CFL Speech 1
2022
—
Milpitas HS,
CA/US
Speech Judging Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Mohammed Afzalzadeh
Clean Judges
None
Anuj Aggarwal
Bellarmine College Preparatory
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 ;)
Sireesh Akella
Saratoga HS
None
Mili Alappatt
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Jayaprakash Ammu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 10:10 AM PDT
I am a parent judge who likes clear and concise arguments that help the flow of the round
Harish Ananthamurthy
Clean Judges
None
Subhi Andrews
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sai Ankireddi
Notre Dame San Jose
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 12:05 AM PDT
Lay judge, no spreading. I have judged Congress to oi to policy. I will always write long form notes on in round speeches, but I may not set up my flow like conventional debaters.
sai.ankireddi@gmail.com
Muhammad Asif
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
mona azari
Clean Judges
None
Kaleem Aziz
Clean Judges
None
Anand Bala
Saratoga HS
None
Suresh Balasubramanian
Saratoga HS
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
Shilpa Bansod
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 1:00 AM PDT
I am a lay judge.
For debate :
1) You can expect me to know something about the topic at hand. I look for clarity of thought, logic in your arguments and how you link the evidence.
2) Please speak at a reasonable pace, do not spread.
3) Please stay respectful at all times.
For speech :
1) I look for effectiveness of your speech - be it through listener engagement, clarity of idea, or variety of examples (depending on event type).
2) If you can convey your ideas to me, convince me of authenticity, you will have my attention.
Ning Bao
Clean Judges
None
Chris Barbazette
Archbishop Mitty
None
Natasha Barringer
Clean Judges
None
Ryan Barringer
Clean Judges
None
Joel Bauman
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 12:22 AM PDT
I am a beginner judge of speech and debate tournaments.
For speech tournaments, the guiding principles that I use to judge participants include the following:
- Was the speech compelling? Was it well delivered with maturity, poise, and a demonstrated understanding of the topic?
- Was the logic in the speech sound?
- How well did the speaker present? Did they use effective gestures and facial queues? Did they speak fluently? Were there nervous ticks or unnecessary adds such as the use of "like" or "just" repeatedly throughout the presentation?
For debate tournaments, I look for the following:
- Is the logic used in the debate sound? Are there inconsistencies or logic leaps that make the argument difficult or impossible to follow?
- Did the AF team effectively present a plan that I could understand?
- Did the Neg team present an alternative or effectively refute the plan presented?
- Was evidence used effectively?
- Were ideas communicated in a way that was understandable?
- Which team made the most compelling arguments/which team was able to respond most effectively to key points of the opponent to make or refute a case?
I do my best to remove any bias based on prior knowledge or a topic and/or presenter characteristics.
Hey guys this is Austin, Joel's son here to tell you a little bit about my dad. He is a LAY judge. NO SPREADING. you will lose if you do this. Don't run medium arguments and use jargon like internal link. It will not work well for you. My dad has been working in cyber for 20 years so he knows stuff about cyber but will listen to evidence.
Lani Bergevin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:27 AM PDT
I am a lay judge who has three years of experience in judging PF.
Please speak on the slow side; I will not vote for you if I cannot understand your arguments.
I vote off of clearly explained link chains and impacts. Make your case and narrative the easiest to understand, and you will get my ballot. Make my job easier and explain why I should vote for your team.
I will drop you for racist, sexist, or xenophobic comments/attitude.
Have fun!
Udita Bhasin
Presentation High School
None
Ravi Bhavanasi
Clean Judges
None
Gayatri Bhide
Evergreen Valley
None
Manpreet Bindra
Clean Judges
None
Dondi Bogusky
Clean Judges
None
Lee Anna Botkin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
vijendar bozza
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:35 PM PDT
I'm a parent judge with minimal experience. Clarity in communciation/articulating the info will help me digest the info better.
Joanie Campbell
Presentation High School
None
Marc Canabou
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri March 22, 2024 at 4:10 PM PDT
I have done policy debate, LD and Congress, competing at State (CA) and Nationals when I was in high school.
I am truth over technical putting a premium on understanding your argument and on the logic both teams use to explain why the evidence and the expert is relevant to the argument. Bad evidence loses to good logic and common sense. Good evidence plus logic wins. Stated another way, in making your arguments around impacts, I listen carefully for logical fallacies -- while I won't vote against you if I hear a slippery slope, or a correlation/ causation fallacy, I will keenly listen to see how your opponent responds. I share this because as you develop your speaking skills for life (amazing by the way), your goal will be to persuade whether in business, law, medicine, science or politics -- few things undermine one's credibiilty more than arguments that tend to extremes based on unsubstantiated logical or reasoning errors, so it's good to start to learn and practive now how to build structurally and logical sound arguments, relying on evidence, early in your journey.
Debate is about testing logic and evidence to communicate a Point of View that can be understood and is compelling, so expect me to be a critical judge who will weight what each team tells me about the arguments presented; I vote for the argument I find most persuasive. I will look to frame my assessment against the main stock issues, unless you convince me another standard should be used. Also, if I can't understand the argument, I can't very well score it in your favor.
Beyond my debate experience, my perspective on policy is shaped by being involved in lobbying the Federal Government for Procter and Gamble and time at a leading think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). I worked as a management consult for Booz Allen & Hamilton, where I created business facts and strategies for the Mayo Clinic and NYH Cornell. I have an undergraduate degree in History and a MBA degree, so I feel very comfortable listening to arguments that weight and test the quality of the expert as well as the merits of the evidence; I will even accept your use of common sense or logic to call out logical fallacies, and to sanity test or refute a piece of evidence that just doesn’t make sense.
Finally, effective persuasion includes respectful disagreement, so I will notice rude, sarcastic or condesending behavior and that will detract heavily from the weight I attribute to your argument or position. Please enjoy a spirited discussion and I will do my best to flow and follow.
Chandni Chadha
Clean Judges
None
Lorena Chatterjee
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Kuldeep Chauhan
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Maria (Tess) Chin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Prasad Chivakula
Leland High School
None
Yun Hee Choi
Clean Judges
None
Chien-Shun Chu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Samantha Chu
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 2:50 PM PDT
I’m a parent judge, and I’m very excited to hear your speeches. As always, please be respectful to your fellow competitors and be mindful of the rules and time. Thanks!
Wade Clements
Clean Judges
None
Alexander Costa-Levy
Fremont High School
None
Melody Daley
Clean Judges
None
Kathleen Damarillo
Archbishop Mitty
None
Aida Damaso
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Lokanath Das
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2024 at 7:16 AM PDT
I have been judging for last 3 years, primarily Public Forum. I have also judged speech, LD and Policy occasionally as needed .
Please speak clearly and at a moderate to fast, but not superfast pace.Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.
Looking forward to an exciting debate.
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:58 PM PDT
When judging, I look for powerful delivery, slow measured speech, body language, insightful analysis and love contestants they enjoy their time under the spotlight. Go You!
Satish Deshmukh
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 5:43 AM EDT
I am a parent judge and judging for past two and half year.
I prefer if both teams would reference their evidence and make their arguments concise and easy to understand.
Narasimha Dhadesugur
Clean Judges
None
Himabindu Dharmavaram
Clean Judges
None
Anurag Dhingra
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Thu January 14, 2021 at 1:17 PM PDT
I am a lay/parent judge. If you are going to use any technical terms from the debating vocabulary, please don't assume I would be familiar with them. Please speak at a comfortable conversational pace so that I can understand and follow your arguments. I judge rounds based on the logic of the argument and the evidence used to support it. Help write my ballot for me - tell me which arguments you won and why. I do appreciate a vigorous debate but please don't be rude to your opponents.
Di Di Jin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Ajay dogra
Clean Judges
None
Nij Dorairaj
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Avril Dorothy
Los Gatos
None
Mitul Doshi
Archbishop Mitty
None
Vrinda Dsa
Monta Vista High School
None
Ajay Dsouza
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:07 AM PDT
I look for consistency in the arguments throughout the debate
Judgement is limited only to the arguments presented and contested in the debate
Kirti Dsouza
Archbishop Mitty
None
Anuj Dua
Clean Judges
None
Shailhaaja Dwivedula
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Shalini D’Souza
Archbishop Mitty
None
Arun Fernandes
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sreeram Gandikota
Clean Judges
None
Balaji Ganesan
Clean Judges
None
Haripriyaa Ganesan
Clean Judges
None
Krishnamurthy Garimella
Monta Vista High School
None
Hilda George
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Arash Ghaffari
Clean Judges
None
Stacy Holander Gleixner
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Navneet Goel
Saint Francis High School
None
Sumona Goswami
Homestead HS
None
Jayesh Govindarajan
Gunn Sr High School
None
Rashmi Goyal
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Mon April 8, 2024 at 8:46 AM PDT
Hi , I am lay Judge, I would like Contestants to speak slowly and use simple words when they speak. I prefer debators to be respectful to other team at all times and let others speak. Even though I try to flow the debate but at the end my decision is based on if you can convince me based on your arguments on why should I vote for you.
Gabriel Gregg
Clean Judges
None
John Griffin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Naveen Gunukula
Clean Judges
None
Phyllis Guo
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed April 26, 2023 at 9:43 AM PDT
Written by the child of this judge:
General: My mom is pretty expressive irl so if you either say something funny and/or really absurd she'll laugh and if you say something she doesn't understand she will frown. If it's online debate then she'll probably won't change her expression throughout the debate
Putting her on the chain is probably a disadvantage to you because she has no idea how card formatting works.
Ideal speed is the speed at which you would talk to your parents about normal, everyday things.
Experience: My mother is a lay parent who has some experience judging stock issues centered lay debate at a local level. She values clarity of expression and thought, and devalues faster speaking styles and arguments. This doesn't mean that just because someone spoke better than you she'll vote for them, this just means if she can't understand your argument, she won't vote for you.
Jargon: Additionally, try to minimize your jargon even if the phrases might not seem like jargon to you. Things like "OCOs," "uniqueness," and even " status quo" should be avoided.
Background: My mother works in management for a tech company that heavily involves straddling the barriers between the United States and China. That means she is generally pretty knowledgeable about international supply chains, US-China relations, and manufacturing. Do with that information what you will. She's also really smart so don't feel the need to excessively simplify arguments for her. In addition, even though she is fluent in English, it's still her second language so just speak a little slower than you think you need to.
Strategy: In terms of strategy, she likes big, core of the topic affirmatives (yes read a plan) with intuitive solvency mechanisms and minimal jargon. On the negative, she WILL and often does vote on presumption and inherency. That means that when it comes to 1nc construction, it's probably better to develop a deeper explanation of case defense rather than adding in another off case position.
Intuitive advantage counterplans with clearexternal net benefits might work in front of her but be very clear in describing exactly how the counterplan functions. Counterplans that rely on specific definitions of words in the resolution probably would confuse her (i.e. DoS CP, DSCA PIC, all counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy). I would say the closer you stay to the core of the topic arguments and position, the better it is. Something like OCOs bad + defensive posture cp against the ocos aff would be much better than something like the Canada Counterplan or the dsca pic.
Really really really oddly enough she loves the 5 eyes counterplan against cyber affs. I'm not sure why, and I'm not sure how she'll evaluate a round on it so read at your own risk.
If you are a K debater/prefer kritikal arguments then I'm sorry but probably not the greatest judge for you.
If you want to go for T it's probably going to be a coinflip unless the violation is extremely blatant and intuitive. In that scenario, technical standards debating won't win you the round but big picture appeals like "c'mon, this very obviously isn't about nato security cooperation" will, so in that regard topic knowledge is probably the best offense on T.
Xiaowen Guo
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 11:14 PM PDT
English is my second language, please keep your track of your speaking times and be respectful to your opponent(s). Thank you.
Akash Gupta
Monta Vista High School
None
Puneet Gupta
Clean Judges
None
Kevin Haas
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Arwa Haddad
Clean Judges
None
David Hensley
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Julie Herman
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Tue June 18, 2024 at 1:01 AM PDT
Most important items if you have limited reading time:
PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks
IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.
ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.
Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).
I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.
PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.
***
Background
I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.
Approach to judging
-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.
-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.
-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.
-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.
Speaker point ranges
Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.
Argument preferences
Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.
Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.
Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.
Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).
Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."
"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.
Presentation preferences
Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.
Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.
Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.
Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.
Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).
Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.
Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).
Sudhir Hirudayaraj
Archbishop Mitty
None
Angela Hixson
Fremont High School
Last changed on
Sun November 14, 2021 at 1:14 AM PDT
Please keep time for yourselves. Please speak loudly and slowly, I would rather you have fewer contentions and I be able to understand you then have a bunch of contentions that force you to speak quickly. I do take notes.
Jim Horng
Clean Judges
None
Lynbrook-Danci Huang
Lynbrook HS
None
XU HUANG
Clean Judges
None
Carolyn Hughes
Archbishop Mitty
None
Jennifer Hull
Clean Judges
None
Arshad Hussain
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Jenny Hyun
Clean Judges
None
Shruti Iyengar
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:54 PM PDT
I am a lay judge but I have 8 years experience judging League debates.
General Stuff:
Just speak at conversational pace and tone and use all your time.
Only go for topicality if its a glaring violation
Try to avoid using terminology-heavy debates.
If aff, focus on defending your policies and answer all of the negs points effectively and clearly
If neg, focus on finding gaps in the policy proposal and carry only the most contested and strongest negative stock issues into the 2NR.
Cross ex is the most important focus area for me in the debate.This is the only part of debate where neg/aff actively clash with each other. I look for teams to use the that time effectively.Don't cut off responses, unless they are stretching the time limit.
Don't give up in round, I keep an open mind throughout the debate, even the last speech.
Bharat Jagani
Presentation High School
None
Chuck Jagannadhan
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Hoseop Jeong
Gunn Sr High School
None
Edward Jiang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 11:29 AM PDT
I'm a parent judge, and I have been judging PF, LD, and INTERP for more than 2 years.
I lived in United States since late 1990s, so you can consider me as a native English speaker.
I usually judge the debates based on 3 aspects, the content and logic, the presentation skill, and the techniques during the cross.
Haiwen Jiang
Clean Judges
None
Jithendranath Joijoide
Clean Judges
None
Anjaly Joseph
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Dinesh Joshi
Cupertino High School
None
Sreedhar Kamishetti
Fremont High School
None
Hyung Kang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat October 19, 2019 at 12:27 AM PDT
Debaters: Use conversational talking speed or I'll miss what you have to say. And try to avoid (or at least explain) debate jargon.
Nonit Kapur
Saint Francis High School
None
Soundarya Karthik
Archbishop Mitty
None
Bhawana Katiyar
Westmont
None
Krishna Katta
Presentation High School
None
Harrup Kaur
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Amit Khetawat
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:04 AM PDT
Hello Debaters,
I am a parent judge and this is my second year judging debate tournaments. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't run too many technical arguments and keep track of your time. You should also assume that I have no prior knowledge of the topic or context for the discussion. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.
Good Luck to all the teams.
Cheers!
-Amit
prashant khubasad
Cupertino High School
None
Su Jin (Sara) Kim Yoon
Valley Christian High School
None
Aparna Kini
Clean Judges
None
Ciana Knight
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Robert Ko
Monta Vista High School
None
Praveen Konda
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
murthy krishna
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 8:47 AM PDT
I am a lay parent judge who has judged PF, LD, and various speech events in the past two years. Please do not spread or speak at very fast speeds, speak clearly and slowly so I can catch everything. I can't evaluate any advanced argumentation/theory/Ks, so please avoid it.
Be respectful and have fun!
V Krishnamoorthy
Monta Vista High School
None
Senthil Krishnapillai
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:55 AM PDT
I am a parent who has judged for 5 years. Please be civil and respectful in round. Speak at a reasonable speed, and make sure to have organization in your speech.
Ashish Kulkarni
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Eric Kunze
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Mitun Lahiri
Clean Judges
None
Larry Lai
Clean Judges
None
Christine Lam
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat March 25, 2023 at 4:23 AM PDT
I am a parent judge who have judged quite a number of rounds in speech and debate events by now. But, please don't assume I know acronyms when you use it the first time. Please email your speeches to csl5148@gmail.com and cards exchanged, particularly if you are a fast debater. Thank you and good luck.
Amy Ledger
Archbishop Mitty
None
Brian Lee
Clean Judges
None
Byrne Lee
Gunn Sr High School
None
Yong-Won Lee
Clean Judges
None
Nanda Lekkelapudi
Clean Judges
None
Mark Li
Clean Judges
None
Rui Lin
Clean Judges
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.
Danzhou Liu
Clean Judges
None
David Liu
Palo Alto High School
None
Sheena Liu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Mon April 22, 2024 at 8:47 AM PDT
lay
Tom Liu
Leland High School
None
Julisa Lomeli
Clean Judges
None
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.
Dustin Ma
The King's Academy
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 6:18 AM PDT
I primarily judged speech events and coached limited prep speech for some students.
My judging criteria for extemp:
Content:
Analysis: Does the speech demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue and its complexities? Does it go beyond simply summarizing the news?
Argumentation: Does the speech present a well-defined central thesis? Are there strong supporting arguments with evidence?
Source Consideration: Does the speaker utilize a variety of credible sources to support their claims?
Transitions: Does the speaker give a transition between points?
Delivery:
Voice: Is the speaker's voice clear, audible, and varied in pitch and pace?
Articulation: Does the speaker enunciate words clearly and avoid filler words ("um," "like")?
Stage Presence: Does the speaker exhibit good posture, eye contact, and use of gestures to engage the audience?
Time Management: Does the speech stay within the allotted time limit?
Abhijit Mahabal
Monta Vista High School
None
Ritika Maheshwari
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Unal Majid
Bellarmine College Preparatory
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.
Ivo MANOLOV
Clean Judges
None
Erin Matheson Ritchie
San Lorenzo Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri April 12, 2024 at 9:44 AM PDT
Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.
In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.
Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).
PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.
LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.
Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.
Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.
Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.
Colin McCarthy
Clean Judges
None
Nirav Mehta
Clean Judges
None
Parag Mehta
Clean Judges
None
Rakesh Mehta
Clean Judges
None
Subbu Meiyappan
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 4:23 PM EDT
I am a parent judge. So please keep technical aspects of the debate to a minimum. If you can avoid spreading it would be perfect. Try and avoid speed-talk. I appreciate addressing and making eye contact with the judge. Please explain some of the definitions and/or acronyms you may be using. I give credit to sticking to the full topic. For example in one session "Should liberal countries coerce non-liberal states to become liberal', it is not about liberalism vs autocratic govermnents - it should be about the entire topic. I don't mind if you remove your mask to talk during your turn. I typically take notes and keep time. Before every section try and provide a roadmap of what you are going to present and stick to it. I love a good debate or a speech! Good luck!
Tina Mitiguy
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Shilpa Moghe
Clean Judges
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.
Keara Morrow
Archbishop Mitty
None
Kevin Morrow
Clean Judges
None
Jitendra Mudhol
Fremont High School
None
Namrata Mummaneni
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun September 26, 2021 at 6:19 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I have been judging various speeches and debates for about 5 years now. Clarity and strength of your arguments, cross-examine of opponent's arguments and a good summary will help me choose the winner for debates.
Benjamin Murillo
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 4:43 AM PDT
Benjamin M.
I take on my role as judge from an impartial view to whichever side of the topic a team has been assigned to but rather observant to how each team have embraced their side of the argument and the delivering of such in a clear, concise and convincing fashion.
I assimilate with much more ease facts and true figures rather than personal opinions or unprovable references. I also value beside s the delivery of the main argument the physical performance itself as connecting to audience, gestures, stance, speech speed, eye contact.
As tribute to the effort put in their preparation for the event, I dedicate my total and undivided attention to the speaker in order to absorb the performance in its entirety in order to make a fair and unbiased decision of the outcome.
Satish Musukula
Clean Judges
None
Rajeev Nagabhirava
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 12:29 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and I have been judging events for the last 2-3 years.
For congress debate tournaments:
I look for clarity, speaking to the point, using floor space, eye contact, respect to other members. If you spread, talk too fast, run through impact parts too fast, I won't be able to keep track and will ignore them.
I try to focus and listen the entire duration of your speech. I write my feedback simultaneously as I listen to the speech. I also listen carefully to cross examinations, and will take account of every time you make a good point or defend effectively. Use your cross examination time effectively, I won't reward when there is a stalemate.
My decision is based on: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence... Focus on why your impacts are important why they are better than your opponent. It would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize.
Prithvi Nagaraj
Clean Judges
None
Tejinder Nahal
Clean Judges
None
Archana Naik
Clean Judges
None
Kausalya Nallapa
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Tue September 21, 2021 at 3:13 PM PDT
I am a parent judge, and I have some experience with judging congress, LD, public forum, policy, and parliamentary debate. I have been judging for less than 2 years, and I don't know all the rules about these events.
Please speak slowly and clearly, and don't use too much debate jargon. I evaluate rounds based on what you convince me to evaluate, so please clarify this.
Good luck! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me in the round.
Parvathi Natarajan
Clean Judges
None
Kalyan Nistala
Saint Francis High School
None
Julie Noh
Leland High School
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2024 at 10:57 AM PDT
Julie Noh (she/her). I'm a parent judge. Please email me your evidence and include me on the email chain at julienoh@gmail.com
My paradigm for debate focuses on:
Clear and concise communication from the debaters. I'm looking for logical reasoning and evidence-based arguments and quality debate. I expect debaters to use credible sources and avoid making sweeping generalizations or unsupported claims. If you spread, make sure you can be understood!
Respectful discourse. Engage with your opponents' arguments in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than simply dismissing or ignoring them. Debaters should ask questions and seek clarification when necessary, and respond to their opponents' questions in a clear and straightforward manner.
Time management and organization. This is both in terms of structuring arguments and delivering speeches within the allotted time. Debaters should be well-prepared and have a clear understanding of the key issues at stake, impacts, as well as a clear plan for how to address them effectively.
I leave you with this haiku:
Speak with conviction
Evidence and reasoning
Challenge with respect
Jessica Nowinski
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Chizoba Nwosu
Archbishop Mitty
None
Last changed on
Fri March 22, 2024 at 9:30 AM PDT
Debate:
I am a parent judge who doesn't have any experience in judging circuit/fast debate; please refrain from spreading or some of the jargon used in those faster styles.
For Policy Debate specifically, I evaluate the round based on evidence and stock issues; I will take your framing into account, but I will vote for a more credible, logical, and understandable case most of the times. If you bring up any other technical arguments outside the stock issues, please be clear and specific for me to follow.
No Kritik please!
For LD:Please state your value and criterion clearly and don't rush through them!
Ash Olakangil
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Joseph Olakangil
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
jaseth olmedo
Clean Judges
None
sujey olmedo
Clean Judges
None
Anne Ortel-Molsberry
Archbishop Mitty
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.
Eshwar Parigi
Archbishop Mitty
None
Alissa Park
Homestead HS
None
Younghee Park
Archbishop Mitty
None
Karen E Parker
Archbishop Mitty
None
Marshal Paterson
Fremont High School
None
Sruti Patnaik
Clean Judges
None
Mukul Prasad
Presentation High School
None
Vandana Puri
Clean Judges
None
Feng Qian
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:07 AM PDT
Parent judge, please try to go slower and err on the side of overexplaining jargon on the topic. Warrant out and impact all of your arguments. Good reasoning and explaining of your side will win you the round.
Ginger Quijano
Fremont High School
None
Kusum Rai
Archbishop Mitty
None
Krithika Rajagopalan
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Bala Ram
Monta Vista High School
None
Subha Ramachandran
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Sat April 13, 2024 at 1:46 PM PDT
Please speak at a moderate pace with clarity
Judging experiences:
2 years of Parli, 1 year Extemp, Expos, OR
new to other forms of debate
Arathy Ramanujam
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Manoj Rana
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:23 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I look for the data and and evidence supported arguments during the debates.
Manish Ranjan
Clean Judges
None
Ashok Rao
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Thu May 23, 2024 at 3:34 AM PDT
From San Jose CA. My son is active in debate and I've judged speech and debate competitions for ~6 years.
Speed- I prefer elucidation and clarity to speed.
I like fewer more well developed points versus lots of varied but weaker arguments.
I dislike rude behavior, verbal or through gestures.
I really enjoy the creativity that teams bring to their debate topics and the diligence they bring to the preparation.
Benzila Rappai
Clean Judges
None
Suzanne Rostamizadeh
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 8:26 AM PDT
I am a parent judge, do not spread. Present yourself confidently and be organized. Don't interrupt each other in cross-examination.
Sudheer Salam
Clean Judges
None
Abhijit Salvi
Monta Vista High School
None
kavita sankhe
Cupertino High School
None
ramesh sarabu
Clean Judges
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.
Kimberly Schiff
Clean Judges
None
Pearl Scott
Clean Judges
None
Hyunmi Seo
Leland High School
None
Neil Shah
Clean Judges
None
Vibhav Shah
Clean Judges
None
Shirley Shan
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:59 PM PDT
I am a parent judge who has judged for about two years. I won't understand super fast talking of any kind, so I advise you to speak at a normal pace.
I will only vote based off what is said in the round, and will not make any assumptions myself. This means that you should assume that I know nothing about the topic, which is probably true. If you want me to consider an argument, I suggest you bring it up in the final speeches of the debate. This is mainly where I will make my decision, so I think clearly stating your reasons on why you won here is important.
Other than that, have fun.
Prakash Sharma
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 10:07 AM PDT
Please speak slow and be clear in analysis. 2nd year parent judge
Priyanka Sharma
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:36 PM PDT
Newer parent judge, please speak slow.
Vasist Sharma
Milpitas High School
None
Sushma Sheshadri
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:29 AM PDT
I am very new to the world of debate. I would like to see clear argumentation with great delivery. Please don’t speak too fast while debating, as it becomes hard for us parent judges to understand. Extra points for strong rhetoric and good summaries of key arguments at the end. Be persuasive, but be respectful to your opponent. Please speak clearly. Best of luck to everyone!
Winnie Shin
Clean Judges
None
Sunil Shivappa
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat March 19, 2022 at 4:35 AM PDT
Parent Judge.
Rude or repugnant argumentation/behavior = the last rank.
Technology issues are not your fault. We'll work out whatever the issue is in the round.
Time yourself in all events even if I'm providing time signals.
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY: I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument based on my own knowledge or values. In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues. I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate. Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.
MahadevaPrakash Shivaswamy
Saint Francis High School
None
Pragati Shrivastava
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 4:15 AM PDT
My preference is that the speakers should have a moderate pace in their speeches so that the judge could fully understand them and specifically when they are speaking about their contentions.
Be polite and respectful through the debate.
I request that both the parties could time each other while speaking and warn/alert if they are exceeding the given time limit
Mandeep Singh
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Sonia Singh
Archbishop Mitty
None
Shreya Sinha
Presentation High School
None
Gopal Sridharan
Cupertino High School
None
Kannan Srinivasan
Clean Judges
None
Henry Sue
Clean Judges
None
Julia Sullivan
Clean Judges
None
thevi sundaralingam
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Deepak T
Monta Vista High School
None
Tesline Thomas
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Shufang Tian
Clean Judges
None
Avani Tolia
Archbishop Mitty
None
Saeed Totonchi
Clean Judges
None
Sharon Tracey
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 2:25 PM PDT
I am a lay judge, so whenever you talk about anything, please make sure that you explain it thoroughly. I know little to nothing about this topic so just keep that in mind.
How I will vote.
1. The first thing that I will take into consideration is whoever proves more convincing to me, whoever proves that the benefits outweigh the harms or that the harms outweigh the benefits.
2. Whoever debates better. I would also vote for a team that refutes all of their opponents points compared to a team that drops all of their opponents points. Whoever keeps their case alive at the end, and destroys their opponents or whoever convinces me to vote for them in this way will definitely earn my ballot.
Not as important but I may include some of this in my decision
1. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. For example: If you take like a minute of prep extra and YOUR OPPONENTS POINT THIS OUT TO ME, this will affect my decision. Please use your respective amount of time for speeches, there is a 10 second grace period after every speech, and 3 minutes for prep.
2. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. Although this is competitive, it is still done for fun. There shall be no disrespect shown to anyone else, as this is a formal setting and must be looked upon as.
3. PLEASE NO SPREADING. IF you do so, I may not catch everything which will affect my decision.
Jenny Tran
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 2:24 AM PDT
Do your best!!!
Gao Tu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:43 AM PDT
I am a parent judge.
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:07 AM PDT
I am a PF lay judge. Few notes:
-State your points clearly and concisely with researched backup arguments, avoid jargon
-Make sure to cite your evidence
-Please be respectful of your opponents
-Make sure to time yourself
-Will provide written feedback after the round, no verbal feedback
All the best!
jennie uong
Clean Judges
None
Brajesh Upadhyay
Clean Judges
None
Shaila Vajirkar
Clean Judges
None
Ana Valle
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Sat March 9, 2024 at 1:28 PM PDT
This is my first time judging debate tournaments. Would appreciate if all the rules are explained at a slow pace.
Sri Vijay
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Greg Vosganian
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Christopher Vu
Clean Judges
None
Kruti Vyas
Milpitas High School
Last changed on
Wed February 17, 2021 at 3:18 AM PDT
I have been judging for almost 1.5 years. I prefer participants to speak slowly and clearly rather than fast with a lot of information. The debate should be focused on main ideas instead of spending time on the details. During crossfire, please be respectful and allow the other debater to finish talking.
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 4:49 AM PDT
Hello
This is my time judging and I will try my best to keep up.
Please be respectful to each other. You can talk fast and clearly but do not spread (remember: if your opponents can’t hear your arguments, I can’t hear your arguments)
Refrain from using biased information, I will judge based on how well your data is applicable to the impact and how respectful you are to each others arguments.
Daniel Wang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Thu January 13, 2022 at 2:37 PM PDT
I am a parent judge.
My decision was based on logic argument with the support of relevant and verifiable evidences.
To avoid implicit error, such as speech order, I give scores to each categories (depending on events) and calculate the waited sum. Then I normalize the score through linear transformation to obtain speaker points.
David Wang
The Nueva School
None
Shuyi Wang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed June 19, 2024 at 9:01 AM PDT
Debate:
I am a newer/less experienced Debate judge and would appreciate debaters use traditional speaking speed.
Speech:
I have been judging speech events since 2017 and have coached students who focus in Original Oratory, Informative, and Impromptu. Prior to my U.S. high school speech judging experiences, I was professionally trained in pubic speaking in my native language; my career involves a high amount of marketing content development, corporate/executive communications, and public relations.
In speech writing, I look for a clear roadmap, strong arguments backed by research (I don't need to agree with your statistical findings or your conclusion, but your findings should fully support your viewpoints), and pragmatic solutions for issues you identified.
For interpretation events, especially those that compose of multiple literature works, I hope to not feel that the selections are pieced together. In other words, the structure should be logical, cohesive, and seamless.
For speech delivery, I look for genuine emotions that help me relate to the urgency of your topic: why is it important now and why your viewpoints, research, and life experiences are the right ones to help your audience understand it holistically. I also appreciate speakers who are able to present with their unique styles, even if there are parts where further polishing is needed.
Over the years I've heard a good number of strong speakers who sound just like Haris Hosseini or JJ Kapur in one of their NSDA speeches. While I admire these students' technical excellence, I also feel that their speeches inevitably become less personal and less distinctive in my ears. It's a fine balancing act between finding inspiration from great speakers/speeches and developing your unique voice.
Weijia Wang
Valley Christian High School
None
Zita Wang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 5:17 AM PDT
Zita Wang
I am a parent judge. I judged speech and debate in different tournments in the past three years.
Take your pace, provide framework, and love to hear your summary about why you should win.
Be confident, run your flow, respect your competitors, and have fun!
Ali Warriach
Clean Judges
None
catherine white
Clean Judges
None
Karpagam Williams
Clean Judges
None
Douglas Wing
Clean Judges
None
Desmond Wright
Clean Judges
None
Dance Wu
Gunn Sr High School
None
Weiqi Xiao
Gunn Sr High School
None
Rui Xu
Cupertino High School
None
Lei Yin
Clean Judges
None
George Yu
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Mon January 22, 2024 at 12:41 AM PDT
I judge based on the notes I take. I try hard not to inject my own knowledge and opinions into a debate.
Please engage one another's arguments and provide clash. Please provide well-developed arguments with good warrant and impact. I would be more impressed with one to three well-developed, deep, and logical arguments over eight superficial, conclusory, and/or flat-out-ridiculous arguments.
Theory arguments have their place. If you make a theory argument, please convince me that your theory argument is actually worth caring about and is relevant to this topic, to this debate, and to your deserving to win.
Please be a human talking to another human and not a space alien talking to a computer. This means (1) you should be respectful to all, (2) if you speak too fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you, and (3) if you decide to use jargon, please explain the jargon as if I don't know what it means. Debate is supposed to develop great leaders, and great leaders can communicate to all people, not just to other specialized people exactly like themselves.
Good luck!
Jennifer Yu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Tere D Zacher
Clean Judges
None
David Zhang
Clean Judges
None
Jing Zhang
Clean Judges
None
Lydia Zhang
Clean Judges
None
Lynn Zhang
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Fri March 17, 2023 at 2:42 PM PDT
Hello Debaters,
I am a first time parent judge. Please speak at a normal pace.
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 4:51 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with some speech and debate judging experience. Please talk slowly and make your logic and argument clear.
Julia Zhu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None