John Lewis SVUDL Invitational formerly SCU DempseyCronin
2021
—
NSDA Campus,
CA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Rashmi Agarwal
Athens Debate
None
Harish Ananthamurthy
Leland High School
None
Soumaya Arfi
Palo Alto High School
None
Muhammad Asif
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Suresh Balasubramanian
Stratagem Learning
Last changed on
Tue February 5, 2019 at 2:46 PM PDT
Please don't spread
Well constructed arguments will always win me over compared to aggressive behavior
Brittany Berg
El Roble Intermediate
None
Sanjay Bhatia
Washington High School
None
Mayank Bhatnagar
Irvington High School
None
Dhiman Bhattacharjee
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 3:20 AM PDT
I am a parent judge new to speech and debate, expecting students to speak slowly and clearly. Please just assume that I would sometimes know about the topic beforehand. In addition, I might need students to explain their voting issues clearly.
Rajasekhar Bhogi
Irvington High School
None
Kalyani Boyapati
Velásquez Academy
None
Ian Buck
Almaden Country Day School
None
David Chamberlain
Claremont
Last changed on
Tue May 21, 2024 at 12:37 PM PDT
David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
25 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.
In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.
In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.
In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.
Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.
Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.
Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.
Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".
Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.
Jennet Chan
Leland High School
None
Nagaraj Chekka
Monta Vista High School
None
Ivy Cheung
Archbishop Mitty
None
Prasad Chivakula
Leland High School
None
June Choi
Sunset High School
Last changed on
Sat December 4, 2021 at 9:50 PM PDT
Hey everyone, I am a parent judge approaching three years of experience in both debate and speech.
-
I am a standard tech > truth flow judge (meaning that I will write down everything you say, even if it’s illogical). That being said, it’s your responsibility to address the fact that your opponents are running something very illogical if it happens
-
Signpost. Tell me what contention you will be refuting/defending at all times - this makes it so much easier for me to effectively judge
-
In the case of a prepared debate, be sure to cite evidence for your claims, but also have the logic for why it is true. Debate is both evidence and logic-based, and I expect to see both
-
Lastly but most importantly, please keep your arguments at a reasonable speed. If I can’t understand what you’re saying then I won’t be able to flow it
Raymond Chu
Cupertino High School
None
Ailin Chuang
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 8:42 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year of judging debate. I strongly prefer that you speak slowly and clearly and emphasize the important arguments in the round.
Ambrose Commissariat
Homestead HS
Last changed on
Sat October 26, 2019 at 3:27 AM PDT
Hi All,
This is the first time I'm judging a youth contest.
I have been judging Toastmasters Speeches for sometime now.
Ambrose Hormaz Commissariat
Maribelle Cruz
Notre Dame San Jose
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 7:11 AM PDT
I have been a judge associated with Notre Dame High School since 2018 as my older sister is the director of speech and debate there. Tournaments I have judged include invitationals and state qualifiers. My experience includes debate events such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas, as well as interpretative, oratory and extemporaneous speech events. My debate judging style focuses on the value criteria of net benefit or maximizing welfare. If I feel the proposal would potentially do more harm than good compared to the status quo, I would vote for the negative. If the proposal seems to be more beneficial compared to the status quo, I would vote for the affirmative.
Lihui Cui
Athens Debate
8 rounds
None
Kathleen Damarillo
Archbishop Mitty
None
Karunakar Dasineni
Cupertino High School
None
Fazalur Davanagere
Washington High School
None
Lindsay Denton
Downtown College Preparatory El Primero
8 rounds
None
Lynbrook-Madhura Deo
Lynbrook HS
None
Pankil Desai
Monta Vista High School
None
Leelavathy Dhanasekaran
Irvington High School
None
Anu DiCarlo
Cupertino High School
None
Mohammed Djebroun
Leland High School
None
Frank Du
Monta Vista High School
None
Taisia Dubinina
Speech and Debate Academy
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 5:24 AM PDT
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
Fred Feller
Berkeley High School
8 rounds
None
Carolyn Day Flowers
El Cerrito
None
Sanjay Garimella
Monta Vista High School
None
Anjali George
Monta Vista High School
None
Parama Ghosh
Monta Vista High School
None
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 4:54 AM PDT
I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!
Manoj Gopalasetty
Monta Vista High School
None
anand govind
Los Altos High School
None
Ellen Greenblatt
Berkeley High School
8 rounds
None
Lorraine Greene
Almaden Country Day School
None
Sandhya Gundala
Speech and Debate Academy
None
Jan Guo
The Golden State Academy
None
Ankur Gupta
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Sun April 7, 2019 at 5:39 AM PDT
An avid debater - both extempore and prepared during my younger days.
Winner of the Inter Collegiate debates during my engineering and business school day.
This is my first formal year of judging both speech and debate events and I love providing constructive feedback to all participants that can help them with their future rounds.
Interest in wide ranging topics including technology, psychology, politics and current affairs, sports, cinema and visual arts ... Avid sportsperson and an enthusiast, Coach and Mentor for Robotics and Odyssey of the Mind teams !!
Lynbrook-Shivani Gupta
Lynbrook HS
None
Hamid Habibvand
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 1:10 PM PDT
I'm a parent judge and have only judged a few rounds of public forum and policy debate. Please present your arguments in a clear and concise manner, keep speed to a medium/slow pace if possible. The most important part of debate to me is responding to the opponent's arguments while also defending your own key points. I also value delivery and emphasis, as well as respect for your fellow competitors.
Keeyong Han
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 11:41 PM PDT
You can reach me at keeyonghan@hotmail.com (add me to email chains if you can!)
For debate specifically, I'm extremely lay — try to explain clearly and guide me through arguments carefully. Speak at a conversational pace — trying to cram in tons of different arguments doesn't appeal to me. By the last few speeches, you should be focusing on one or two specific issues in the debate. Cross-examination is important! Don't just ask clarifying questions, be sure to add follow-ups.
David Hensley
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Christina Hill
New Roads School
None
Ernest Ho
Leland High School
None
Mang-rong Ho
Leland High School
None
Brendan Houlihan
Granite Bay High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 3:17 PM PDT
I’m a parent/lay judge.
The debate isn’t about right or wrong, or even about your belief in the merits of the resolution. It’s about convincing a third party that your side should win. Give them a roadmap to your side. To do that, make clear points and sign posts. Keep this roadmap simple, fewer but better arguments. Tell the judge the direction not to go with good rebuttals.
When giving these roadmap directions, remember the main point of communication- the other person needs to understand you. Keep your speech at an understandable moderate pace.
Enjoy your time here.
Peter Hu
New Age Learning
None
Yuna Hu
Monta Vista High School
None
XU HUANG
Leland High School
None
Carolyn Hughes
Archbishop Mitty
None
Mubashir Hussain
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Claudia Hyun
Nova 42 Academy
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:35 AM PDT
LD Paradigm
While I was a PF debater all throughout high school, I only have ~1 year of experience judging LD. I am familiar with common, traditional jargon used in debate, but am not familiar with the more in-depth strategies, which means that I will default to who has the best arguments/framework with robust impact analysis and effective counterarguments.
Speed
It is the debater's burden to make sure that 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 -- whoever has the most consistent flow-through and coverage will likely have the advantage.
Speaker Points
The quality of arguments alone does not impact speaker points, but the better you explain your arguments, your speaks are likely to improve.
As stated earlier, I do not take points off for speed, but if you lack fluency or clarity, your points will be docked.
Hyunjung Im
Wilcox High School
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 12:51 PM PDT
This is my second time being a judge, but first in LD. I would prefer it if you could talk in a calm manner without speaking too fast. It’s fine if you go overtime by a few seconds.
Priyanka Inani
Monta Vista High School
None
Rupa Iyer
Irvington High School
None
Dilip Jain
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:51 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I've judged mainly lay Policy for the last 3 1/2 years. I prefer usage of stock issues. Please do not spread or read Ks with me.
Vanita Jain
Monta Vista High School
None
Kiran Jasti
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sun March 26, 2023 at 5:57 AM PDT
Please speak at moderate speed and be very clear on contentions and subpoints.
Please be respectful during CX
Rebecca Jessop
Palos Verdes High School Speech and Debate Team
Last changed on
Sat January 23, 2021 at 12:26 AM PDT
I am the Advisor for our Speech and Debate team and a judge with one year of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. Please be respectful during the round.
Haiwen Jiang
Leland High School
None
malathi jivan
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!
Sukchan Kang
Leland High School
None
Chrishma Karkada
Wilcox High School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT
Hey guys,
LD
I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:
-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.
-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.
-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.
-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.
-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:
-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.
-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.
-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this
-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this
EXTEMP
I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.
I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.
I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10
Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!
As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.
Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.
Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!
Oleh Karpenko
Leland High School
None
Vinita Karumuru
Sunset High School
None
Raana Kashani
Leland High School
None
Harpreet Kaur
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Wed November 8, 2023 at 9:40 AM PDT
I’m a lay judge, so Please explain your arguments very clearly. I am looking for logic, evidence, and analysis in arguments. And don’t forget to have Fun!!
Alex Kim
Cogito Debate
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat November 20, 2021 at 7:40 AM PDT
What I prefer:
-TYPE OUT PLANS IN CHAT (counterplans and alts too)
CLEAR STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION IS A MUST! Give me any type of roadmap and FOLLOW it so I can flow.
-All of your impacts should have relatable explanation; ensure that your impacts are relatable to your judge and audience.
-Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
-Clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view and judge the round).
-Plans and counterplans are great, but if you're using mandates, I prefer ones that have been done before (in the news, or have at least been proposed) instead of some random plan that you think is good.
-Round Etiquette: I will call you out and stop your speech if you go beyond 10 seconds past your allotted time and speaking over your time will of course lower your points. Be mindful of rudeness towards other debaters as well as to your judge.
-Style: I like clear speaking, good reasoning, and good logic. I especially love when debaters show more animation in their voices, but nothing too over the top is necessary.
What I don't like:
-FILLER WORDS/pausing your speech to make a side comment (verbally checking the time, clearly reading communication from your partner non-discreetly, the list truly goes on) will absolutely detract me away from flowing your speech
-Pacing- I am fine with however fast you wish to speak, I will be able to flow. However, if your opponent asks you to slow down, then listen and slow down- be accessible.
-Dropped arguments
-New arguments in rebuttals- even if your opponent does not call you out, I do not like them and will notice.
In Pyo Kim
Leland High School
None
V Krishnamoorthy
Monta Vista High School
None
Lalitha Krishnan
Monta Vista High School
None
Parthipan Krishnasamy
Monta Vista High School
None
Milind Kulkarni
Leland High School
None
Satish Kulkarni
Leland High School
None
Lia Lacky
El Cerrito
None
Bhrett Lash
El Cerrito
None
Kenneth Lee
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Mon November 15, 2021 at 7:22 AM PDT
New to speech as a competitive event, but lots of experience in my professional life.
I look for well-supported positions rather than vague, generalized assertions that lack citable authority.
I think if you're having fun and enjoying yourself, it comes through in your speaking. You've already done the work, now it's time to go with it and let yourself shine! So I say relax, and let the judges see a genuine and authentic delivery. Just be yourself!
Kujin Lee
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Sun January 30, 2022 at 2:11 PM PDT
Hi, I am a novice judge and I found that it isn't easy to understand storylines of interpretive speeches. I would appreciate a clear and easy to understand delivery.
Vivian Lee
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:49 AM MDT
if you want to add me on the email chain at leevivian859@yahoo.com
the UBER basics -
use humor, be bold, and have fun!!
Just explain links well, I am fine with wonky arguments as long as they're logical, & tabula rasa
if you use racist, ableist, sexist language I will be very upset
please don't interrupt your partner in cross, also let your opponents answer your questions lol
I did policy, pf, speech, oh and I do british parli and speech in college at the U of U
I go by she/her/hers
pretty basic right ...
policy/debate in depth -
the K debate, I am a huge fan of it. I enjoy a good K debate, just make sure you're prepped for fw and T. I am not a huge fan of voting for T against K, but will do it if ya know needed. I think that lots of the K's I have seen this year aren't linking to the motion very well, neg in specific hasn't been linking to the affirmative . SO like please just make it a clean debate for everyone in the room.Debate is supposed to be a safe space, mentally as well. I can follow most args, I do personally believe debate should be a space to have a voice and be advantageous of this unique space ie identity politics and what not. I do not like to see identity or traits of a case/person used or commodified to win the ballot.
oh if ur alt is rage pls give me a headsup but I am still 100% okay with running it. I just wanna know ahead of time lol
Topicality- I think t debates are good, although procedurals aren't my favorite form of debate. if youre going to read t, read it offensively not for a time suck. I won't vote on it if there aren't violations or voters/reasons to prefer. easy right. oh t is always an a priori issue
t- theory I think theory is always good, it brings a little fun to debate. once again there needs to be a reason its read, not just because you wanna
politics da, if your da is a year old its prolly too old. things are changing, so these da's need to be following what is going on or being relevant.
cp - for this topic specific I don't really like the parole cp, I think courts makes more sense, but once again you do you. I am fine with whatever. so perms in this topic are a little funky, bc its still something you should do going against one.
whatever other da. like cool, I get it, go for it. Gotta go for some basics right. OHH if you read a meme da and it makes me laugh, higher speaks to you, and if its good even more kudos. (this doesn't mean you should read it because you think ill like it more or whatever, I just have this because encase YOU want to run it, that's okay)
pls do voters/rob I do listen to those and heavily weigh it out. I am fine with tag team cross x, I love performances, and clash. clash. clash.
if case goes uncontested, I usually pay heavy attention to that. make sure youre clashing with the case, why its bad, why it won't work, at least something pls.
if you have more questions about pls ask.
ok 👠still kinda simple paradigm lol I know
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.
Ji Li
Leland High School
None
Nan Li
Irvington High School
None
Rui Lin
Leland High School
None
Sridhar Lingam
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:14 AM PDT
Hello Everyone,
I have been volunteering as a parent judge in S&D tournaments for the last 5 years. My personal beliefs border on moderate philosophy. I am very open to listening to arguments on either side of the spectrum and I especially like the ones that are logical and convincing. I don't like it when people speak too fast since most of them are trying to scram in a bunch of arguments at the same time which otherwise don't stand on their own.
I also like the flow of the speeches, a simple and easy to understand structure, and, the ones that follow the time requirements.
David Liu
Palo Alto 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!
Tom Liu
Leland High School
None
Vincent Liu
Leland High School
None
Tiffany Gee Ching Lo
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat January 15, 2022 at 12:22 PM PDT
Speech: I appreciate variation in tone and facial expressions. Really feel and believe in what you are saying.
Debate: Be clear and weigh your impacts. Roadmapping and signposting are helpful. I am more of a lay-style judge.
Ranjani Lobo
Archbishop Mitty
None
Last changed on
Tue January 16, 2024 at 7:43 AM PDT
Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com
TL;DR If you run Ks in anything other than LD, you probably want to strike me. If you run performances or non-topical Affs in any debate event, you definitely want to strike me.
Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.
General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list several argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments.
Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.
Lincoln-Douglas Note: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.).
Style: Keep roadmaps short and off-time. I can’t handle TOC-level speed, but feel free to speak much faster with me than you would with any lay judge. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I have to do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using excessive speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.
Speaker Points: I reward you for
- signposting THOROUGHLY
- impact and warrant comparisons
- being courteous
- being strategic
- being efficient
- being witty/humorous
Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.
Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on either. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.
Kritiks: Unlikely to vote for most, as it's hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework. I will not usually vote for kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them. If you’re blatantly using Ks to exclude debaters with a more traditional style, you’re going to lose.
Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.
Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.
Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.
Other
- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.
- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"
- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.
- I’ll disclose at every tournament where it’s allowed. If it’s not allowed, I’ll still give oral critiques after the round, if time permits. Whether I’m giving an RFD or not, don’t be afraid to challenge me on anything I say. We can’t learn if we can’t have a discussion.
Cheng Lu
Leland High School
None
Shengyong Lu
Foothill High School
Last changed on
Wed November 17, 2021 at 10:40 AM PDT
I do not have any competitive speaking experience, and I am a parent judge. For IE, I look mostly at delivery and presentation. Please speak clearly especially since this will be online and audio cuts may occur. You've prepared for this for a long time, so please be confident and good luck!
Pehr Luedtke
Crystal Springs Uplands School
Last changed on
Fri March 29, 2019 at 4:20 AM PDT
I look forward to judging your debate.
I am not a debater myself, but I do enjoy discourse and active discussion. In particular, here are several areas that I will react to well, and several that I will not.
Likes:
- Signposting
- Clash
- Statistics
- Willingness to take a side and argue a POV that may not be the popular or "en vogue" perspective
Dislikes:
- Running theory - stick to the issue that you were given, don't try to create theory around it
- Debate jargon
- Being disrespectful to me or your opponents
Good luck!
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:30 AM EDT
I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.
Amrita Maliwal
American High
None
Rajesh Mani
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri October 7, 2022 at 9:40 AM PDT
I am a parent judge who has had experience for the past 3 years. Please don't spread.
Policy:
I would prefer it if you debate using stock issues (harms, solvency, DA, etc). Please make substantive arguments that can win you the debate.
LD:
I am looking for clarity of thought, structured and substantive arguments (where you keep track of and rebut your opponent's argument), and effective cross-examination.
Please explain why the reasons you have won at the end of the debate.
Good luck to all competitors.
Alok Mathur
Monta Vista High School
None
Neeraj Mathur
Cupertino High School
None
Craig Matsumoto
Archbishop Mitty
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.
Dipa Mehta
Archbishop Mitty
None
Parag Mehta
Leland High School
None
Karina Michaels
Cogito Debate
None
Manoj Mishra
Cupertino High School
None
Percy Mistry
Leland High School
None
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.
Majid Mombini
Leland High School
None
Shweta Mukker
The Golden State Academy
None
Raviprasad Mummidi
Speech and Debate Academy
None
Lynbrook-Rashmi Murthy
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Fri February 14, 2020 at 2:50 PM PDT
I expect respectful behavior. I value well-structured cases and clear arguments.
Nandan Nabar
Washington High School
None
Sridhar Nagunuri
Granite Bay High School
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 8:28 AM PDT
Have been judging speech and debate for the last 4 years. Iam pretty current on the national and international events. What Iam looking from the debaters are - No spreading, Kritiks, or Theory. Make sure to refute all the important points raised by your opponent. I have my own opinions but i dont go by them when judging a debate, i go with whoever is able to convince me better.
Manoj Naik
Leland High School
None
Richa Narang
Cupertino High School
None
Radha Naryanan
Monta Vista High School
None
Ron Nelson
New Roads School
None
Tony Nguyen
Leland High School
None
Helen Nhin
Irvington High School
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:20 AM PDT
I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.
Debate:
In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.
I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.
I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.
If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.
I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.
I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!
Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.
IEs:
These events are my jam. :)
Kenneth Ogden
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Thu October 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM CDT
Background
I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.
Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.
Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.
I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument
A couple of notes
Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.
Evidence
I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.
I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!
Notes on Education
Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.
I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.
Evidence often is not enough
Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:
1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.
2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.
From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.
Counterplans and debate tech
Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.
I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.
I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.
How we treat each other
This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.
Yama Omar
The Quarry Lane School
None
Sudhakar Parakala
Leland High School
None
Eshwar Parigi
Archbishop Mitty
None
Karen Parker
Archbishop Mitty
None
Nishita Patel
Homestead HS
None
Marshal Paterson
Fremont High School
None
Lynbrook-Ajoy Patnaik
Lynbrook HS
None
Rajani Penubothu
Monta Vista High School
None
Heather Peters
Almaden Country Day School
None
Susie Pineda
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 15, 2021 at 6:17 AM EDT
I am a parent judge and am unfamiliar with debate events.
Please:
1) No spreading
2) Minimize jargon
3) Be clear and concise
Chandra Pisupati
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Wed January 27, 2021 at 2:47 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I expect debaters to address the topic with convincing logic and strong evidence backed by analytical thought process. I expect participants to be respectful to their opponents at all times. I would recommend participants to slow down and express your ideas clearly and precisely.
Rita Prichard
Granite Bay High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:07 AM PDT
I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. I reject speed for its own sake, 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. A K will need to be explained very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.
Anushree Ramakrishnan
Cupertino High School
None
Gita Ramanathan
Fremont High School
None
Raj Rao
Leland High School
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 11:24 AM PDT
lay judge, dont go fast and be respectful.
Isaiah Salgado
The Harker School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:31 PM PDT
email:
Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com
About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.
Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.
Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.
Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.
In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.
Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.
Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame
MISC:
Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.
I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.
Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.
FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.
K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.
I'm way more truth than tech.
Vidya Sambasivan
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sun May 8, 2022 at 1:46 PM PDT
I encourage all the participants to go with what they have prepared and not modify their speed to cater to me. All the Best!!
Here is my experience in Judging Speech and Debate Tournaments:
2021 NSDA Springboard Scrimmage 6 - Public Forum, 2021 PF World Championships for NATO topic - Public Forum, 2021 NSDA Springboard Scrimmage 9 - Speech, 2021 John Lewis SVUDL Invitational formerly SCU DempseyCronin - Speech, 2021 La Reina Invitational - Debate, 2022 The Dempsey Cronin Memorial Invitational - JV/MS Public Forum, 2022 Marlborough Middle School Invitational 2 - PF
kavita sankhe
Speech and Debate Academy
None
Komal Sarang
The Quarry Lane School
8 rounds
None
Shital Savarkar
Mission San Jose High School
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.
Lance Scott
Archbishop Mitty
None
Marian Seah
Palo Alto High School
None
Donia Sebastian
Mira Loma High School
None
Prabal Shah
Leland High School
None
Serena Shaw
El Cerrito
None
Petr Shepelev
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Riya Shukla
Leland High School
None
Thomas Simon
TimberCrest Independant MS
Last changed on
Mon October 19, 2020 at 7:33 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I have judged parliamentary debate before so I am aware of the format.
Arguments
Please be clear and read your arguments slowly so that I can understand. If you read them fast (spread), I will not be able to flow properly. Try not to use extremely technical terms that are not very obvious and even if you have to, please explain it clearly.
I prefer traditional on case debate. I'm fine with counterplans but please explain it clearly.
I am not familiar with Ks (kritiks) and theory so please refrain from running those arguments UNLESS there is actual abuse of rules present. If that is the case, please explain the abuse VERY clearly. Please don't run theory just for the sake of running theory.
Other
Use the last speech to explain exactly why you should win the round. Weigh out the impacts of both sides.
You will be awarded high speaker points for speaking clearly, having a good presentation, and being respectful to your opponents.
Ansh Singh
Brooks Debate Institute
None
Mi Hee Song
Velásquez Academy
None
Lynbrook-Sripriya Srinivasaraghavan
Lynbrook HS
None
Hope Starr-Toliao
Archbishop Mitty
None
Ildiko Stennis
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun January 17, 2021 at 3:01 AM PDT
I am a lay judge and prefer not to have spread (speed debating).
Yuan Sun
Amador Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2024 at 7:00 AM PDT
I can flow but I prefer a more "lay" type of debate.
Deepak T
Monta Vista High School
None
Tithi Talukdar
Archbishop Mitty
None
Li Tao
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Ashutosh Thakur
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Wed March 8, 2023 at 2:59 PM PDT
My Style of Judging :
- I wont be able to follow you if you go above 300 wpm. In that sense, I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. 2 arguments with deep impacts are better than 3 or 4 with weak ones.
- Make sure you have 2-3 key summary arguments that you end your debate with.
- You can attack contentions but do not be condescending like "do you understand what Im saying?"
- Besides the usual debate judging, I focus on clarity and delivery of speech, with good intonation. ENUNCIATE.
- I dont have anything against reading cards, but if you are flat out reading your notes, its not a debate, so memorize your points and seldom refer to your notes. That shows that you have practiced a lot, and I will award you for that.
Leena Thakuria
Monta Vista High School
None
Tesline Thomas
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Saeed Totonchi
Archbishop Mitty
None
MANOJ UNNIKRISHNAN
Redwood MS
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 10:47 AM PDT
DEBATE:
I am a parent judge. I appreciate clear enunciation and reasonably paced speaking.
Current and up to date information and references are important to be me as part of the evidence.
Maintain decorum at all times during the debate.
I am keen on clear rationalization of the argument. Don't rush.
Convince me with good evidence and carefully made arguments. Minimize repetition.
SPEECH:
This is my 4th year as a speech judge. I appreciate clear enunciation, well paced speaking and loud voice.
I enjoy HI and OO speeches. Time management is important. Use pauses and time gestures as appropriate.
Veda Upadhyaya
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 24, 2020 at 12:19 PM PDT
Parent judge.
Has experienced judging both speech and debate events.
Like to see eye contact, clear tone and confident moments.
Ana Valle
Archbishop Mitty
None
R. Velasquez
Velásquez Academy
None
Sudheer Vemula
Cupertino High School
None
Chitra Venkataramanan
Leland High School
None
Ramkumar Venkatesan
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sun March 10, 2024 at 6:57 AM PDT
As a fellow parent and experienced judge who has presided over more than 30 rounds, may I respectfully recommend that you speak slowly and clearly during your presentation? It would be greatly appreciated if you could begin by defining key terms, stating your standards, and presenting your contentions in a well-organized manner. When explaining your arguments and analysis, please use language that is accessible to a wider audience and keep the round as straightforward as possible.
My email is venkatesan.ramkumar@gmail.com
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.)
John Walburg
Claremont
8 rounds
None
Kelly Walburg
Claremont
None
David Wang
New Age Learning
None
Sen Wang
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Fri October 29, 2021 at 2:05 PM PDT
What a nice day.
Weijia Wang
Valley Christian High School
None
Lisa Weber
Mercer Island High School
Last changed on
Wed January 11, 2023 at 7:08 AM PDT
LD Paradigm
LD Coach 10 years.
If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.
When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.
I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.
I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.
Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.
Cross Examination
I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.
I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.
Speaker Points
If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.
If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.
Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.
I disclose if it is the tournament norm.
If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.
Public Forum Paradigm
RESPECT and DECORUM
1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".
2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.
I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)
I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.
I like direct clash.
All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.
I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.
In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.
In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 3:32 AM PDT
I am an experienced coach and experienced competitor. I have been tournament champions of numerous tournaments (in Originals and Interp) and have been to State every year of competition and qualified to Nationals. My team has always sent a delegation to Nats every year we have been a program. I do my best to leave quality and constructive criticism on ballot.
Debaters:
I sure love it when debaters signpost. That helps me and you stay organized on the flow sheet.
If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. So make sure you are speaking clearly and slowly enough so I can digest what youre saying.
I have a conditional love towards "out of the box" plans and ks but keep them tasteful and thoughtful. Anything facetious or "edgy" is not it for me. But an interesting take and or something whimsical but thoughtful I will appreciate. In the end, is it something you would run in front of your coach? If yes, I'll take it. If you do extinction theory, it's not going to go well. That's not showing me how good of a debater you are. I am much more about the spirit and intention of argumentation, not the letter of the flow.
Speechies:
Please enunciate and project. Again, if I can't hear or understand you, I can't judge you. For originals I am expecting a well organized and analyzed speech. For you Varsity/Open competitors, you should be completely memorized (but a few flubs here and there will NOT make or break your speech). For interpies, please have clean and distinct character pops, and the cut of your piece should follow the elements of story telling and make narrative sense. Also, remember, if I didn't see you emote, did you? Be mindful of facial direction, and focal points. If I can't see you, I can't judge you.
Spontaneous speakers, if I see that you are canning your speeches, your rankings will reflect that. Spon events are testing on your ability to organize and complete a speech spontaneously. If you are using canned examples and just swapping out phrases or words, that is not speaking spontaneously. I will penalize HEAVILY.
Danny White
Archbishop Mitty
None
Douglas Wing
Leland High School
None
Vivian wong
Palo Alto High School
None
Chien-Yeh Wu
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun October 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM PDT
Preference:
- no spreading
- logics
Dongxiang Wu
Palo Alto High School
None
Liqi Wu
Leland High School
Last changed on
Wed February 13, 2019 at 3:53 PM EDT
I am a new parent judge. I am not very experienced at judging policy debate and I would prefer that you speak slow enough for me to understand.
Last changed on
Tue September 14, 2021 at 10:09 AM PDT
I'm Yun Ye, new to the debate program judging.
Goomo Yoon
Honor Academy
None
Tere Zacher
Archbishop Mitty
None
Nazli Zafaranchi
Leland High School
None
Christina Zhang
Velásquez Academy
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:02 AM PDT
Hello, I'm Christina Zhang. I don't have much prior debate experience, so I would count as a Lay Judge. Knowing that please arrange your prep accordingly.
General:
Just call me Judge. Please do not call me by my name.
Please signpost. If you do no signposting it will be exceedingly confusing. If the I don't know what you're saying then I can't weigh your arguments.
Arguments:
- Tech & Truth: A standard Advantage/Disadvantage round is probably the simplest, and while I do acknowledge tech over truth, I still do tend to occasionally favor truth over tech, so even if one side drops an argument, that doesn't mean I will automatically weigh it against them if the assertion is not properly explained enough.
Ie. You bring up nuclear war, but never properly explain it well enough and don't address simple things like Mutually Assured Destruction, even if the opponent completely drops, I might not weigh in your favor and just strike it from the round.
Basically if it doesn't make enough logical sense, then I won't consider it.
- Impacts. If I don't hear a properly quantified impact it might not have nearly as much weighing power.
Just saying: "Grows the economy", "Increases QoL" or "Saves lives" are not proper impacts. "Grows the economy by 153 billion USD over the next 2 years", or "Decreases cardiac deaths by 10%", or "Increases GDP per capita by 5%", or "Prevents 4000 deaths" are properly quantified impacts, so will be weighed to their fullest extent.
Theory:
I don't know any theory, so please don't run any theory. I'm not very experienced, so keep everything simple. Just because you win on theory on the flow doesn't mean that I'll take theory into heavy consideration or even at all
Kritiques:
Just don't run them. If you run a K, there's a good chance I might not understand it so even if you crush the opponent on the flow, you'll still probably lose. Debate is about accessibility and understanding, so if the layperson can't understand what's happening, you'll likely not get you point across.
David Zhang
Leland High School
None
Jing Zhang
Leland High School
None
Qi Zhang
The Golden State Academy
None
Anne Zhao
Davis Senior High School
None
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:36 PM PDT
Please communicate well, speak slowly and clearly, and use clear logic.