CFL Speech State Quals
2023
—
Milpitas HS,
CA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Shweta Agarwal
Archbishop Mitty
None
Anuj Aggarwal
Clean Judges
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 ;)
Mili Alappatt
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Farnaz Alim
Monta Vista High School
None
Michael Alisky
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sun March 3, 2024 at 7:11 AM EDT
I am a senior at Stanford and extemp coach at Palo Alto High school.
PF/LD/Congress: I encourage you to signpost as much as possible and explicitly describe the round's collapse. I appreciate when debaters build up multiple layers of defense and challenge each other's warrants. I won't reward speeches that simply point out the opponent's drops without explaining why certain arguments are actually round-winning. Weigh your impacts and really clearly show me your team's path to the ballot.
Policy*: I don't have any real CX experience, so think about me like a very lay judge that will flow a lot.
Speech: Speak slower and with more pauses than you think you should. I flow extensively and care a lot about internal structure. I'll reward creativity of topic more than most judges; that is, I'll probably vote the speech that takes a risk but maybe isn't as polished over the one that is very technically sound but is something I've heard 100 times.
Extemp*: Extemp warrants its own section since I primarily competed in USX while in high school. Content is much more important than delivery for me, and I'll be paying attention to how your points flow internally. I don't think extempers focus enough on characterization, that is, describing a situation or conflict before getting into the argument. This should be worked in throughout the speech, not just the background section of your introduction. I really don't like canned intros, and it's more obvious than you might think if you're surreptitiously reading off your flow.
Interp: I never competed in interp but have judged it quite a bit. I'll do my best to give blocking/performative advice, but my decision may come down to more holistic, less precise metrics like your energy level and how entertaining I found the piece.
Everyone is welcome to keep their own time, and I encourage you to share your pronouns prior to the round. I will stop any round at any time if anyone is feeling unsafe or unwelcome.
Alia Alkhayer
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Sat January 23, 2021 at 7:55 AM PDT
This is my second tournament judging, so I am not very familiar with many arguments. I am not a primary english speaker. Please be very clear as to what your arguments mean and tag all of your arguments and refutations. if you don't tag them, I may not write it properly. Like I said, I don't have much experience judging. While I know some things because my son does debate, don't assume I know anything past common knowledge. Other than that, please be confident and respectful to each other, and debate to the best of your ability! Good luck!
Jayaprakash Ammu
Clean Judges
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
Subhi Andrews
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sai Ankireddi
Clean Judges
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
Donald Apy
Mission San Jose High School
None
Mona Azari
Leland High School
None
Lakshmi Balusu
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 9:56 PM PDT
Please speak slowly so I can understand all of your arguments.
Please don’t be aggressive or talk disrespectfully loud/talk over your opponent.
Good luck!
Vivian Banh
Milpitas High School
None
Lani Bergevin
Clean Judges
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!
Rajesh Bhatia
Mountain View High School
None
Gayatri Bhide
Evergreen Valley
None
Raja Bhupatiraju
Archbishop Mitty
None
Joseph Billante
Clean Judges
None
Manpreet Bindra
Archbishop Mitty
None
David Botkin
Clean Judges
None
Niha Bozza
Clean Judges
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.
Keith Brown
Archbishop Mitty
None
Kashmera Buhariwalla
Clean Judges
None
Joanie Campbell
Presentation High School
None
Srivani Chadhuvae
Monta Vista High School
None
Sahana Chandramohan
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sat March 4, 2023 at 2:56 AM PDT
My name is Sahana Chandramohan and I am a current university student in the Bay Area. Regarding my background in forensics, I have competed in various styles of debate, but most recently was involved in LD (captained Saint Francis High School's LD team!).
In terms of how I judge, I will always reward logic, high quality data and professionalism within any arena of argumentation. I expect you to frame all arguments and extend your impact clearly throughout your speeches.
I prefer lay debate, but if you stylistically lean circuit, please make sure to prioritize clarity and additionally ensure that you send me your case at least 15 minutes before the round begins.
General minutiae: I love a good roadmap, I will not be timing so time yourself but hold your opponent accountable as well, 3 minutes of prep-time, don't bother extending points that you have dropped prior.
Remember to have fun and go with the flow!
Email: 22schandramohan@gmail.com
Dinesh Chandrasekhar
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Pamela Chang
Saint Francis High School
None
Sridhar Chatradhi
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 11:37 PM PDT
I am a parent judge with 8 years of experience judging almost all categories of speech and debate competitions.
Lorena Chatterjee
Clean Judges
None
Shailu Chauhan
Clean Judges
None
Daisy Chavez
Milpitas High School
None
Tarika Chawla
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 12:21 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I focus on speech clarity, content, clarity of thoughts and delivery.
I don't have a preference as to philosophy or economic arguments, but I have to be able to understand them. I would prefer a slower speaking speed.
Angela Chen
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Cathy Chen
Clean Judges
None
Hui Chen
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Maria (Tess) Chin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Youna Choi
Archbishop Mitty
None
Yun Hee Choi
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Sat March 9, 2024 at 12:48 AM PDT
I am a parent judge who is also a middle school teacher.
Chien-Shun 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
Songmee Connolly
Leland High School
None
Mariel Cruz
Notre Dame San Jose
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 9:07 AM PDT
Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024
Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School
I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.
Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.
Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.
Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.
As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.
K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.
Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.
Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.
Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.
Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.
General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.
Pamela Curry
Fremont High School
None
Kathleen Damarillo
Clean Judges
None
Aida Damaso
Clean Judges
None
John Daniher
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 11:43 PM PDT
I’m a parent judge, and this is my second year judging debate. I have judged policy and parliamentary debate. I have extensive background in issues of national security and finance.
I ask that you please speak clearly and not too fast. Try to resist from filler words. Most of all, I ask that you are respectful of your opponents.
I appreciate logical and clear arguments backed up with evidence. Demonstrate that you understand the implications of your arguments on a micro and macro level.
Ajit Dash
Monta Vista High School
None
Mehrdad Dehkordi
Los Gatos
None
Lynbrook-Madhura Deo
Lynbrook HS
None
Satish Deshmukh
Clean Judges
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.
Tapomoy Dey
Archbishop Mitty
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.
ping ding
Cupertino High School
None
Nij Dorairaj
Clean Judges
None
Mitul Doshi
Archbishop Mitty
None
Vrinda Dsa
Monta Vista High School
None
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
Anuj Dua
Clean Judges
None
Ajit Dubey
Clean Judges
None
Esra Dumanli
Palo Alto High School
None
Suresh Dussa
Presentation High School
None
Ram Dwivedula
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Shailhaaja Dwivedula
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Katie Fauria
Presentation High School
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 2:36 AM PDT
I've been a Speech and Debate coach for the past 7 years, but primarily on the Speech side.
When it comes to policy debate, I tend to be more of a stock issues judge and believe that the Aff's burden is to protect and prove the stock issues; I especially look for that. I also want you to clearly articulate your positioning and prove why your arguments outweigh your opponent.
For Congress, be clear and efficient with your speeches. Feel free to lean into the "Congressional" part of it and performance is always key, but if you don't have sufficient evidence and don't explain or otherwise discuss the consequences and implications of that evidence then all the rhetoric in the world won't make up for it.
Overall, please speak clearly and slowly. Do not spread. And above all, analyze your evidence. Don't let it stand for itself - prove why it's important.
Arun Fernandes
Archbishop Mitty
None
Elizabeth Francis
Fremont High School
None
Priya Garcia
Leland High School
Last changed on
Tue May 7, 2024 at 9:09 AM PDT
I coach a full team, but I have more experience in Parli and IEs. I do not care about the economy so try not to use arguments that uphold the economy over, say, human lives. Please call me "judge" or "Ms. Garcia." Do not call me by my first name.
I will permit post-round questions but if folks are being disrespectful, I reserve the right to leave.
World Schools: I follow the rubric.
Public Forum: I am a speech coach and this should be important to you. Rhetoric > Evidence Dumping, but I will be flowing and taking notes. Don't expect the sheer existence of your cards to win the round for you. You need to explain and analyze how the card bolsters your side of the argument. It would be impossible for me to vote for you, even if you win every argument on the "flow," if you are an incoherent speaker, so make sure to speak slow and clearly. I'm cool with paraphrasing; in fact, I encourage it. You should probably treat me like how you would treat a standard flay, or even a lay judge taking decent flows. No cussing please. I care about morality; your best bet to winning me over is on framework. Once again, I do not care about the economy. If you are blatantly rude to your opponent (verbally insult them, roll your eyes at them, interrupt them during cross unnecessarily, etc.) you will lose my vote.You (the competitors) may reserve the right to share or not share the doc chain with me. I will not penalize you if your opponents choose to share the doc chain with me and you don't, or visa versa.The only Theory shell I know enough about to follow is Topicality. Try not to run any other types of Theory on me. If I'm your judge for the first few prelims, spend some time going over the basics and definitions of the resolution. After that though, try to stick to what makes your case unique.
Policy: I am looking for debaters who don't talk down to me while still clearly hashing out their arguments and plans. I have not and never will vote for disclosure theory. Disclosure is uneducational. If you are a good debater, you won't need the crutch of knowing your opponents' strategies before the round.
-Basic Paradigm: speaking skills > policymaker >stock issues
-Highly value: cx, poise, don't interrupt people, eloquent delivery
-Less Experienced with: Theory, conditional neg positions, Kritiks
Parliamentary: I honestly don't care as much about your evidence. The important thing is that your contentions be centered around common knowledge and that they are cleverly argued. Logic > evidence dumping. The only theory shell I will consider is Topicality. Other theory shells are not educational and defeat the purpose of parliamentary debate.
LD: be creative but not everything leads to nuclear war. I value rhetoric over evidence-dumping. Win me over on framework and you're golden:)
Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator," blocking should be clean.
Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.
Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times and signpost frequently
Congress: proper parliamentary procedure is encouraged, don't disagree with the PO, I will notice if a particular school/team is prioritizing their own or ignoring recency
Krishnamurthy Garimella
Monta Vista High School
None
Sam Ghaffari
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 9:42 AM PDT
About Me:
I debated for Leland High School for three years, mostly in regional league tournaments but have some some experience in circuit debate. This is my first time judging on this topic so just assume I don’t know any of the arguments or acronyms.
Affs:
I have no experience with non-traditional/k affs and I won’t be the best judge for these type of rounds and will probably be more conducive towards neg fw arguments. I would much rather hear a policy aff with a clear plan text and advantages.
Case Debate:
My favorite type of debate. Specific on-case arguments are very compelling. Smart analytics are preferable to just reading a bunch of cards without analysis. Spending time clashing with specific case arguments can also really help off-case positions.
K:
As implied above, I dont have the most experience dealing with K’s. I have only gone for Cap a couple of times which probably speaks enough for my experience in this position. That being said, if you are able to clearly explain the K with well warranted analysis there isn’t a reason I would vote against you. Just know that my baseline understanding of K’s is relatively lower than other judges in the pool.
CP/DA:
DAs: Have a clear link story and explicitly lay out all its parts. Spend more time weighing and explaining any massive impact scenarios that you might run. I will vote for anything that makes sense. And also make sure you are doing good impact calculus.
CPs: In order to win a CP you need some net benefit or prove that it outweighs the aff. I am open to any sort of CP but make sure the internal mechanisms of it make sense.
T:
Specific and well explained violations and standards are tantamount; why should I vote for you on T when I don't understand why your model of debate is better? The burden is on the negative to prove how the Aff clearly violates their interps.
Overall:
Don’t engage in any xenophobic discourse or it will reflect on speaker points. Please be respectful of one another and enjoy the debate.
Stacy Gleixner
Clean Judges
None
Antoanela Gomard
Homestead HS
None
John Griffin
Clean Judges
None
Sean Gross
Saint Francis High School
None
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.
Namrata Gupta
Clean Judges
None
Sharvil Gupta
Clean Judges
None
Joy Haas
Clean Judges
None
Prashanta Halder
Gunn Sr High School
None
Lariah Helm
Milpitas High School
None
David Hensley
Clean Judges
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).
Kyle Hietala
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat April 27, 2024 at 2:12 PM PDT
Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com
CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)
FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA
In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).
____
SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!
____
VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.
____
CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.
KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.
THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.
Sudhir Hirudayaraj
Archbishop Mitty
None
Adin Horovitz
Clean Judges
None
Peter Hu
Homestead HS
None
Carolyn Hughes
Archbishop Mitty
None
Jennifer Hull
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sadanand Hullur
Saint Francis High School
None
Arshad Hussain
Clean Judges
None
Jenny Hyun
Archbishop Mitty
None
Priyanka Inani
Monta Vista High School
None
Carlos Innecco
Homestead HS
None
Bharat Jagani
Presentation High School
None
Sanjay Jain
Presentation High School
None
Vanita Jain
Monta Vista High School
None
Juhi Jairath
Archbishop Mitty
None
Hoseop Jeong
Gunn Sr High School
None
matthew jin
Saint Francis High School
None
Anjaly Joseph
Clean Judges
None
Praveen KAKADE
Saint Francis High School
None
Last changed on
Thu March 28, 2024 at 11:56 AM PDT
Background: 2x North Dakota State Champion (Speech to Entertain, Novice Extemporaneous Speaking)
Assistant Coach -- North Dakota, California
IE/PD/LD Judge -- North Dakota, Minnesota, California
How do I judge Speech?
The round begins before it begins. First impressions last. Be courteous. Conduct yourselves as young adults throughout. Please do not get up in front of the room until you are called. Judges are often still writing on the previous speaker and do not wish to be rushed. When we're ready, we will indicate. It is disrespectful to enter or leave a round while someone else is speaking. If a competitor AND/OR her/his spectators break decorum, this will be reflected in scores/rankings. Understand your selection. How is the character's voice different from your own? Be highly specific. Take risks, but justified. It's never a gesture for a gesture's sake, or atypical movement to be atypical. Incredible things never happen when you play it safe.
How do I judge Debate? Your presentation (PATHOS) must be on par with your arguments (ETHOS, LOGOS). Persuade us. Debate is NOT about overwhelming us with information. Rapid-fire speaking, fact bombs and excessive spreading are exhausting. This is not debate. If I can't understand you, how do you expect me to ascertain the unintelligible? If I don't believe your conviction, how do you expect to convince me? Say less = say more. Choose facts carefully. Flow clearly. Articulate. Always show respect for your opponents. Lack of civility damages credibility.
DEBATERS, PLEASE READ -- Feel free to time yourselves. But if you choose to time your opponents, 1) turn off your alarms, 2) NEVER tell your opponents "time" and 3) respect that the judge's time is the official time.
Laxmidevi Kambli
Saint Francis High School
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 12:32 PM PDT
I have experience judging middle school speech and debate (PF & LD) for last two years.
Speech Format :
I prefer debaters to deliver speech with consistent pace and clarity. Also i prefer debaters to keep track of the time for each round.
Good Luck!
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.
Kyunghee Kang
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2018 at 4:51 AM PDT
I care more about the quality of the debate than the speed. Go at a reasonable tempo and please don't spread.
Make the debate entertaining to watch. Don't just restate statistics and cards, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should care about them. Pretend that I know absolutely nothing and make your evidence clear. Anybody can recite facts from prepared cards. This doesn't mean evidence isn't important, rather that I don't want you to make the debate nitty-gritty and filled with petty debating over evidence.
I'm big on framework. This is LD, tell me why your value and criterion are important and make sure to go back to the framework - how does each argument tie in back to your framework?
I could care less about theory, K's, and Topicality arguments. I'm a parent debater and this is JV. If I can't understand the arguments you're making, I simply won't flow them. Long story short, just don't run any thing you wouldn't run in a league tournament.
And again, clearly state the claims, warrants, and impacts. Give me impact calc. Show me why for each argument, don't just give me endless facts.
Finally, always remember to have fun and be courteous in the round. The focus of debate is education, not who can win. If you win by being overly rude you will undoubtedly get low speaks.
Aditi Kapur
Saint Francis High School
None
Nonit Kapur
Saint Francis 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!!
Murali Karnati
Fremont High School
None
Soundarya Karthik
Archbishop Mitty
None
Roxanna Keyani
Clean Judges
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
Su Jin (Sara) Kim Yoon
Valley Christian High School
None
Ciana Knight
Clean Judges
None
Robert Ko
Monta Vista High School
None
Bindu Kodali
Archbishop Mitty
None
Praveen Konda
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Christina Kougiouris
Monta Vista High School
None
Sivaram Krishnan
Saint Francis High School
None
Senthil Krishnapillai
Clean Judges
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.
Nirmaladevi Kulandeivelu
Archbishop Mitty
None
Ashish Kulkarni
Clean Judges
None
Subbu Lakshmi
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 12:40 AM PDT
I’ve judged a few tournaments in the last two years, and I would consider myself to be a lay judge. I’m open to listening to any arguments that you want to run as long as they are clear, well warranted, and delivered clearly. I do flow in the round and do my best to vote off of the arguments that remain at the end of the round. I typically give high speaker points as long as you are clear and explain yourself well.
At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun and a learning experience, so please try to have fun in the round and be respectful of your opponents in the round.
Christine Lam
Clean Judges
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.
Steven Leal
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Tue March 5, 2024 at 1:39 PM PDT
To be clear, I'm a speech coach. I am proficient enough in flowing rounds and can effectively keep up with the debate. However, if spreading is utilized, you run the risk of losing me entirely. Additionally, strategies such as running theory or K's are unlikely to lead to a winning outcome in my view. I prefer debates that are grounded in linking arguments back to a value or standard set during the rounds. Please signpost clearly so I can follow the flow more effectively. I don't want to direct the debate in any particular direction; structure it as you see fit, keeping my background and preferences in mind.
Chris Ledger
Clean Judges
None
Andrew Lee
Archbishop Mitty
None
Bryna Lee
Gunn Sr High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:22 PM PDT
I am a parent judge.
Eric Lee
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 4:44 AM PDT
Hey everyone!
I am currently a master's student studying Math & CS at Stanford, and a member of the Stanford Debate Society. I have 3 years of competitive experience in Speech competing for Monta Vista High School, with championships at NSDA Nationals, Berkeley, and James Logan.
While I have the most experience with spontaneous events, I am familiar with platform events as well. I have never competed in the interpretation events, but they are generally my favorite to judge.
Impromptu: I will judge your speech based on delivery and content, with both weighed roughly equally. Generally, while good delivery will place in you in the top half of the round, great content is what will ultimately get you the 1. For delivery, fluency is top priority. Try to have fun and make jokes if appropriate - impromptu shouldn't be boring. Regarding content, make sure your examples are both unique and relevant to the topic at hand. While talking about prepared material can be effective, reciting a canned speech is not.
Extemporaneous: I will flow your speech, weighing content over delivery (though both are important). In particular, I expect a clear evidence-based argument that features your personal analysis. Signpost as much as possible; structure and clarity help me understand your points. Try to pick quality, unbiased sources and use them with integrity (I would rather you omit the exact month/date of an article than make up a date on the spot). Above all, make sure you are really answering the question that you are being asked to answer!
Original: For original speeches, my main judging criteria is the quality of the argument put forward by the speech and how effectively it is conveyed (in both diction and delivery). The most effective speeches will be clear, well-structured, and evidence-driven. Speeches should offer new insights that are not already obvious to the average audience member. To me, humor is important in maintaining the audience's attention - jokes should be well planned and well delivered. Delivery should be confident and compelling, but natural (not sounding overly scripted or polished).
Interpretation: I will focus on two main criteria in your performance: technicality (blocking, vocal performance, etc.) and story (cutting/script, scene choices). For humor, the best speeches are delivered boldly enough to garner laughs while remaining very clean in popping. For dramatic, all components of the performance should contribute to the story rather than be included simply for the sake of drama (ex. screaming). For duo, the above applies with an extra emphasis on the interaction between the two partners (cleanliness and coordination is key here).
Looking forward to seeing your speeches, and best of luck! :)
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:16 AM PDT
I have judged several years for speech events and believe speech and debate is a great platform for students of all level to participate and benefit from it. Since our competitors have worked hard to share their performance with us, I try to also share something useful for them to takeaway with them when I write my ballot.
Stephanie Lee
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 12:17 PM PDT
Mainly did interps (DI DUO OPP) and some debate (LD) in high school (Palo Alto, 2018). Qualified to a few things. APDA in college (Johns Hopkins, 2022) for a semester, left team due to time constraints. Now I coach interps for Paly. Add me to the email chain: stephaniekaelee@gmail.com. Pronouns: She/her/hers.
Debate:
General:
- Signpost please. If you don't I'll assume you're going off/on case and doing line by line.
- I flow on paper. If my pen is down/if I'm staring at you, I'm not writing anything down — whatever you say will not be evaluated.
- I'm pretty non-interventional. Walk me through your arguments, voters, and weigh (plz). I vote on voters and crystallization. However, I'm a sucker for warranting and clash and may vote on line by lines over voters if it's well done.
- Don't use your evidence as a crutch - tbh well-warranted & impacted args are king and I'll probably vote on that over evidence with okay warranting & impact.
- Speed is fine as long as it's not spreading. If you spread I will k word your speaks.
- Don't expect me to take existential impacts seriously, unless your links are very strong and it's topical.
LD-Specific:
- Treat me like a lay judge because I haven't done high school debate in over six years and APDA isn't super techy compared to circuit LD.
- Kind of goes without saying but I don't tolerate dumping/other abuse (especially 2A).
- I'm okay with CPs. Read them if you want — they won't affect speaks.
- Values debate is cool, but it's annoying when your values are justice/equality/morality/etc etc. If they're all pretty similar, save everyone some time and skip it. Unless it's a key voter and you and your opp have very different V/VC, I don't care.
Speech:
- Trigger warn the whole room - this is a good practice to do in general.
- Ask for signals if you need them.
- Don't stonewall, that's not fun and it's toxic. Audience reactions are independent of my rankings, but I will note if you are a bad audience member.
Finally, be respectful and decent. If you are sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic etc., I will not hesitate to destroy your speaks.
On another note, if you make a TikTok reference in one of your speeches I'd probably feel genuine happiness for the first time since March.
Yong-Won Lee
Archbishop Mitty
None
Nanda Lekkelapudi
Clean Judges
None
Catherine Liang
Valley Christian High School
None
Edwin Lin
The King's Academy
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:33 AM PDT
My email (for email chains, or questions): edklin@gmail.com
Background and Experience:
I did policy debate for Leland High School from 1998-2002. I placed at state, went to nationals, earned ToC bids, was in semi-finals of Berkeley, etc. In other words, I competed at a high level in front of both parent judges and circuit judges (slow and fast debate).
For approximately 3+ years after graduating from high school, I came back to Leland to coach policy debate.
However, as you can see, that was MANY years ago. I have been coaching debate at a small private school (The King's Academy) since 2018. I have NOT judged (in practice or in a tournament) any truly circuit/fast debate rounds for over 10 years. [I have judged a few fast rounds at local league tournaments, but these are not the same, of course, as fast rounds on the circuit--I would call this medium speed policy debate].
While I still believe I can handle fast-type arguments (Kritiks, theory, CPs, etc.), two possible problems: 1) I might not be up-to-date on contemporary debate lingo or newer concepts and 2) I might not be able to handle top spreading speeds due to my lack of practice listening to spreading.
Since coming back to debate in 2018, I have judged other debates (LD, PF, etc.), and they generally make sense to me even though I may be less familiar with their cultures. I should be able to handle a medium speed debate in these non-policy debate events.
Profession:
I have been teaching in the sociology department at UC Berkeley since 2014. My subfields are in immigration, globalization, and international development. I also frequently teach classes on sociological research methods (and evaluation of evidence). This is just for your reference so you know what kinds of ideas, concepts, ways of thinking I would most likely be familiar with.
Overall Paradigm:
I do consider myself to be tabula rasa (blank slate). That means that I will try my best to keep my personal opinions out of the evaluation of the debate round and only consider what you say. This means that if you do not say it explicitly (for example, you do not say, the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative case because...) then I cannot evaluate that argument. I will first try to judge the round based strictly on the arguments made in the debate, but if I feel like it is impossible for me to decide who wins based on the arguments in the round, then I will end up intervening and using my own judgment of what arguments were made more persuasively or less persuasively (based at least somewhat on my own personal opinion and feelings about those arguments that are made, or feelings about how good the presented evidence was). I prefer NOT to intervene, but many debates often end up this way because the 2NR/2AR (last two speeches) do not clearly explain how I should vote and/or both teams make the same arguments over and over and neither seem to be winning logically over the other team and so I have to step in and decide what I think is the better argument.
Key Points to Pay Attention To:
- Be clear and explain thoroughly.
- 2NR and 2AR (last two speeches) needs to have clear articulations of how the judge should vote (including impact weighing/comparisons)
- In policy, I am neither "stock issue" or "policy" paradigm, but rather, you explain what you think I should be or do to evaluate the debate round (you tell me what is the best way to evaluate the round and why--convince me to adopt a paradigm if you want me to adopt one, or just convince me why I should vote for you).
Tao Lin
Clean Judges
None
Barb L Lindsay
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Sun June 16, 2024 at 7:41 AM PDT
SPEECH Paradigms:
Main Interp Events (HI, DI, Duo):
I value a good, clear story arc (Set the scene, introduce the conflict, rising conflict, climax, resolution). Blocking is important (help me "see" the setting), as well as facial expressions to convey emotions and reactions to other characters. If the story confuses me, you will probably be ranked lower.
Dec/OI:
I like a meaningful speech. You can't control the content, but you choose it! Since this is Interp, I look for other interp skills (facial expressions, emotions, "blocking" (here, gestures) )
POI:
A consistent & clear theme, with all other interp skills (see above)
Original Events
(OO, OA): These speeches should have a very clear THESIS statement and roadmap. Your organization is important to me. Each point should support your thesis. And transition statements are important, too. (between your points). I like to see a "speaker's triangle", so I know when you are moving from one point to another. I also value vocal clarity, vocal variety, and good (natural) gestures. Conversational tone wins the day for me!
(Info): Same as above, but in addition, I like very creative boards/props.
(OPP): I've never seen this event, but will do my best.
Limited Prep Events
Extemp: I think Extemp speeches should have a thesis statement so I know right up front what your position on the topic is. I consider this a mini-platform speech, so like to have a roadmap and 2-3 points to support your thesis. I really look for an answer to the prompt; I very much dislike it when you skirt the topic question and start creating an answer that doesn't really address the question.
Impromptu: For me, these speeches need to be organized, and not just random talking. Having a thesis statement will really help you with that. Ideally, I like a mini-platform speech: thesis, roadmap, 3 points, conclusion. In this event, I really value creativity, too!
Camille Lindsay
Valley Christian 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.
Lori Linnemeyer
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 12:41 AM PDT
Parent judge. Speak slowly and explain arguments simply and clearly.
David Liu
Palo Alto High School
None
Weidong Liu
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Wesley Liu
Leland High School
None
Julisa Lomeli
Clean Judges
None
Eileen Long
Valley Christian High School
None
Jimmy Lu
Clean Judges
None
Abhijit Mahabal
Monta Vista High School
None
Mridula Mahadevan
Gunn Sr High School
None
Lynbrook-Pratibha Mangla
Lynbrook HS
None
Priya Mani
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
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.
Somnath Mani
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:53 PM PDT
I am a completely Lay judge with no circuit judging experience. If you want to debate circuit, please add me to the email chain so I can read your case and try to follow along (somnath.mani@gmail.com)
For both Lay and Circuit, please make your impacts clear and exactly why I should be voting for the affirmative /negation. I am not great with speed so I prefer if you talk slower.
Srinivas Mantripragada
Monta Vista High School
None
Michelle Maranowski
Archbishop Mitty
None
Steven Maranowski
Archbishop Mitty
None
Amit Mardikar
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sun January 14, 2024 at 12:59 AM PDT
Hello!
I have been a parent judge since 2020. I appreciate if the participants can pace themselves in a way that I can follow along, and be respectful of their opponents.
Good Luck!
Amit
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.
Lynbrook-Neeraj Mathur
Lynbrook HS
None
Nagalakshmi Mattapalli
Monta Vista High School
None
Colin McCarthy
Clean Judges
None
Brianna McGee
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Sun February 18, 2024 at 3:12 PM PDT
Judging:
I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.
1. The topic/Message being made clear
2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed
3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate
4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known
5. Points being correctly attacked and built up
6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions
Speech:
I judge based off of:
1. Topic/Message made clear
2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story
3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments
4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene
5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.
About me:
Please call me Joi! I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, Parliamentary and a plethora of others. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.
Please add me to the email chain and send your cases as well so I can follow along! My email is rocklynry@gmail.com
Rakesh Mehta
Clean Judges
None
Tina Mitiguy
Clean Judges
None
Ashish Mittal
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:59 PM PDT
Please make sure that your arguments have logical consistency and that your presentation has integrity.
Also, presentation skills play a large part of my evaluation.
Sanjiv Mittu
Saint Francis High School
None
Shaguna Mittu
Saint Francis High School
None
Prachi Mohapatra
Valley Christian High School
None
Kevin Morrow
Clean Judges
None
Bakul Mukherjee
Monta Vista High School
None
Namrata Mummaneni
Clean Judges
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.
Aniruddha Nabar
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sun January 14, 2024 at 5:33 AM EDT
Please speak slowly and be respectful. Lesser well developed arguments are more important than too many arguments. Rebuttals should provide data-points to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Each debater should mention their framework - value and criterion.
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.
Chitra Nagaraj
Presentation High School
None
Archana Naik
Leland High School
None
Kausalya Nallapa
Clean Judges
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.
Sreedevi Nandiraju
Evergreen Valley
None
Anna Nelson
Fremont High School
None
Brian Ng
Clean Judges
None
Norman Ng
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sun September 19, 2021 at 7:32 AM EDT
Parent judge, please don't speak too fast and ensure you articulate your points clearly. Thanks and have fun participants!
Raymond Nguyen
Clean Judges
None
Vince Nowinski
Clean Judges
None
Chizoba Nwosu
Archbishop Mitty
None
Lynbrook-Brian Ogata
Lynbrook HS
None
Ash Olakangil
Clean Judges
None
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.
Daniel Pandelea
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 1:47 AM PDT
I am a parent judge, and this is my second year with debate. Consider me a flow judge.
I appreciate it when speakers talk clearly and introduce issues, and definitions or describe acronyms before using them.
Do speak confidently and in equal measure use logic and arguments to support your case.
I expect participants to be polite and courteous with the opposing team. Also, I expect participants to state what are the key facts I should consider, even when seemingly obvious. Do not assume I will credit you for a mistake of the opposing team unless you highlight it.
Good luck!
Sheetanshu Pandey
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Aneesha Panicker
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Sun March 6, 2022 at 12:44 AM PDT
lay judge
- won't keep time
- go slow
- develop your arguments clearly
have fun!
Chan Hong Park
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:44 PM PDT
I am a parent judge with >7 years of judging experience in LD, PF, Parli and Policy debates as well as individual events. As a typical lay judge, my primary emphasis lies in evaluating the logical coherence of arguments, which should be well-supported by solid evidence. I flow and prefer clear speaking with no spreading. Additionally, I believe in the significance of maintaining respect towards opponents throughout the round.
Karen Parker
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sruti Patnaik
Clean Judges
None
Craig Peters
Los Gatos
None
Scott Peterson
Valley Christian High School
None
Indrani Pillutla
Presentation High School
None
Suma Potluri
Saratoga HS
None
Mukul Prasad
Presentation High School
None
Theresa Purpuri
San Lorenzo Valley High School
None
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
Vijay Ragunathan
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 4:22 AM PDT
Welcome to the competition! Debates and speeches are exceptional events and a fun way for students to engage discussing social, economic, and a wide range of topics.
I have been judging both speech and debate in the current stint for 3 years with 4 years of prior judging experience. I am a parent judge. I am a former competitor as well.
Please follow your methodology relevant to your event and respect your fellow competitors. All the best!
Kusum Rai
Archbishop Mitty
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
Arti Raman
Presentation High School
Last changed on
Sat March 6, 2021 at 12:58 AM PDT
This is my second year being a volunteer judge. I plan on volunteering often to build up this experience.
Arathy Ramanujam
Clean Judges
None
Jeremy Ramirez
Presentation High School
Last changed on
Mon February 19, 2024 at 12:07 AM PDT
Jeremyramirez@berkeley.edu
I act as a substitute judge that is called when more experienced judges must cancel at sudden notice. I have judged Speech and "Drama" in the past, but this is my first time judging Policy Debate. That being said:
Please do not assume that I have prior topic knowledge.
Tips:
Project voice. Speed reading is fine as long as you speak clearly.
In your documents, you might want to make a clear "Cap" (roadmap/framework summary that explains arguments) So that I can easily follow your argument, or be extremely coherent with "Cards" and speaking.
Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the material, by not just reading from the screen the entire time. Paraphrase, be prepared to answer questions during rebuttal on the spot.
Professionalism and sportsmanship are important during the debate. Laughing, shaking your head, at the other team + clicking your pen to distract the other team, is not favorable behavior and I do notice it.
What impresses me is confidence, assurance, cohesiveness in a non degrading manner. Professionalism and maturity, Relying on logic and statistics more than psychological undermining.
Results:
A Brief RFD will be discussed after the debate, with back to back rounds and as not to delay the tournament, a more detailed assessment will be sent along with individual assessments. (30-40 min after round). Individual assessments will be released within 30-40 minutes after the round.
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.
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.
Ranjani Renganathan
Presentation High School
None
Ashwini Sahu
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 1:00 AM PDT
Speak at an understandable pace. Have fun!
Ganapathy Sankar
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:57 PM PDT
Parent Judge:
Don't spread, make sure to make your arguments clear.
All responses to constructive must be in rebuttal. If an argument is not extended through FF & Summary, then it won't count. Make sure to frontline your defense against the opponents through all speeches as well.
Sign post
ganu.sankar@gmail.com -- add to the email chain
Sunitha Sankar
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 4:08 PM EDT
Hello! Please speak loud and clearly. Make sure not to bring up new points in your second speech and focus on the impacts on your last speech. Make sure to have good evidence and warrants to back up your points. Finally, don’t be rude to your opponents or talk over them aggressively!
kavita sankhe
Cupertino High School
None
Shital Savarkar
Clean Judges
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.
Sanjeev Saxena
Cupertino High School
None
Marian Seah
Palo Alto High School
None
Suresh Senniappan
Monta Vista High School
None
Sreekanth Setty
Washington High School
Last changed on
Sun January 28, 2024 at 11:21 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and have been judging tournaments for a couple of years, and here are some important things to keep in mind:
Approach to Judging:
1. I am not a tabula rasa judge, and I won't vote for false arguments or facts.
2. I like to see logical and structured arguments in the round. I prefer if every argument is clearly structured. The motion should be seen from all viewpoints, not just from one focused one.
3. There must be links. Every argument needs to be heavily backed up with evidence and warrants, and I want to see logical and thorough conclusions. I won't buy any claim that is thrown out there unless you can use common sense to understand it.
4. The Affirmation's plan should be bound to the resolution, and should only specify necessary details. The negation's counterplan shouldn't stray too far from the original plan.
5. Please no theory or kritiks.
6. Don't make new arguments in the last two speeches, but the other team should call a POO if they hear one.
7. Don't ask too many POIs (3 max) but the other team should try to answer all of them.
8. No spreading! Speak VERY CLEARLY and SLOWLY!I can't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, and be sure to SIGNPOST! No complicated debate jargon. With this in mind, oral presentation skills are important to me.
Bonus speaker points if you say something in Telugu to end the last speeches.
Above all, have fun and be kind to each other!
Alpa Shah
Palo Alto High School
None
Shreya Shankar
Fremont High School
Last changed on
Sat March 25, 2023 at 2:54 AM PDT
Email (for evidence sharing): reyshankar9@gmail.com
Hi! I'm currently a student at UC Berkeley and I did both speech and debate for 5 years. I mostly focused on speech (mainly doing informative and program oral interp), but I have experience in PF, LD, and Parli debate.
That being said, please treat me like a lay judge. I don't flow much, so it's really on the competitors to speak clearly and make sure you emphasize voting points at the beginning and end of the round. READ WEIGHING, tell me why YOUR arguments are more important than your opponents, don't just restate your argument! I know tech and theory, and I can keep up if you feel as if it's necessary to run it, but the burden would fall on you to make sure that I, your opponents, and other judges in the round are able to adequately understand what you are doing. Personally, I am pretty familiar with most high theory lit and phil and I find it really interesting, but it's pointless if you can't relate it back to the topic at hand.
While who wins the round will be determined by the arguments read, speaking skills will influence how your arguments come across, so please keep this in mind! A general rule of thumb for weighing for me is that things like social well-being and human life are more important than economy or tech innovation, so, if your arguments center on the latter, please try to connect it back to how it would impact the people.
I will not vote for any team that is rude or discriminatory towards their opponents
Manisha Sharma
Monta Vista High School
None
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
Vasist Sharma
Milpitas High School
None
Ke Shen
Cupertino High School
None
Petr Shepelev
Clean Judges
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!
Sunil Shivappa
Clean Judges
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
Sonali Shrivastava
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Anirvin Sikha
Clean Judges
None
Paul Simoes de Carvalho
Clean Judges
None
Thomas Simon
Leland High School
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.
Sonia Singh
Archbishop Mitty
None
Anuj Singhal
Homestead HS
None
Shreya Sinha
Presentation High School
None
Becky Slama-Bennett
Clean Judges
None
Gopal Sridharan
Cupertino High School
None
Shruti Srinath
Archbishop Mitty
None
Vijay Srinivasan
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 3:46 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with limited experience in LD and policy. I would like all participants to speak clearly and at a pace that is easy to follow.
I am an engineer with two decades of experience in computer networking and security. Please assume I have no background knowledge of the topics being debated
David Strunz
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Wed March 1, 2023 at 6:23 AM PDT
He/Him
Hello! Good luck to all competitors. I'm a brand new judge, and I'm open to anything as long as you're not homophobic, racist, ableist, sexist, or any other -ism.
Please add me onto the email chain davidstrunz96@gmail.com
Debate: Truth>tech. Please avoid technical jargon or I will dock your speaks. Speak clearly and slowly, and I vote for the team that develops their argument the best. In the rebuttals, I expect to hear reasons why you won today's debate at the top of each speech. Make sure you signpost and have a clear overview. I am also an engineer if that helps.
Speech: Please speak clearly. I'm not familiar with the different types of speech events, and some humor is appreciated. If I can't understand any part of the speech or if you drop any words, I'll rank you lower.
Julia Sullivan
Clean Judges
None
Shri Sundaram
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:44 PM PDT
I judge using the SRROD framework.
1. Structure - whether the speaker opened well, supported the topic with good examples and closed it out well
2. Relevance of the topic - is it relevant to the times we live in?
3. On how Relatable the topic is - i.e. can I relate to the topic?
4. Originality - how unique is this topic compared to the rest?
5. Delivery - use of effective oral presentation skills (volume, diction, speed of delivery, vocal variety), movement, use of props etc.
I put my analysis in a spreadsheet to show how I came up with an objective score.
I usually add separate feedback for each participant 1:1.
Meenakshi Sundram
Monta Vista High School
None
Padmaja Tarra
Monta Vista High School
None
Ariadne Tcharos
Clean Judges
None
Tesline Thomas
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Kapila Thotakura
Archbishop Mitty
None
Shufang Tian
Clean Judges
None
David Tran
Saint Francis High School
None
Hiep Tran
Notre Dame San Jose
Last changed on
Sun January 17, 2021 at 3:08 AM PDT
I have judged parli debate since 2016, and public forum later on as a parent judge. As a software engineer, I'd like to judge simply and mainly based on the core of the delivered speech, in other words, its logic quality, clearness, tightness and creativity of the argument itself rather than any superficial words of politeness or mediocre prologue...(but it does not mean that speaker can totally disregard of the basic manners when speaking or listening).
How speaker is clear, straight, detailed, well-organized, strong, creative and rich in their contentions and in proving opponent's flaw and weakness in their arguments is what I'd like to judge on.
So debaters should be relaxed, respectful and stay focus on your speech as well as listening well and carefully to the other side to create a strong, creative debate to win the round.
For each of young debaters today, gradually building good debate skill either from winning or losing a round is building for yourself a precious asset for your success in the future. Like other judges, I hope to contribute somehow to this process of your development.
Have fun and enjoy debate!
Hiep Tran
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 2:24 AM PDT
Do your best!!!
LOC TRAN
Valley Christian High School
None
Phuong Tran
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Liliane Trimouille
Valley Christian High School
None
chuong truong
Clean Judges
None
Alice Tu
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 5:00 AM PDT
Hello debaters,
As your judge I value clear, concise and polite speakers. Content and presentation are both equally valuable, and I will be carefully observing the quality of your speeches and questions asked. During crossfire, I expect questions and answers to be straight to the point.
Last changed on
Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:43 AM PDT
I am a parent judge.
Ganesh Tyagali
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 5:00 PM PDT
I am a parent judge who has been judging for a couple of years but have a long history of participating and winning speech and debate tournaments.
I value calm cogent coherent arguments over bombastic and aggressive harangue.
Be kind - to yourself and to your opponents.
Be yourself.
Be the best person you can be.
Be respectful.
Ad hominem arguments are an immediate fail in my book.
I take a dim view of spreading; if I can't understand you, evidently you can't convince me of the soundness of your arguments.
If you are not clear or understandable, I'll call out "Clear!" Please heed it. I will not be repeating the call more than twice.
Time: I expect the candidates to time themselves and honor it. But I do keep watch.
If you are using frameworks, define them clearly at the outset.
I appreciate good rebuttals and cross examinations.
Good luck, and most importantly, have fun.
Murthy Vakkalagadda
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:48 PM PDT
Hi! I am a parent judge. I look for someone who presents the case well, and knows what they are talking about.
Be nice and have fun!
Ana Valle
Clean Judges
None
sundar veliah
Clean Judges
None
Suresh Venkataraman
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 1:06 AM PDT
While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my second year judging Public Forum.
I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.
Indrakala Venugopal
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:47 AM PDT
New judge onboard. Would help if you could present your points loudly and clearly.
Sri Vijay
Clean Judges
None
Rajeswari Vinayagam
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Sun January 14, 2024 at 1:17 AM PDT
I have been a judging PF from 2018 onwards. I have judged varied tournaments from Novice to Varsity levels.
Present your story clearly. My preference will be clarity over ambiguity.
I don't mind if you speak fast.
I also weigh based on maturity of the thought, clear communication and metrics relating to your argument
Sharda Vishwanath
Presentation High School
None
Greg Vosganian
Clean Judges
None
Emily Vu
Clean Judges
None
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
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
Andrew Warren
Los Gatos
None
Danielle Williams Nidome
Archbishop Mitty
None
Gavin Wong
Monta Vista High School
None
Dongxiang Wu
Palo Alto High School
None
Weiqi Xiao
Gunn Sr High School
None
Rui Xu
Cupertino High School
None
Menaka Yakasiri
Evergreen Valley
None
Ruiguo Yang
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Thu February 1, 2024 at 2:40 AM PDT
I am a parent volunteer judge. My feedback is subjective.
Jennifer Yu
Clean Judges
None
YuYu Yuan
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT
TLDR: Warrant out your arguments, weigh, tell my why I should vote for you, be nice, and have fun :)
Background: I'm currently a junior at Stanford University and I've coached PF at Redwood MS and am currently the Speech coach for Palo Alto HS. I've competed in PF debate, Original Oratory, Extemp (primarily international extemp), and have done POI and poetry during my 4 years in high school.
Email: yuyu.yuan927@gmail.com (feel free to contact me about my comments on your ballots or if you have any questions :)
PF Paradigm: I prefer tech over truth so I'll buy any argument you present as long as it's well-warranted and not unethical (i.e. racist, sexist, etc...). I want to see clash and weighing because I think that makes for more interesting debates. That being said you should tell me how I should vote in the round. I won't intervene in the debate. However, if you don't tell me how to vote I will definitely evaluate the link debate first and probably vote off of whoever has the biggest impact second. I will consider dropped arguments as conceded unless you can give me a reason why I should consider the new answer. I don't really want to hear any new arguments in summary though. If it's something that can be cross-applied to an argument that you have already made, most likely I'll buy it as long as the argument still stands. If there was only defense read on your contention but it's something you're not going to go for I'll let you kick it if you don't bring it up again in summary or final focus. If there is offense on the contention and you don't want to go for it you have to kick it yourself, I will not kick it for you.
Policy Paradigm: I'm good with you reading any type of argument. Speed-wise, I'm fine with it as long as you're clear and you send me the doc. I'm a big fan of critical literature and definitely think it belongs in the debate space, but would only appreciate it if it's actual discourse and not just because it's a meme. I think you can read your k aff if you justify it but I want you to actually make sense. I'm good with framework and topicality but any other type of theory arguments I'm not as familiar with. For example, I'm not the most experienced with condo debates. I personally don't think unlimited condo is fair but as long as you tell me why condo is good and your opponents don't adequately address your response, I won't vote you down for it.
LD Paradigm: I don't have much experience in LD but I have judged a bunch of LD rounds. I am open to K's being read in LD because I love the literature, but treat it like you would any other argument (i.e. tell me how I should evaluate it, why I should evaluate it that way, why the links are there, and why your opponents should lose the round). I will not automatically vote for you if you prove that your value and value criterion matters more than your opponent's value and value criterion. I often find that some LDers think that if they prove their value and value criterion matters more then they should win the round and end up forgetting about the rest of their case, but just because you define the utility function doesn't mean you maximize it (i.e. just because you prove your value to be more important, your case or how the arguments are interacting in the round may not necessarily prove it). Otherwise, the rest of my paradigm applies :)
It should be assumed that you shouldn't be mean in rounds so I expect good debate etiquette. If you are rude during the round, at the very least I will give you low speaks. Debate is supposed to be a fun and open environment and we should keep it that way. Overall, just have fun!
Speech: I judge based on content, delivery, and creativity. I appreciate a speech that has solid content where the arguments are well structured and supported. For platform events, I find that many points are surface level so speeches that go in depth on your points will get extra brownie points. I love for analysis to connect and piece together everything for me so that it's obvious the message that you're getting at. Ambiguity in speeches does not equate to nuance and I would make sure that you know why you're leaving things ambiguous so that it is more purposeful in your speech.
For interp events, I focus specifically on blocking and the clarity of the storyline. I like pieces that have a lot of meaning but a clear exposition, climax, and "resolution" (doesn't have to be an exact solution to the problem you present and are showing us, but should be a good ending to showcase your message).
Tere Zacher
Clean Judges
None
Youwei Zhang
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Lynbrook-Ji Zhou
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Sun February 14, 2021 at 11:03 AM PDT
Email: zhouji@gmail.com
I judge on framework, refutations, extensions and impacts.
Spreading is fine as long as you speak clearly. I will flow all that I can understand.
Crystallization improves clarity and is highly preferred.
Julia Zhu
Clean Judges
None
Wei Zhu
Mission San Jose High School
Last changed on
Tue November 30, 2021 at 11:24 AM PDT
I'm a lay judge and have 3 years of judging experience. I'll be taking notes throughout the round, so be as clear, slow, and understandable as possible. I'm mostly tech > truth, but I won't vote on frivolous/squirrely args. I also won't vote on theory, K's, etc. Please be respectful throughout the round. If you catch miscut ev, point it out in a speech and I'll take it into consideration. (written by daughter)
For IEs:
This is my first time judging IEs (I usually judge PF)!