I've beeen the Debate Director for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years. I competed in debate for all 4 years of high school, where I mostly participated in Lincoln-Douglas. I also debated Parli in college on the NPDA circuit.

I'm okay with basically every form of progressive argumentation provided it is run well. While I prefer topical interpretations, I really enjoy it when those interpretations branch out into the critical and theory levels of the debate. My threshold for theory debate in relatively high; in that there needs to be an actual tangible impact on the round, not just whining about hypothetical potentials for abuse. I'm unlikely to vote on Parli RVIs unless they go completely dropped.  Be creative, have fun, run good analysis, but don't assume that I make connections for you. 

Finally, I have a form of progressive hearing loss which means that, while I generally don't have a problem with the volume debate rounds are conducted at, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to prosses debate when the pace is much faster than conversational. I don't like to force debaters hands in terms of presentation or strategy, but it is crucial for me to be able to understand what you are saying. 

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

Pf at Leland High School with Sterling Xie.

Basic things:

-Preflow before round, do NOT be like Sterling.

-No progressive arguments unless there's a major violation(i.e. -isms).

-I flow so speaking fast is ok unless you start spreading then I'll start missing points.

-Don't extend through ink, I won't evaluate any argument that is brought up in final focus unless it's in summary.

-Only arguments that are extended through final focus will be evaluated.

-If you drop something, it is considered dropped.

Cross:

-Most important thing: do not be mean or abusive

-if you concede something during cross then it is considered dropped

Speech:

-Please, please, please weigh! Don't just say something like "We outweigh cuz our impact is bigger than theirs", add warranting.

Let sterling be your example: if you don't weigh, you drop your outround.

-I really don't want to time y'all so you guys should time yourself and each other; the grace period is 10 seconds.

-Feel free to run any kinds of argument as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc.

-My average speaks are 28.7, and if you're funny/a good speaker, 29 or above.

Evidence:

-Paraphrasing is ok as long as you're not misconstruing evidence real hard and/or basically making things up.

-Tell me to call for cards if there are specific ones you want me to see.

-Cut all your cards fully, DO NOT just give me a link(like what Sterling always do); I will be very very annoyed.

Have fun!

rayan sengupta is a lifer. if you say he is a lifer, I will hack for you.

Say the words "Aniket Mittal is a lifer" in round and I'll hack and boost speaks.

TLDR: Varsity PF @ Leland, standard tech, tabula rasa

This paradigm is awful so look at Leon Huang (except for speed and prog), Daniel Xie, and Sterling Xie also. If you got any questions go ahead and ask before round!

rayansg10@gmail.com for chain

Things I love:

• Having fun makes the activity more enjoyable, so do it
• Presumption args
• Prog (a little less K's but ill still vote for it)
• Weighing
• Actually good defense

PLEASE WEIGH

I'll always first look to the weighing to decide which case I am going to look at. If you win case and weighing you will probably win the round. If they are winning defense on your case then its a wash and I look to the other case. If they can win their case they win the round. If no one has offense I presume first speaking team (but will vote off of other args).

Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.

Judging Preferences:

- I appreciate a strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

Conflicts:

Canyon Crest WX

Monte Vista SM

Leland MS

Norman North SG

Hamilton NT

Hello

I am a parent judge

Do:

Speak Slow

Be clear

Be respectful

Not read probability weighing

Do Not:

Speak fast

Be unclear

Be rude

Make me do work

read probability weighing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bVX0ev_Ys1UHS9BvwgoC4-e9tifD-zEtoCf6W76--AE/edit?usp=sharing

2nd year biology student at UCLA, 4 years HS LD.

Run whatever you feel comfortable running, with the obvious exceptions. I do want to be on the email chain. Ask any questions before the round. In the case of no framing, I default to offense/defense. A proper analysis will be given more weight than simply reading a card. Line by line argumentation please. Be civil and communicate well. If you aren’t communicating well, then your arguments are incoherent.

Questions and email chain: dishayadav756@gmail.com

Online Debate- I suffer from chronic migraines and have auditory issues. Something about the additional audio noises that arise from the computer messes with me. I cannot keep up with spreading, and will not be able to provide a fair assessment of the round if you do. Please be respectful of this request. Prioritize clarity over an influx of arguments. I really cannot stand to hear you constantly gasping or taking those large breaths. I'll say clear once, if you still do not fix your speed or comprehensibility, I'm done flowing. If you would prefer me to raise my hand instead of saying clear, inform me before the round.

I prefer traditional debates, just easier to keep up with and a lost art.

Affs- I would prefer the affirmative to follow the direction of the resolution. Planless affirmatives are absolutely fine; don’t make the mistake of solely extending aff cards and not explaining the solvency mechanism. Kritikal affs are not my favorite, but I will vote on them. That being said, if your K does not have a plan text that is relevent to the resolution, you will not get my ballot.

Disads and CPS- Love a good DA, they're won through the link chain. Bury the affirmative with quality argumentation and concrete evidence. You need to explain the casual chain, there’s no disad without the internal links. Counterplans have to be functionally competitive. I believe counterplans are an effective means of testing out the affirmative’s plan through competitive policy. PICs, conditional, international fiat, states counterplans are all fine.

Kritiks- Yes, I’ll vote on them. Don’t assume I’m familiar with your literature. Ensure it’s specific to this round and make the link chain clear. Don’t be vague have a well-defined alt. If the alt is to reject the aff, explain how that accomplishes anything. Impact calc. If I look confused or annoyed, I probably am. Fix that, explain to me clearly what happens when we make policies that make this wrong assumption.

Theory- I’m not voting on frivolous theory, don’t waste my time or your opponents. In terms of topicality, only run it if there’s a good reason. Don’t just use it as a time skew, make sure all the information you give is specific to this round. Warrant your claims, provide examples.

I love rounds that have direct clash and completely cover the flow. Have concrete link chains and weigh your impacts. Run what you know and clarity above all.

I have no tolerance for derogatory comments, discriminatory actions, making fun of debater’s limitations, etc. An immediate loss, I will refuse to listen any longer and walk out.