
None
Allen Chiu
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Tue December 1, 2020 at 5:07 PM PDT
I am a new parent judge.
Please speak clearly & not too quickly.
Vaishali Choudhary
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Lauri Chryss
The Archer School
None
Samantha Chu
Leland High School
None
Connor Claros
Andrew Hill High School
8 rounds
None
Gary Cohn
Greenfield High School
None
Jennifer Copaken
Archbishop Mitty
8 rounds
None
Sneha d'Abreu Noronha
Leland High School
None
Stephanie Dang
Granite Bay High School
None
Bibhudatta Dash
Stevenson HS - Independent
Last changed on
Sat December 7, 2019 at 1:37 PM EDT
I have started judging LD tournaments this year. I was a national debate champion in India, but relatively new to the US debate scene. I am primarily a parent who loves debating.
For me, it is important to understand the argument. So if I am unable to understand your argument due to speed reading, I will not ignore that part n my evaluation.
Ultimately, I see my role as to judge who won the debate. To arrive at that decision, I use three criteria:
- Clear and compelling case. Use of right evidence to substantiate the case.
- Ability to defend the position addressing the specifics of opponents rebuttal
- Ability to think on feet and poke holes at the opponent’s evidence
I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.
I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.
Speaker Points - I would like to score between 25-30. I do absolute scores i.e. your score is not in comparison with other debaters.
Kritiks – I will go with Krtiik as long as I can follow it. The burden is on you to make a coherent argument.
Philosophy-I'm good with philosophy and can follow it.
Flow- I flow rounds. I do take notes. Flowing your arguments with good rebuttals counts for me.
Attitude- Bullying an opponent isn’t acceptable. Debate is about ideas. If you make it personal at any time, you would have lost the argument.
Pedram Dashti
Leland High School
None
Mei Deng
St John's School
Last changed on
Sun March 7, 2021 at 6:58 AM CDT
I am a parent judge and have judged a few rounds of PF in Houston locals as well as speech events. Please speak at a conversational speed, and make your arguments understandable and persuasive.
School affiliation: St. John's (parent)
Hired: No
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): N/A
Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against (required): N/A
Currently enrolled in college? No
College Speech and Debate Experience N/A
Years Judging/Coaching 1-2
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 1-2
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year 3
Check all that apply
_____I judge WS regularly on the local level
_____I judge WS at national level tournaments
__/___I occasionally judge WS Debate
_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before
_____I have never judged WS Debate
Rounds judged in other events this year (required)
Check all that apply
____ Congress
__/__ PF
____ LD
____ Policy
__/__ Extemp/OO/Info
__/__ DI/HI/Duo/POI
____ I have not judged this year
____ I have not judged before
Have you chaired a WS round before? No
What does chairing a round involve? Calling speakers up to speak, announcing the winner in a panel
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? The most conversational and quick-thinking style of debate, focusing on topics with worldwide relevance.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? I'll write down the arguments throughout the round on a notepad.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. No, but it depends on how the third speaker and reply speaker compare the two arguments with each other. One side or the other needs to give a good reason to prefer their principle or their practical arguments.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? I look to the progression and cohesion between teammates, along with how well specific arguments are extended, rehashed, and collapsed down the bench.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? Style
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? I look at the logical basis of what the argument rests on, and the way it was presented and weighed in the round (ie. cohesively, understandably).
How do you resolve model quibbles? Just like in a definition debate, I'll go more or less past the model debate (preferring those that are intuitive/understandable) and evaluate the remaining substantive arguments.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? It really depends on how the model/countermodel is presented in the debate; whichever is more fleshed out, understandable, and weighed. Honestly, the substantives matter much more.
Lindsay Denton
Downtown College Preparatory El Primero
8 rounds
None
Sameer Desai
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Pranav Dharwadkar
Redwood MS
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:17 AM PDT
I am a parent judge (read Lay Judge :-)
My paradigm is
- Clear and Slow in both Speech and Debate, so that it is easy for me to understand
- Structured presentation, demonstrating clarity of thought, so that I can follow your contentions and speech
- Robust roadmap, so that I know what you are going to tell me
- Logical flow of thoughts that tie back to your thesis and roadmap ensuring I am not lost
- I am analytical and critical, so not easily swayed by tangential statistics and overload of references that don't support your contention. I am looking for examples that support your argument and thesis.
- I am a parent judge, so my feedback is geared completely at making you better.
- Most importantly, all contestants are typically so good, it is extremely difficult to pick the top 3-5 places, there are usually very minor nits that differentiate. A contestant ranked fifth is almost as good, if not the same, as contestant ranked first. While this is not fair to the contestants, the reality is that I am forced to pick 1st to 5th place and sometimes very minor nits force my hand. So please don't be discouraged.
Good luck. Remember, you are all amazing. I applaud you on choosing to spend your fun childhood years on rigorous and tough extra curricular activities, like Speech and Debate competitions, instead of random texting. You are all winners in my book, just for making this difficult choice.
Anu DiCarlo
Cupertino High School
None
Judy Ding
Palo Alto High School
None
Samantha Donovan
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
April Durrett
Notre Dame San Jose
8 rounds
None
Patrick Ellis
Almaden Country Day School
None
May Ersheid
Los Altos High School
None
Ellie Estrada
Honor Academy
Last changed on
Tue March 12, 2024 at 1:12 PM MDT
Updated: 03/12/2024
Add me to the chain:cbpelayo94@gmail.com
I go by 'Ellie' (she/her) now, for those of y'all that knew me by a different name.
Experience
Currently doing hired work and doing grad school at the University of Utah; formerly, coached NPDA at UoUtah; policy at CSU Fullerton; & IEs at Honor Academy. Nowadays I mostly judge rounds, do some assistant coaching for my friends, and watch policy streams because no one really leaves debate (lol).
I've been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, but my experience leans heavily towards NPDA parli, LD (cali/toc/nfa), policy, & IEs. Started competing in 2012:
- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)
- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)
- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)
- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)
I was a 2A/1N & did exclusively kritikal/performative -- we did a lot of fem IR, academy, decolonial brown fem, futurisms, sci-fi, & cyborgs. But debate is what you make it; all I ask for is clear links, FW, and advocacies. How you choose to run it is totally up to y'all!
Truth > Tech
Kritiks
Love Ks. I am still 'traditional' in wanting some kind of FW, links, advocacy/alt, and impacts. But that doesn't mean that it has to be strictly organized in that way (i.e., performance k's). But at the end of the day, I do want to know what your K does: what the intervention is, what the bad words are, etc. I found it helpful once to consider theK alt like a CP: the moment the alt appears, your neg presumption disappears (pls don't make me listen to condo plssss). I also love in-round links -- I think they're excellent offense in the development of theory throughout the round. Links are uniqueness to the K. Performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you.
Other things:
- I believe that FW, not T, is used to answer K. Running T against the K is just insulting, and I'm not big on the nonengagement w/ advocacies that approach debate non-normatively. Tomato tomato.
- Providing trigger/content warnings to your K is good (when they're needed).
- Answering a T run against the K with more theory is so, so wonderful. Almost as wonderful as "mini" DAs to oppressive theory. I've noticed the rise of some pretty trash theory as of late, and I wish there was more metacommentary that claps back against that.
- If I hear Fruit theory I swear...pls just don't okay? :') same with tricks, sorry, don't like em.
- Don't like condo. I'll listen to it if I have to, sorry abt my faces.
- In terms of performance, definitely just be on the same page as everyone else. I won't stop a round, but I do reserve rights to respect, say, a point of personal privilege if the round is getting a kind of way.
Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)
This is prob where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered:
- Plans/CPs/Perms: Love em. Do more perms. I also love multiple perms, if you can provide at least some explanation beyond "perm do both...anyway." Solvency burdens shift throughout the debate, and that's good. Theory against plan-plus, plan-minus, etc. are all great.
- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. Y'all do this please. Get them "PICs Bad" blocks out.
- Impact Calc: While I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, solvency, I also like voters w/ specific phrasing that conjures up what your world looks like, esp if you're proposing alternative ways of and futures for doing debate. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. Good round vision is good.
- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language that's recognizable (e.g., non-unique, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will be so happy. Active language and verbs are good. Offense over defense, sure, but terminal defense is underappreciated. This applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.
- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.
- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.
Procedurals (FW/T)
Good FW/Topicality debates are great, but I wanna hear clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violations). I've been jaded with the habit of dismissing kritikal arguments under the presumption of topicality, but I still think there's hope for procedurals! I still expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation, and at least some engagement with the arguments you label non-topical.
- I respect X-T and FX-T. I find that there is great offensive in doing counter-interpretations, counter-standards, & the aforementioned DAs against T
- RVAs make me so sad :( please no RVIs, they're never as good as you think
- Founders intent is so mid
- [Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR.
- Trichot exists! And I love it. Also monochot <3
Speed
My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, spreading can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you okay with spreading?"
This position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:
[Policy/TOC LD] Sure go fast brrrr. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.
[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.
[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow as fast as you speak. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading: find it, navigate it.
Kylee Evans
Blue Springs South High School
Last changed on
Thu November 19, 2020 at 12:58 PM CDT
My email for the chain: kaevans97@gmail.com
I graduated from Missouri State University in May 2020 where I competed in NDT/CEDA as well as NFA-LD style debate all four years. I'm attending law school this year, so I have little to no specific topic knowledge, but a good torts or contracts joke will certainly get you a bump in speaker points.
TL;DR: It is your job as the debater to tell me how to evaluate particular arguments in the round. If you fail to do that, I will be forced to impose my own standards of judgement and I would much rather that I didn't have to do that.
In all honesty, I am more truth over tech, but if there is a drop I won't completely disregard the argument (even if I find it silly). That generally means that if you are reading a ridiculous argument that you created to confuse your opponents, you are already in an uphill battle with me. No, aliens will probably not kill us all. And no, the world is probably not just a simulation (if it is, then I picked the wrong one). Use that information as you will.
At the end of the day, debate is an activity that you compete in for a finite number of years. This competition is not the impetus of your life's achievements; please do not treat it that way. Be kind to everyone in the round and enjoy the experience.
CPs:
I personally think conditional advocacies have gotten a little ridiculous, but will entertain them if you give me a reason to. I find it unlikely that I will vote on theoretical objections as the sole reason for decision, but I can be compelled to use it as a reason to disregard a CP/Alt in the 2nr (given that the neg has not already kicked it). If your CP was pulled out of nowhere before the speech started, you will have to do a lot of work to convince me it is real (see above).
If you are aff, you will need a developed solvency deficit at the end of the debate unless you are going for offense on the net benefit. I know that seems obvious, but sometimes 2As forget.
DAs:
I don't really have any wild opinions here so I will be brief. The link is the hardest part of the DA to win and thus the most vulnerable to affirmative arguments. You should focus most of your energy there. If you don't have clear impact calc in the 2nr/2ar I will have a much harder time deciding what to do with the DA in comparison to aff impacts and that puts you in an awkward position at the end of the round.
Ks:
I have a love-hate relationship with critical arguments in debate. That is based mostly on how debate forces those arguments to morph from their original intent. That being said, the aff needs to win either a perm or an outweighs argument that is developed and does more than just repeat the same tag line repeatedly. The best critical debates on the neg engage key portions of the aff to prove a link to the aff either performatively in round or housed in the core premises on their literature. I am unpersuaded by vague links to USFG action or other actions that are so inherent to the status quo that I cannot differentiate between the two. I also personally think alts are generally underdeveloped and I have a hard time determining what to do when the neg kicks the alt and all that remains is a vague link.
Whatever my opinions, this is your activity. I want you to do it the way that is the most enjoyable for you. A well-run K is better than a half-assed policy round any day.
Topicality:
TBH, as a competitor I sucked at topicality debates. That doesn't mean I don't understand how they function or that I am unwilling to vote on T, but you will likely have to do a little bit more work to make sure I understand what your arguments mean for the decision. I apologize if that is annoying.
(For policy affs that are attempting to meet the resolution): I do not care if there is no explicit in round abuse. That is useful, but not required of a topicality argument. Honestly, if the aff is pretty topical (especially if it is arguably the core aff on the topic) I will have a hard time being persuaded by topicality. I guess prove me wrong.
(For anti-topical affs): Your TVA mustn't be perfect, but it must include core aspect of the aff's literature. Meaning you need to engage with the aff in some way in order to win the TVA. If the aff team puts a random DA on T, there has to be impact calculus for it at the end of the round, otherwise I will treat it as perhaps an example of your larger argument, but not an independent reason to vote aff.
Critical affs:
I am going to be honest. I am not your best judge. I am not inherently opposed to the concept of K affs, but I feel many are disingenuous and ask me to make decisions based off of claims I can neither verify or claim to know given my subject position. With that being said, if I am your judge in those rounds I would prefer that your aff intertwine in some substantive way with the topic. If your aff's only claim to the topic is that you used the word "climate change" in one card in one speech of the round, that is not an interaction with the topic. Now, if you have a whole narrative about what "climate change" means in relation to your subject matter, then I will be more persuaded by your answers to T. With that being said, I am not going to auto vote against a K aff.
I was a philosophy major, but I am not an expert in your topic area so you cannot assume I know the jargon specific to your literature. Obviously, at the end of the day, debate is a game and if you choose to play it without a plan then that is a choice you get to make and I will respect that. Have fun, be kind, and I will do my best to adjudicate the round in a (semi) competent manner.
Final comments:
If you feel I have made the wrong decision, I am sorry. My decisions are not intended to be disrespectful and I have no intention to harm or criticize a debater personally based off anything that occurs in round. I get that debate is hard and we all make mistakes. I hope that you extend that same understanding and respect to me. If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer them before/after the round or in an email before/after the tournament.
(Go Bears)
Jon Frentrop
Blue Springs South High School
Last changed on
Thu March 2, 2023 at 2:17 PM CDT
I prefer well-structured arguments supported by thorough analysis and credible evidence
Ravi Gadekarla
The Quarry Lane School
None
Regina Garcia
Monta Vista High School
None
Last changed on
Sat September 26, 2020 at 12:31 PM PDT
I have been judging various Speech events for the last 4+ years and familiar with most formats of speech. Enjoy speech & debate very much and happy to be a judge. I want this to be an enjoyable activity for all involved so expect the participants to be courteous to the judges, organizers and to each other.
I judge on:
1. Content organization: cutting, easy to follow story line, structure, Attention Grabbing Intro/closing that connect the story together. Memorization of your speech is table stakes !!
2. Delivery Style: Your overall energy, blocking voice modulation, use of space , conveying the emotion of your piece. Try to speak at a pace that someone who is going to listen to your speech only once can still follow along and understand.
Wish you the very best of S&D Experience !!
Anjali George
Monta Vista High School
None
Rinela Ghosh
Milpitas High School
None
Jocelyn Goldfein
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Mon January 11, 2021 at 11:02 AM PDT
I was a policy and LD debater in high school in the 90s, qualifying for TOC and CA States my senior year. I also coached my high school team while I was in college.
My LD ballot will go to the debater who persuasively argues that their position maximizes the most important values. I'm looking for a clash of ideas; for critical thinking and evidence that backs it up, and for the arguments to be tied back to the values in the end. It's a big advantage to you to crystallize and weigh for me; if I have to decide for myself you're leaving it up for grabs.
I will hear out topicality and theory arguments, but they will only decide my ballot if I think one side has been abusive or off topic beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is important to me that debaters show respect and courtesy to their opponent, to me, and to the event and tournament organizers. Etiquette violations will show up in speaks (but not decide my ballot.)
If I judge students from the same program running word-for-word the same case, I will also deduct speaker points. I'm completely fine with pooling ideas, contentions, and evidence between teammates, but debaters should write their own cases.
Gabriela Gonzalez
CHAMPS Charter H.S.
Last changed on
Sat February 24, 2024 at 4:18 AM PDT
INCLUDE IN EMAIL CHAIN! Ggonzalez0730@gmail.com
Experience:
CSUF policy debate 5yrs (2010-2016)
The Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League 2yrs (2008-2010)
Currently: Coach and Program Manager for The Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League
I engaged and debated different types of literature: critical theory (anti-blackness and settler colonialism) and policy-oriented arguments during my early years of debate. I am not very particular about any type of argument. I think that in order to have a good debate in front of me you have to engage and understand what the other team is saying.
My experience in college debate and working with UDLs has taught me that any argument has the ability to or Critical arguments. All of them have a pedagogical value. It’s your job as the debater to prove to me why yours is a viable strategy or why your arguments are best. Prove to me why it matters. If you choose to go for framework or the politics DA, then justify that decision. I don’t really care if you go for what you think I like and if you are losing that argument then it would probably annoy me. Just do you.
Framework vs. Plan less or vague affirmatives
As a critical affirmative, please tell me what the affirmative does. What does the affirmative do about its impacts? If you are going for a structural impact, then please tell me how your method will alleviate that either for the world, debate, or something. I don’t want to be left thinking what does that affirmative does at the end of the 2ar because I will more likely than not vote negative.
I don’t mind framework as long as you can prove to me why the method that you offer for the debate, world, policy, etc. is crucial. Please explain how you solve for "x" harm or the squo goes. I promise you this will do wonders for you in front of me. I will not be doing the work for you or any of the internals for you. As long as your argument has a claim, warrant, and evidence that is clear, then what I personally believe is meh. You either win the debate based on the flow or nah.
Seems rudimental but debaters forget to do this during speeches.
Clarity
If I can't understand what you're saying when you are speaking, then I'll yell out "clear" and after the second time I yell out clear then I won't flow what I can't understand. I will also reduce your speaker points. I tend to have facial expressions during rounds. If you catch me squinting, then it is probably because I can’t understand what you are saying. Just slow down if that helps.
DA+ Counter Plans
Cp have to have a net benefit.
I need specific impact scenarios--just saying hegemony, racism, global warming, and nuclear war does not win the ballot please explain how we get to that point. I really like when a 2AR gives a good explanation of how the aff solves or how the affirmative triggers the impact.
Make sure to articulate most parts of the DA. just bc you have a big impact that doesn't mean much for me please explain how it relates to the affirmative especially in the rebuttal. impact comparisons are pretty good too.
Theory debates
Not my strong point, but if you are going for this which I understand the strategic reasoning behind this, then explain the "why its bad that X thing" and how that should outweigh anything else. Also, slow down during these debates especially on the interpretation.
Speaker Quirks to watch out for:
Being too dominant in a partnership. Have faith that your partner is capable of responding and asking questions during CX. If you see them struggling, then I am not opposed to you stepping in but at least give them a chance.
Lincoln Douglas
For the most part, my paradigm applies to much of the args made in this sector of the activity a couple of things that you should mindful of when you have me as a judge:
1) I appreciate disclosure, but any theory args that are made about disclosure I don't appreciate, especially if I wasn't in the room to make sure neg/aff accusation are actually being saiD. If I'm not in the room its just a case of "they said I said." If you have it in writing, then I guess I can appreciate your arg more. I would still vote on it, but its not a decision I am happy about.
2) Time: LD leaves a lot of unresolved problems for me as a judge. Please make sure:
aff with plan text *make sure to not forget about the plan solvency mechanism and how you solve for your harms. this should be throughout the debate but especially in the last speeches. I understand there is an issue of time but at least 30 sec of explaining aff mechanisms.
sympathetic towards time constraints but be strategic and mindful of where to spend the most time in the debate. Ex: if you are too focused on the impact when the impact is already established then this is time badly spent.
Negative:
If you are concerned with the affirmative making new arguments in the 2AR have a blip that asks judges not evaluate. Because of the time (6 vs 3min), I am usually left with lots of unresolved issues so I tend to filter the debate in a way that holistically makes sense to me.
DA (Reify and clarify the LINK debate and not just be impact heavy)
T ( make sure to impact out and warrant education and fairness claims)
Angela Govig
Archbishop Mitty
None
Shivani Goyal
California High School
None
Vinita Goyal
Mission San Jose High School
None
Angela Griffin
The Archer School
None
Randy Griffin
Berkeley High School
None
Srinivasa Gunturi
Cupertino High School
None
Lisa Guo
Velásquez-Liangyi Leadership Academy
None
Jenna Haiwen
Leland High School
None
Sharvani Haran
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat February 24, 2024 at 2:24 AM PDT
Speech paradigm:
Sharvani Haran - Speech Judge Paradigm
Experience: I have been involved in speech and debate all my student life and have been judging for 5 years, for both speech and debate[LD, PF only] tournaments. I have judged at various levels of competition, including local tournaments, regional championships, and middle school national tournament.
As a judge, I prioritize several key elements in evaluating speeches:
-
Clarity and Organization: I value speeches that are well-structured and easy to follow. Clear organization helps to convey the speaker's message effectively.
-
Persuasiveness: On non- interpretation speeches I appreciate speeches that present strong, logical arguments supported by evidence and analysis.
-
Delivery: While substance is paramount, delivery also plays a crucial role. I admire speakers who demonstrate confidence, poise, and effective use of vocal variety and gestures.
-
Engagement: A compelling speech captures the audience's attention and maintains their interest throughout. I appreciate speakers who employ rhetorical techniques, storytelling, and humor to engage their audience.
-
Adaptability: I recognize that different events may prioritize certain skills over others. Whether I'm judging a Lincoln-Douglas debate, a public forum round, or an original oratory competition, I adjust my criteria accordingly while remaining consistent in my evaluation standards.
-
Feedback: I believe constructive feedback is essential for growth. I strive to provide detailed, specific feedback to help speakers understand their strengths and areas for improvement.
-
Fairness and Respect: I approach judging with impartiality and fairness, evaluating each speaker based on their performance in the round. I expect all participants to treat each other, the judges, and the event staff with respect and professionalism.
Above all, I am committed to fostering a positive and supportive environment for all participants. I aim to provide a fair and constructive evaluation of each speech, recognizing the hard work and dedication that goes into preparing for competitive speaking events.
I look forward to witnessing the talent and passion of the competitors.
Diane Harrison
West Broward High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu February 18, 2021 at 3:30 PM EDT
Quick paradigm- I feel I am strongest in judging interpretation. I enjoy Informative and Oratory speeches as this gives me an opportunity to learn what is important to the performer. My least favorite event to judge is extemporaneous as I am not well versed in politics.
Bharti Hathalia
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:37 PM PDT
Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents
Adriana Hernandez
West Broward High School
8 rounds
None
Sachin Holla
Notre Dame San Jose
8 rounds
None
Yuna Hu
Monta Vista High School
None
Grace Huang
The Golden State Academy
None
Mark Hull
Archbishop Mitty
None
Mark Hull
Almaden Country Day School
None
Xin Huo
Basis Independent Fremont
None
Yusra Hussain
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Vanita Jain
Monta Vista High School
None
Jaeyoon Jeong
Palo Alto High School
None
shaloo jeswani
Basis Independent Fremont
None
Hitesh Jodhavat
American High
None
Zenida Johnson
Leland High School
None
Ravi Joshi
Leland High School
None
Sushma K
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 10:27 PM PDT
Hello there!
Some things to consider:
Cases:
Please share cases with each other before your first speech. A speech doc would be helpful if you are reading any cards during your rebuttal. I need to be able to access all evidence that you use.
Speed:
It is the debater's burden to make sure that the speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds.
Impact:
Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clearly stressed and extended. It's worth repeating and stressing if you feel you have the winning arguments. Don't just say "______ impact has more chances of happening than my opponent's impact of ____" I would like to see evidence on anything you do present on impact debate.
Clash:
Clash is necessary. You must convince me that your arguments outweigh your opponents. Dropped arguments leads to that argument being won by whichever side presented it. If your opponent dropped an argument, make sure to clearly state that during your speech in case I miss it on my flow.
Off-Case:
I am okay with Topicality/interp. If one does run T/interp the opposing side I would say the other side has to respond. If the T has been dropped, whoever ran the T is more likely to win the round.
I am familiar with the capitalism K, ethical imperatives K, and Feminism K. If you read any unfamiliar K's, please explain well.
Counterplans are okay with me. Make sure to explain how your counterplan would have more benefits than your opposing side.
Refutes:
Any cards you read against your opponent, be sure to ask if I or the opponent would like to see them before moving on. (or just use a speech doc like I mentioned earlier)
Other:
Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.
Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!
Nimish Kabe
Athens Debate
None
Usha Kadadi
Fremont High School
None
Jaisheela Kandagal
Evergreen Valley
None
Rahul Kapoor
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
8 rounds
None
Rahul Kapoor
Basis Independent Fremont
8 rounds
None
Vishwas Karandikar
Leland High School
None
Soundarya Karthik
Archbishop Mitty
None
Ronit Kathuria
Claremont
None
Sarswati Khadka
Irvington HS
None
In Pyo Kim
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Mon September 20, 2021 at 5:47 AM PDT
I am a parent judge for parliamentary debate and speech.
I appreciate clarity of argument and argument development through the course of the debate. Please do not spread, talk extra fast or use jargon. DO NOT RUN THEORY because I will not understand it or flow it. Please do not attempt to argue anything outside of the resolution (ie. kritiks and nontopical arguments) as this strategy will not be a winning one. I will always favor debaters who speak clearly at a regular pace, who treat their teammates, opponents and judges with respect, and who focus directly on the debate topics as presented.
Please time your own speeches accurately and honorably. Please follow tournament rules regarding use of internet, citations, etc. Please treat everyone in the room with respect.
Martina Koller
Mira Loma High School
None
Praveen Konda
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Lalitha Krishnan
Monta Vista High School
None
Rakesh Kumar
Monta Vista High School
None
Shalu Kumar
University Preparatory Academy
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.
Usha Kurani
Homestead HS
None
Marina Kuzmenko
Woodcreek High School
None
James Kyle
Nova 42 Academy
None
Emily Tran La
Yerba Buena High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu April 11, 2024 at 1:28 PM PDT
I had no experience competing, coaching, or judging speech and debate prior to becoming a teacher coach for Yerba Buena High School's speech and debate team in 2020. Since then, I have judged policy, public forum, world schools, original oratory, and impromptu.
I enjoy listening to all types of arguments, but please treat me as a layman judge and thoroughly explain your arguments, especially if uncommon debate jargon/terms are involved. As an English teacher, I expect every argument brought into a round to be followed with strong evidence and warrants. I tend to favor a well-supported argument over several weak arguments (quality > quantity). I prefer that debaters do not spread because this often leads to my missing important points/arguments; as a non-debater, I cannot follow arguments in the same way that debaters do. Whether or not you spread, providing a roadmap before your speech and signposting during your speech will make it easier for me to follow your argument.
For email chains: lae@esuhsd.org
Cailey Larmore
Archbishop Mitty
None
Brian Lee
Leland High School
None
Jeff Leon
Berkeley High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon March 18, 2024 at 9:56 AM PDT
Debate, IE & Related Experience – Policy debate and extemp in high school. Policy debate during first two years of college, and then IE (extemp, impromptu, persuasive, informative) during last two years of college. Taught public speaking classes to undergraduates while attending law school. Civil litigation attorney having done numerous depositions and trials as well as many pre-trial, trial and appellate arguments.
Judging Experience – In the last several years, I have judged at numerous debate (mostly parliamentary) and IE tournaments throughout the country. I judged at a few IE tournaments prior to then.
Behavior – Competitors should treat each other fairly and with courtesy and respect at all times.
Speed – While I do have experience participating in and flowing “spread” debate, my preference is for -- at most -- a relatively quick but still conversational pace. Anything faster seriously risks detracting from persuasion and comprehension.
Arguments -- One strong and well-developed argument may outweigh multiple other arguments = generally favor quality over quantity. Using metaphors and other imagery (and even sometimes a bit of well-placed humor) may strengthen your arguments. Effective weighing in the rebuttal speeches may often affect the decision.
Roadmaps And Signposting – Pre-speech roadmaps tend to be heavy on jargon and of limited use. In-speech signposting, however, can significantly facilitate the effective presentation and transition of arguments.
Points Of Information – While I value the potential impact that POIs may have, I do not have any minimum number of POIs which need to be asked or answered. I would prefer though that at least the first 1-2 reasonable POIs -- if asked -- be responded to briefly at or relatively near to the time of asking, as opposed to refusing to take any POIs or vaguely promising to respond later “if there is time.”
Points Of Order – A POO is necessary if you want me to consider whether a new argument has been made in a rebuttal speech. After the POO pro/con argument has occurred, please plan to continue the rebuttal speech since it is unlikely that I would rule on the POO before the end of the speech.
Jessica Lew-Munoz
Downtown College Preparatory El Primero
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 16, 2024 at 8:31 AM PDT
Speech & Debate Teacher Coach (2020 - Present)
DCP El Primero High School
She/Her Pronouns
Add me to your email chain: jlew-munoz@dcp.org
Personal Background
Consider me as a lay judge. Never competed in speech or debate events in high school or college. Earned a BS in Mathematics and MA in Teaching. Became a teacher coach as there is an alignment with constructing mathematical proofs and constructing logical arguments as seen in both speech and debate. Main experience teaching/judging policy debate and impromptu speech.
Policy Debate
Please, please, please …
-
Signpost and give me an off-time road map. Make it easy for me to flow.
-
Rebut/Clash. Attack your opponent's case as much as possible. So make sure to keep track of what they are saying. (FLOW!) Note: I’ll vote on dropped arguments if I catch it. Also, if there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.
-
On a similar note, weigh all arguments using impact calculus. Talk about magnitude, scope, probability, etc. Show me how the plan can either create a net positive or net negative impact on the world.
No K’s, theory, or tricks.
Nancy Lin
Leland High School
None
Stanley Lin
Palo Alto High School
None
Yifeng Lin
Homestead HS
None
Eileen Liu
The Golden State Academy
None
Jerry Liu
Monta Vista High School
None
Ron Liu
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 11:46 AM PDT
Hello, I am a parent judge that has judged in several tournaments in the past.
When speaking:
I look for the speaker to be confident, but not condescending in any way. Please do not spread, I will not accept jargon. If I can't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take notes. Please be respectful to your opponents at all times.
Argumentation:
I will evaluate arguments based on how clear and effective they are. I will not be persuaded by arguments that are not clearly backed up. I will be voting for the team with stronger arguments and impacts.
Theory:
Please do not introduce theory!
Plans:
Don't introduce any if you are a Public Forum Debater
Best of luck to everyone!
Vincent Liu
Leland High School
None
Armando Lopez
El Roble Intermediate
None
Pratibha Mangla
Speak Sustainably
None
Steven Maranowski
Archbishop Mitty
None
Shireesha Marepally
Mira Loma High School
None
Alok Mathur
Monta Vista High School
None
Neeraj Mathur
Cupertino High School
None
Samrit Mathur
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Sat November 21, 2020 at 9:43 AM EDT
Hey! I debated for BASIS Independent Silicon Valley in LD for 4 years. I currently study Psychology and Economics at Dartmouth College. My debate experience is largely limited to lay debate and I have not participated in a circuit round in forever, so please be especially clear if you're running a circuit-style case.
Speed
I consider myself fairly adept at understanding spreading, so go for it if that's your style. I'll yell clear if I can't understand what you're saying. I encourage you to slow down if you're emphasizing a major point or when crystallizing.
Argumentation
Theory: Don't be abusive and yes, I will apply a reasonability standard.
K's: I'm a huge fan of Kritiks and love discussing discourse/identity in the debate context so don't hesitate to run a K with me. Please be clear in your argument logic as I'm not familiar with many types of newer Kritiks.
Topicality: This works. Be clear on where you see a topicality violation and the impact of that.
Narratives/Performative: This works. Use a framework to establish why a narrative helps you accomplish the goals of the round.
Anything else: I'm unfamiliar with other forms of argumentation besides the ones above and standard lay arguments, so if you're going to run something else, be especially clear on your framework and I would advise you to refrain from spreading. Don't feel bad about running a standard lay case! If that's your style, you are absolutely on the same playing field as any progressive argumentation format.
Speaks
25-26: Debater was rude or abusive to the opponent.
26-27: Major improvements in clarity and delivery can be made and/or debater's arguments were non-sequitur.
27-28: Average speaker at the tournament.
28-29: Top 10% speaker at the tournament.
30: One of the best speakers I have ever seen. Top 2% at the tournament.
I do value strong communication skills and respectful competition when evaluating speaks but I will only value substance when deciding the winner of the round. Have fun and most importantly, use every round as a learning experience!
Kevin Matsumoto
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Anitha Matta
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Ghislaine Maze
Berkeley High School
None
Kapil Mehrotra
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sun February 6, 2022 at 11:32 AM PDT
I am not a professional judge, but I have been judging events for a while (as you can check from my history). My goal is to be fair and not be biased by my own opinions on the topic, race, gender, location or school name.
My request to you all, please try not to spread. If I can't capture your contentions in my notes, I will not be able to give you points for it (unless your opponent brings it up later, for me to catch up on it). So focus on quality and not on quantity.
Learn from each other and have fun.
Hrishikesh Mehta
Mission San Jose High School
None
Shawn Milligan
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Sujoy Mitra
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat January 25, 2020 at 1:17 AM PDT
I am a lay judge with 1 year of debate and speech judging experience.
Personally, I have no speech or debate experience.
I am not skilled in the technicalities of the various speech/debate events. I judge based on my perception of overall performance.
I take notes during the event.
I prefer speech events.
Shilpa Moghe
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 5:51 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. Please explain arguments thoroughly and clearly at a reasonable pace.
Phoram Moolchandani
Redwood MS
None
Austin Moon
Blue Springs South High School
None
Daniel Moreno
Edison Computech High School
None
Ignatius Mou
Washington High School
None
Raviprasad Mummidi
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Colleen Murphy
Claremont
None
Venkatesh Nagarajan
Leland High School
None
Gautam Nambiar
Mission San Jose High School
None
Richa Narang
Cupertino High School
None
Ravi Narayanan
Granite Bay High School
Last changed on
Tue September 15, 2020 at 8:52 AM PDT
Hi! I have been judging debate for the past 5 years and I would consider myself a flay judge. I look at the warranting behind an argument and how it all links together. Weighing impacts is really important to me and should be done throughout the debate. I also believe you should be a good speaker. Confidence is key because it shows me that you know what you are saying and are well prepared. Good luck! --
Dennis Natochy
The Quarry Lane School
8 rounds
None
VANDAN NAYAK
Notre Dame San Jose
8 rounds
None
Tiffany Nguyen
Notre Dame San Jose
8 rounds
None
Bindu Nimmagadda
Vrisa Speech Academy
None
Denis Nishihara
Woodcreek High School
None
Ash Olakangil
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Ed Owen
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun January 24, 2021 at 12:40 AM PDT
Relatively new judge. Have judged a few tournaments of Public Form, Lincoln-Douglas, and Policy, as well as various speech events.
Prefer medium to slower pace, but not too slow.
I will expect participants to track their time themselves unless that's not possible for some reason.
I do not have a speech and debate background. For debate, I therefore strongly recommend you avoid acronyms and short hand ("DA", "T", etc.) because I likely won't know what you're talking about.
Uma Panidapu
Nautilus Academy
None
Jung Park
Nova 42 Academy
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:37 AM PDT
I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.
What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.
Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.
Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.
Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!
Nishita Patel
Homestead HS
None
Marshal Paterson
Fremont High School
None
Anand Patil
Monta Vista High School
None
Heather Peters
Almaden Country Day School
None
Manoj Pillai
Monta Vista High School
None
Robert Prichard
Granite Bay High School
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 7:21 AM PDT
I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.
In LD the Negative must refute the Affirmative case in the first speech. An unaddressed argument in this first speech is a drop/concession. I would allow Neg to cross-apply arguments from the NC in later speeches if they naturally clash with the aff case.
P.S. I have decided that most circuit-style debate is pretty embarrassing from a performance standpoint. I think it gives competitive debate a silly aspect that undermines its credibility and therefore undermines the value of the activity. I would probably say linking into this argument would get my ballot most of the time so long as one side is not also engaging in silly debate stuff. If both sides are super silly in performance and/or argumentation. I will decide based on the most outrageous dropped argument.
Selvaraj Raghuraman
Washington High School
None
Prashant Ranade
Evergreen Valley
None
Anil Ranka
Monta Vista High School
None
Jianghong Rao
New Age Learning
Last changed on
Sun January 14, 2024 at 1:08 AM PDT
I am a parent judge.
I appreciate slower/ clearer speaking with structured arguments. Repeat your main arguments in final focus.
Prashanthi Ravi
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
RAJY RAWTHER
Vrisa Speech Academy
None
Sonali Ray
The Quarry Lane School
None
Maureen Roberts
Claremont
None
William Roberts
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sun February 14, 2021 at 1:01 PM EDT
debate: lay
interp:
I rank based on
- character development
- storyline
- commitment
- timing
- Real emotions
- message of the piece (intro)
- originality/unconventionality
Katie Rucinski
Blue Springs South High School
None
David Ruiz-Padilla
Yerba Buena High School
None
Anamika Sah
Irvington HS
None
Saikat Saha
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Thu February 10, 2022 at 12:21 PM PDT
I currently work as a Director - Product Management at Salesforce. I have worked for various software companies like Oracle, Safenet/Gemalto, and Vormetric.
I have judged various high school level debate tournaments for last six years when my sons participated debate tournaments from Monta Vista High school, Cupertino. I have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate tournaments at Santa Clara University, Stanford, James Logan MLK etc.
If there are any other questions feel free to email me at ssaha9@yahoo.com
Argumentation:
Framework
Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.
Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them.
Speed
While I an fine with speed, I prefer convincing, clear, not too fast argumentation.
Jargon
I understand most PoFo and LD debate jargons, but if there are any new ones that you think that I may not know, explain to me.
Affirmatives
Provide an in-depth analysis along with strong evidences.
Negatives
Provide powerful in-depth analysis along with strong evidences
Cross
Be respectful, examine professionally with counter points
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 12:43 PM PDT
hi all, i'm sim (she/her). currently a second year NPDA and NFA-LD competitor, i also competed in high school (mostly for Congress) at the TOC level. a little bit about my judging preferences:
parli-
1) i evaluate the flow. you can read almost any argument you want and i will do my best to ignore my biases and treat debate like the game it is.
a. at the top, this should go without saying, but don't be rude, don't be a bigot or a bully. i hate judge intervention, but you doing any of the above is grounds for intervention.
b. for speaks, i think i'm a pretty fair judge. i evaluate not based on your articulation necessarily, but on the weight of your arguments and strats. if you want better speaks, feel free to drop a giulia tofana reference somewhere lmaoo.
c. please clash. implied clash is not good enough. i won't connect the dots for you.
d. collapse. debate is like a bell curve. it should be at its most wide right in the middle, but narrow it down at the end. tell me exactly what to vote on and why.
e. impact calculus. don't forget your impacts and weighing. i don't care about your argument if it has no impacts.
e. signpost! signpost, signpost, signpost.
f. i protect against new arguments in the last two speeches, but make sure to call them out anyways.
2) speed: i can hang with most speed, so go as fast as you want. i just ask that you slow down for interps/plan texts/rob's and/or provide them to me written out. don't sacrifice clarity in favor of speed. if i can't understand you because there is no clarity and you're going 1000wpm, it might not get on the flow. in that case, tough. also, please don't try to spread out obviously inexperienced debaters. you shouldn't have to resort to speed to outdebate a novice. be inclusive!
3) theory: i'd like to think i'm pretty comfortable with most topicality and framework arguments. i'm down to vote on condo bad args, down for MG theory, don't love RVIs, default to competing interps over reasonability like 99% of the time, will totally vote on potential abuse. frivolous theory is so fun to watch so feel free to run it -- but know that you probably have to collapse to it 100% to win my vote there.
a. ivi's: unless its an ivi about an equity issue, you have to do a lot of work to convince me to vote here. this means reading an ivi as a proper shell, not as a last ditch one-line effort when you're losing on theory.
4) kritiks: i'll listen to whatever you want to read, but please explain the lit to me like i'm a five year old. i understand some authors (marx, kant, fanon, tuck and yang), but for most of them i'm probably lost. i'm not much of a k debater myself, but i'll do my best to evaluate.
--
LD
pls share the speechdrop. for the love of debate, don't forget to flash ALL the positions you're reading and don't drop the wrong doc. i am not familiar with the topics or what people are reading rn, so telling me your aff is the most common aff on the circuit in response to t won't really be helpful.
other than that, i generally evaluate ld in a fairly similar style to parli.
Ganapathy Sankar
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:57 PM PDT
Parent Judge:
Don't spread, make sure to make your arguments clear.
All responses to constructive must be in rebuttal. If an argument is not extended through FF & Summary, then it won't count. Make sure to frontline your defense against the opponents through all speeches as well.
Sign post
ganu.sankar@gmail.com -- add to the email chain
kavita sankhe
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Shital Savarkar
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:45 PM EDT
I am Parent Judge and I have experience in judging LD and PF for about 3 years. I like crisp and clear speaking during debate. Fast or slow does not matter as long as I can understand. I prefer to listen to actual facts rather than just theory. Please be respectful of your opponents. Off-time roadmaps helps me while judging and I believe will help the candidates also from speaker point of view.
Please introduce yourself and introduce topic in 1-2 sentence .
Arguments- Back them up with good evidence, data , analysis.
Cross fire- Be respectful and stick to the points
Speaker points - Clear concise with moderate pace speaking , good performance in crossfire will get highest speaker points.
Enjoy debate and have fun.
Please reach out to me if you have any questions.
Jean Schoonover
The Quarry Lane School
None
D'Ana Seivert
Woodcreek High School
None
Monica Shah
Monta Vista High School
None
Rajesh Shah
Cupertino High School
None
Rana Shamoun
Irvington HS
None
SIVARAJ SHANMUGHAM
The Golden State Academy
None
Maryam Shapland
El Cerrito
None
Masoud Sharbiani
Leland High School
None
Anubhav Sharma
Mission San Jose High School
None
Priyanka Sharma
Mission San Jose High School
None
Dhimant Shelat
Granite Bay High School
None
Sarah Sherwood
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:56 AM PDT
UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update
I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.
Congress
Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.
POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.
Public Forum
- I know how to flow and will flow.
- This means I require a road map.
- I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
- I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
- I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
- Be strategic and make good life choices.
- Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
- I will vote on case turns.
- I will call for cards if it comes down to it.
Policy Debate
I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.
LD Debate
Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.
Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.
Sunil Sheshadri
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Vachana Shigehalli
Mission San Jose High School
None
Sydney Shoell
The Harker School
None
Shailley Singh
Redwood MS
None
Anoop Singhal
Cupertino High School
None
Ajay Singhani
Evergreen Valley
None
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 12:22 PM EDT
Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.
Vamsi Soma
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 3:00 PM PDT
I am a lay judge. I expect everyone to be courteous and polite. Speak at a moderate speed and always show good sportsmanship and. Thank You!
Cecilia Son
Orange County School of the Arts
None
Deepa Soundararajan
Irvington HS
None
Shruti Srinath
Archbishop Mitty
None
Lynbrook-Sripriya Srinivasaraghavan
Lynbrook HS
None
Andrew Steele
The Harker School
None
Simona Strauss
Palo Alto High School
None
Carole Such
Archbishop Mitty
None
Xiaotian Sun
Redwood MS
None
Beaula Surendranath
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Madurya Suresh
Archbishop Mitty
None
Smitha Sureshbabu
Cupertino High School
None
Gabrielle Szatkowski
The Harker School
Last changed on
Fri September 25, 2020 at 7:51 PM EDT
Hi! I'm Wellesley '24.
email: gs103@wellesley.edu (add me to the link chain)
pronouns: she/her/hers
I didn't do speech/debate in HS so I have minimal experience in all the events.
Debate Preferences:
- Speak clearly/slowly
- I give speaks based on argumentation but one exception is that I will not tolerate any sexist, homophobic, racist or condescending action in round (that warrants < 25 and being reported to tab).
- If you read a trigger warning, please provide an anonymous out (google form etc) for everyone in the room (me, opponents, spectators). If you simply ask if it's okay to read the argument, I will say I feel uncomfortable regardless of the argument to ensure that there is a safe space.
- Do not run anything super technical without explaining it to me like you would a parent judge and please try to limit jargon!
If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, let me know!
Nathalie Tan
Palo Alto High School
None
Lynbrook-Rama Taraniganty
Lynbrook HS
None
Sheraz Tariq
The Quarry Lane School
None
Hiten Thakkar
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
Last changed on
Wed February 3, 2021 at 12:09 AM PDT
I have judged a couple of tournaments and have no debate experience myself. When judging, I look for powerful delivery, insightful analysis and ease of handling questions.
1. Do not spread, or I won't keep up. Do not sacrifice your clarity, otherwise I will miss the main point of argument.
2. Kindly Always be respectful to your opponent.
3. Please Keep a clear and consistent narrative throughout the entire round. All the Best!
Srinivasan Thittai
Washington High School
None
Tesline Thomas
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Adreanna Tirone
Woodcreek High School
None
Tanya Tran
Evergreen Valley
None
Son Trinh
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun September 19, 2021 at 3:55 AM MST
Hello
I am a flay judge, meaning I look both at the arguments debated as well as the delivery and how you persuade me. You might want to go lay to be safe. Speed is not a problem as long as you talk loud and clearly but this does not mean you should talk extremely fast.
For me it’s extremely important starting summary and in later speeches to frontline, weigh, and have good offense. Very simply I pay close attention to how you refute your opponents arguments and emphasize your own. Although I do listen I will flow beginning speeches roughly but it boils down to the clash later on. You will win my vote if you can do all that while making it very clear, clean why I should vote for you. This means don’t jump back and forth between your case and opponents in summary. In final focus paint me a story on why you should win.
I do not flow cross but I do listen and think it’s important. I will mark you down if you are rude during cross so just be polite. I do not like it if you are looking around the room or playing with your hair instead of paying attention to the round but it doesn’t impact my decision. I am a truth over tech judge but if you can explain well, I can become tech over truth. I don't know anything on theory/K's/framework, so it is not be the best decision to run that in round.
I look forward to seeing you debate, and please be civil and have fun. I hope this helps, and if you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask!
Alex Van Riesen
Palo Alto High School
None
Gokul Velayoudame
Mission San Jose High School
None
Sudheer Vemula
Cupertino High School
None
MaryAnn Vernooy
Archbishop Mitty
None
Janiel Victorino
QD Learning
Last changed on
Sun March 24, 2024 at 1:13 PM PDT
I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.
9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.
I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.
_____
Ballot Style:
Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.
Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]
I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.
Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there
Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.
RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)
Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!
I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.
(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)
Janet Waddell
Velásquez-Liangyi Leadership Academy
None
Adhar Walia
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:33 AM PDT
I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.
Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.
I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.
Speech
It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).
Kritik
Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.
Etiquette
Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.
Speed
I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.
Other
I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.
Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!
Maggie Wang
Leland High School
None
Weijia Wang
Valley Speech
None
Melinda Warren
Claremont
None
matt weis
El Roble Intermediate
None
Anna-Maria White
Westmont
None
Margaret Winch
Sacramento Waldorf High School
Last changed on
Fri April 2, 2021 at 10:59 AM PDT
I am an old-school policy debater, turned judge. I do flow and follow argument strings well, so make sure you provide well-developed arguments backed by substantive evidence.
Moderate spreading is fine, but you must be intelligible and clear. Remember, if the judge can't follow you and you don't build strong logic, doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you have or read. I'm going to reemphasize this: If you make debate about rapid reading of abbreviated evidence, and you don't enunciate and use persuasive speaking, I won't flow. Whether LD or Policy, debate is NOT a statistical exercise where you ask a judge to understand Aff-world or Neg-world with rapid fire jargon and unintellible speech. It is a fast-paced, articulate PERSUASIVE artform that is used across the social, economic, and political realms. The faster you learn this, the more successful you will be.
I know the rules, and I expect you to follow them relative to case/plan and no new arguments in rebuttals. You are better off having two or three really strong arguments vs. reading a bulk of evidence with no point. I appreciate a good topicality argument, but make it clear vs. just throwing around the terms. I have read many of the purchased cases and plans; use them at your peril. If you don't understand the argument you are making, that's problematic. And, bad evidence is still bad evidence....check your sources; I do. That said, a well-crafted evidence challenge must be made before I'll vote on evidence (I can't make the argument for you).
In IEs, I look for a combination of well-organized content, clearly articulated claim statements, and compelling delivering.
In my job, I'm a professional speech coach for corporate clients, so I have high standards for speakers. I look for competitors to be professional, clear, and prepared. Oh, and in all events, you must be kind - even in debate. Kindness and politeness are prerequisites for being perceived as professional. Thanks to all of you who work hard to learn your events and do well; thank you for being prepared and gracious.
Hannah Xian
New Age Learning
None
Last changed on
Thu October 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM PDT
I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.
Binwei Yang
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Hongli Yang
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 10:57 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging IE. I award speaker points based on how well I can understand you. So please speak with clarity and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend.
Good luck and have fun!
Tong Yin
Mission San Jose High School
Last changed on
Sat September 26, 2020 at 5:57 AM PDT
Parent judge (lay) - no judging experience
Contact: sally0628@gmail.com
Hi,
As a parent judge with no prior experience, I'll try to be as objective as possible in my judging. I also consider myself as an encouraging person, and I hope that you'll find it helpful while you compete. Here are several things that I will be looking for in your debate:
- Evidence: use facts and data to support your statements or conclusions.
- Clarity: don't speak too fast, I may not be able to get all your points; structure is important, make it easy to follow.
- Respect: respect your opponent by listen attentively; do not try to distract with unnecessary facial expressions or body languages.
Good luck and I hope that you will all do your best!
Tong
Lynbrook-Jingping Zhang
Lynbrook HS
None
Ping Zhang
Evergreen Valley
None
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 5:05 AM PDT
Firstly - please do not spread: debate is for education and logic, speaking fast not only doesn't enhance that, but may detriment what education can be produced for both sides. I would prefer you speak slower as that gives both me and the opponents a deeper understanding of what you are truly saying.
In terms of other delivery, use proper articulation, tone, and I take into consideration a large amount of delivery skills such as nonverbal body language and tone (especially in speaker points).
I feel the need to put the disclaimer that I have trouble buying K's, as I was not extremely well-versed in kritikal debate, especially as it is something arguably more recently surfaced.
With this being said, I understand that kritikal arguments are a mechanism for debaters to spread these advocacies, however, I may not understand this post-fiat advocacy enough to have a crystal clear ballot, which makes voting quite hard.
Kritikal arguments are on one spectrum of technical arguments that I may not know well enough about to buy (as once again, K's were never a thing back then, and have become more usable after the pandemic, etc. so I am still learning), and am not likely to buy it under these given circumstances.
Some other tech args that fall along the same lines of the ["please don't run, I will not understand/buy and it will only frustrate you"] radar are things like Friv T, which is very harmful to real education and ends up becoming annoying. In general anything that seems "quirky" and reflects in opposition to more traditional Parliamentary formats will be looked down upon. So once again, please do not run them as I will be very saddened, and refer to using the fundamental debate structure as the AFF/NEG.
I will protect the debate space first and foremost. Do NOT use personal attacks, homophobia, racism, misgendering, transphobia, etc. as there is 0 tolerance for this especially in the debate space where we are here to learn. I won't regulate how you choose to debate as long as debaters handle themselves accordingly with reason to rules, speech time (including grace period within reason), respect, etc. but if blatant violations occur or are brought up, I will step in.
Please adhere to well-delivered, logically sound arguments, clash, and impacts and evidence that are reasonable, warranted, and supported. Arguments are meant to make sense. Don't say a bunch of evidence with no purpose or logic to analyze and tie it back, after all, although numbers may sound good, if there is no real argument, it's much easier for me to rely on analytics that truly are well-explained and link chains that make sense.
I am tabula rasa, meaning that I will not produce exterior knowledge or factor-in outside opinions when making my ballot. At the end of the day, I will flow what you and the opponents tell me, and how you clash, rather than my own opinions (no matter if I agree or disagree).
I evaluate arguments partially on their presentation and how they are delivered, but also the ways they are explained and logically backed upwith evidence and analysis.
Clash is vital, as that is where we can learn and discuss, so please use your ground and weigh clash and impacts. At the end of the day I shouldn't have to guess or gamble who wins the round, you should be using proper impact calculus and weighing of impacts to tell me why/who wins. With that being said, I expect debaters to warrant their evidence and actually explain it in their constructive, or in rebuttal when refuting. In addition, please signpost clearly, it makes flowing and understanding your points much easier.
In terms of framework, there are tight burdens to ensure AFF has set topical, reasonable, and agreed upon framework. If you fail the burden of framework as the AFF, it will make it very difficult to regain feasible ideas of your advocacy, as your side, as well as the entire round, is lacking any real image, weather it be a lack of definitions, clarity, weighing, plan (and plan specifications such as timeframe), etc. Once again, because I try to be tabula rasa, losing framework basically makes me unable to evaluate the following speeches properly or until framework is set.
In terms of counterplans, I find some CPs to be slightly confusing especially depending on the context of the round (or if the round is loaded with more niche topics). With that being said, you can still run a CP, just at your own risk. My largest requirement for a CP is that it has to be very very well explained, given all the framework and elements that I would expect from the AFF, presented in the first NEG speech, and must be shown to pass the test of perm to be both better and competitive.
I am also aware that PIC's are a form of CP's, however, many debaters fail to distinguish to two well, making them more confusing. At the end of the day, if you can explain them well, I will try my best to evaluate them, however, if I am left confused and to guess the perm, then I will be discouraged from voting for it (given that the AFF has substantial points against it). Once again, I don't want to have to "guess" who wins, so the same applies for any CP advocacy.
Finally, if you have any questions about my paradigm, other things that were not explicitly listed under this paradigm, or just questions in general, feel free to ask before the round (in reasonable time)! I will try my best to answer all questions.
Lastly, debate is a very prestigious art and sport, so despite being caught up with all the chains and dedications of it, don't forget to have fun! Good luck all.
Ji Zhou
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sun February 14, 2021 at 11:03 AM PDT
Email: zhouji@gmail.com
I judge on framework, refutations, extensions and impacts.
Spreading is fine as long as you speak clearly. I will flow all that I can understand.
Crystallization improves clarity and is highly preferred.
Lynbrook-Zhaohui Zhu
Lynbrook HS
None