Coast Forensic League CFL Speech 1
2023
—
Milpitas,
CA/US
Speech Judging Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Shweta Agarwal
Archbishop Mitty
None
Mili Alappatt
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
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
SHAN Anwar
Clean Judges
None
Poonam Arora
Evergreen Valley
None
Muhammad Asif
Clean Judges
None
Thalli Badrinath
Clean Judges
None
Siva Balan
Clean Judges
None
Sonal Banka
Clean Judges
None
Ning Bao
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 12:22 AM PDT
I am a beginner judge of speech and debate tournaments.
For speech tournaments, the guiding principles that I use to judge participants include the following:
- Was the speech compelling? Was it well delivered with maturity, poise, and a demonstrated understanding of the topic?
- Was the logic in the speech sound?
- How well did the speaker present? Did they use effective gestures and facial queues? Did they speak fluently? Were there nervous ticks or unnecessary adds such as the use of "like" or "just" repeatedly throughout the presentation?
For debate tournaments, I look for the following:
- Is the logic used in the debate sound? Are there inconsistencies or logic leaps that make the argument difficult or impossible to follow?
- Did the AF team effectively present a plan that I could understand?
- Did the Neg team present an alternative or effectively refute the plan presented?
- Was evidence used effectively?
- Were ideas communicated in a way that was understandable?
- Which team made the most compelling arguments/which team was able to respond most effectively to key points of the opponent to make or refute a case?
I do my best to remove any bias based on prior knowledge or a topic and/or presenter characteristics.
Hey guys this is Austin, Joel's son here to tell you a little bit about my dad. He is a LAY judge. NO SPREADING. you will lose if you do this. Don't run medium arguments and use jargon like internal link. It will not work well for you. My dad has been working in cyber for 20 years so he knows stuff about cyber but will listen to evidence.
Rupen Bavishi
Clean Judges
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!
Prabal Bhutani
Archbishop Mitty
None
Joseph Billante
Clean Judges
None
Dondi Bogusky
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.
Marc Canabou
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri March 22, 2024 at 4:10 PM PDT
I have done policy debate, LD and Congress, competing at State (CA) and Nationals when I was in high school.
I am truth over technical putting a premium on understanding your argument and on the logic both teams use to explain why the evidence and the expert is relevant to the argument. Bad evidence loses to good logic and common sense. Good evidence plus logic wins. Stated another way, in making your arguments around impacts, I listen carefully for logical fallacies -- while I won't vote against you if I hear a slippery slope, or a correlation/ causation fallacy, I will keenly listen to see how your opponent responds. I share this because as you develop your speaking skills for life (amazing by the way), your goal will be to persuade whether in business, law, medicine, science or politics -- few things undermine one's credibiilty more than arguments that tend to extremes based on unsubstantiated logical or reasoning errors, so it's good to start to learn and practive now how to build structurally and logical sound arguments, relying on evidence, early in your journey.
Debate is about testing logic and evidence to communicate a Point of View that can be understood and is compelling, so expect me to be a critical judge who will weight what each team tells me about the arguments presented; I vote for the argument I find most persuasive. I will look to frame my assessment against the main stock issues, unless you convince me another standard should be used. Also, if I can't understand the argument, I can't very well score it in your favor.
Beyond my debate experience, my perspective on policy is shaped by being involved in lobbying the Federal Government for Procter and Gamble and time at a leading think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). I worked as a management consult for Booz Allen & Hamilton, where I created business facts and strategies for the Mayo Clinic and NYH Cornell. I have an undergraduate degree in History and a MBA degree, so I feel very comfortable listening to arguments that weight and test the quality of the expert as well as the merits of the evidence; I will even accept your use of common sense or logic to call out logical fallacies, and to sanity test or refute a piece of evidence that just doesn’t make sense.
Finally, effective persuasion includes respectful disagreement, so I will notice rude, sarcastic or condesending behavior and that will detract heavily from the weight I attribute to your argument or position. Please enjoy a spirited discussion and I will do my best to flow and follow.
John CAO
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:20 AM PDT
Public Forum
Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.
Judged in SCU & North Bay.
Marcelo Castro
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Thu October 13, 2022 at 7:36 AM PDT
New to judging. All argument is valid as long as the argument is justified. Show your evidence clearly.
Enjoy, it will show on your delivery!
Chandni Chadha
Leland High School
None
Anuj Chakrapani
Clean Judges
None
Shefali Chandila
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Shailu Chauhan
Clean Judges
None
Prathima CHAWLA
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2024 at 6:59 AM PDT
I am a lay judge, and this is my first year judging. English is my second language.
Jean Paul Chen
Clean Judges
None
Maria (Tess) Chin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Julie Chin Quee
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 11:13 AM PDT
I am parent judge participating in judging for the first year. I appreciate reasonably paced speaking, using diverse sources, eye contact and being natural.
Do not be rude, be assertive but not aggressive, respect your opponents. I value clear and concise arguments backed with strong evidence.
Julie Chow
Palo Alto High School
None
Chien-Shun Chu
Clean Judges
None
Sharon Clay
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:42 AM PDT
I debated L&D when I was in HS in the last millennium and now am enjoying judging. I am most comfortable with LD but enjoy public forum, policy and parli as well.
- I appreciate good speaking ability- the oral presentation should enhance the message, and not be just reading your speech.
- I prefer to see sound logic and critical analysis over a rush of minimal responses. If you can't respond reasonably to everything, prioritize and defend the top priorities that should decide the debate. I will decide the debate based on weighing, and that critical things are responded to, and in how the weighing ties into the value criterion. I'd prefer to see a win on good logic vs technicalities.
- LD: Whether you win or lose the value debate, I expect you to successfully defend how you meet the value criterion or debate goal in your weighing.
- Signpost and make sure you take the time to properly and clearly represent evidence - clearly tag it and make clear what is the quoted evidence versus your own argument.
- Finally, be kind, civil, and professional. Disagree with your opponent but refrain from disparaging.
Thank you for engaging in this important activity and I look forward to hearing your case!
Wade Clements
Archbishop Mitty
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
Archbishop Mitty
None
kiran dasoju
Clean Judges
None
Usha Desai
Presentation High School
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.
Kishore Devireddy
Evergreen Valley
None
Pranav Dharwadkar
Saratoga HS
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:17 AM PDT
I am a parent judge (read Lay Judge :-)
My paradigm is
- Clear and Slow in both Speech and Debate, so that it is easy for me to understand
- Structured presentation, demonstrating clarity of thought, so that I can follow your contentions and speech
- Robust roadmap, so that I know what you are going to tell me
- Logical flow of thoughts that tie back to your thesis and roadmap ensuring I am not lost
- I am analytical and critical, so not easily swayed by tangential statistics and overload of references that don't support your contention. I am looking for examples that support your argument and thesis.
- I am a parent judge, so my feedback is geared completely at making you better.
- Most importantly, all contestants are typically so good, it is extremely difficult to pick the top 3-5 places, there are usually very minor nits that differentiate. A contestant ranked fifth is almost as good, if not the same, as contestant ranked first. While this is not fair to the contestants, the reality is that I am forced to pick 1st to 5th place and sometimes very minor nits force my hand. So please don't be discouraged.
Good luck. Remember, you are all amazing. I applaud you on choosing to spend your fun childhood years on rigorous and tough extra curricular activities, like Speech and Debate competitions, instead of random texting. You are all winners in my book, just for making this difficult choice.
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
Yunlei Duan
Monta Vista High School
None
Esra Dumanli
Palo Alto High School
None
Val Erazo
Archbishop Mitty
None
Haripriyaa Ganesan
Leland High School
None
Hilda George
Clean Judges
None
Janakiraman Gopalan
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Wed April 24, 2024 at 3:38 AM PDT
I have been judging speech and debate for couple of years. I love to hear good debates with good use of language and arguments related to the topic. I take copious notes. My expectations is that the debaters will have mutual respect for one another.
At the end of the debate we all should leave the debate learning and gaining something new from one another.
John Griffin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Zhen Gu
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Fri February 17, 2023 at 12:28 AM PDT
This is my fourth year judging. I have experience judging in different debate and speech types. While I do not deduct if time management is within a few seconds, if you go on for 30sec or more beyond the time limit, I will deduct significant points.
The most important element for me is the strength of the presentation, conclusions are logical, and the story is compelling. I believe in maintaining good eye contact, making arguments not just reading cards. Please keep your "spreading" in check. I would like to have a clear and effective delivery. I appreciate clever wordplay and well-done appeals to emotion.
Please think about the weighing mechanism, what is the impact and why I should vote for your side.
Debate and speech should be exciting and fun. Please enjoy the experience. I expect professional behavior by all participants, and look forward to a great session.
Naveen Gunukula
Leland High School
None
Bill Guo
Clean Judges
None
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
Archbishop Mitty
None
Vikash Gupta
Clean Judges
None
Rohit Gurtu
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Thu February 1, 2024 at 8:49 AM PDT
I am a parent judge, and vote on debate events based on clarity of the argument supported by evidence, examples. Quality wins over quantity. Be respectful to the other speakers. I judge speech events based on good structure identifying the problem and solution with examples and conviction on both. Additionally looking at impact of the speech with poise, vocal variety and strong delivery with effective body movement.
Joy Haas
Clean Judges
None
Abhinav Halen
Clean Judges
None
Sungwook Han
Clean Judges
None
Nimish Hathalia
Clean Judges
None
Byron He
Saratoga HS
None
David Hensley
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Sudhir Hirudayaraj
Archbishop Mitty
None
Jim Horng
Leland High School
None
Peter Hu
Homestead HS
None
Vincent Huang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 2:51 PM PDT
I am a parent judge and this is my 4th year judging debate and speech tournaments.
For debate-
My vote is based on the following three principles:
- Clarity and evidence: Debaters should deliver their arguments clearly and concisely, with supporting evidence from credible sources. Take your time to explain your reasoning to the judges, and don't assume that they will understand your points without a thorough explanation.
- Rebuttal: Debaters should challenge their opponents' arguments during cross-examination and rebuttal. This shows that you have listened carefully to your opponents and that you have thought critically about their arguments. Be sure to provide evidence to support your own arguments and to refute your opponents' claims.
- Pace: Debaters should speak at a moderate pace. Speaking too quickly can make it difficult for the judges to follow your arguments, while speaking too slowly can be boring and ineffective.
In addition to these three principles, I also appreciate it when debaters are respectful of their opponents and the judges.
For speech-
I am looking for presentations, not just readings. I appreciate speakers who use nonverbal communication skills such as varying their volume and speed, using hand gestures and facial expressions, and moving around the stage to engage the audience and emphasize key messages.
PS. Please avoid mumbling your words even if that could be funny to get certain effect.
I wish all people good luck and can enjoy the game.
Carolyn Hughes
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sadanand Hullur
Saint Francis High School
None
Shruti Iyengar
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:54 PM PDT
I am a lay judge but I have 8 years experience judging League debates.
General Stuff:
Just speak at conversational pace and tone and use all your time.
Only go for topicality if its a glaring violation
Try to avoid using terminology-heavy debates.
If aff, focus on defending your policies and answer all of the negs points effectively and clearly
If neg, focus on finding gaps in the policy proposal and carry only the most contested and strongest negative stock issues into the 2NR.
Cross ex is the most important focus area for me in the debate.This is the only part of debate where neg/aff actively clash with each other. I look for teams to use the that time effectively.Don't cut off responses, unless they are stretching the time limit.
Don't give up in round, I keep an open mind throughout the debate, even the last speech.
Venkatesh Iyer
Leland High School
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2024 at 12:15 AM PDT
Crossfire is important to me. I want to see competitors having equal speaking time with interaction between each other. Competitors should provide insightful and relevant questions and be respectful. In cross-fire I also want it to flow as well, i.e. the cross and responses have to be related and not orthogonal. In delivery, I want to see eye contact and deliberate clear speech (no rushing or spreading). Please address the judge clearly and confidently. I want to see flow of thought, not disjoint ideas and talking points strung together. For content, I value well-researched content with clear links and subpoints. Concise is always better. For the effort put in I take and send out detailed notes on all aspects of the debate: content, depth and quality, delivery, and crossfire.
Jaison Jacob
Clean Judges
None
Bharat Jagani
Presentation High School
None
Chuck Jagannadhan
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:51 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I've judged mainly lay Policy for the last 3 1/2 years. I prefer usage of stock issues. Please do not spread or read Ks with me.
Prabhuta Jain
Monta Vista High School
None
Edward Jiang
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 11:29 AM PDT
I'm a parent judge, and I have been judging PF, LD, and INTERP for more than 2 years.
I lived in United States since late 1990s, so you can consider me as a native English speaker.
I usually judge the debates based on 3 aspects, the content and logic, the presentation skill, and the techniques during the cross.
Haiwen Jiang
Leland High School
None
Anjaly Joseph
Clean Judges
None
Praveen KAKADE
Saint Francis High School
None
Prashanth Kalluraya
Clean Judges
None
Nonit Kapur
Saint Francis High School
None
Shanthi Karunakaran
Presentation High School
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 7:15 AM PDT
Just speak clearly, maintain good eye contact, and we will be good.
Chandra Katta
Clean Judges
None
Jicksen Kattumattathil
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Aditi Kelkar
Monta Vista High School
None
Swapna Kelkar
Westmont
None
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 11:05 AM EDT
Be kind to your fellow participants.
Be respectful of each other, let others finish their sentence, and keep your time.
Be clear and enunciate well to make sure you can showcase the effort that went into building the great content you have prepared.
Good luck to everyone!
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
Monita Khona
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Boon Khor
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:11 AM PDT
I judge debates based on the logic behind arguments and if your impacts are strong and make sense. I look for a clear presentation and will judge based on speaking abilities as well as arguments. I prefer moderate speaking pace so that arguments are better understood.
Jay Kidambi
Presentation High School
None
Alice Kim
Clean Judges
None
Daniel D. Kim
Clean Judges
None
Ki Yong Kim
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Robert Ko
Monta Vista High School
None
Rajesh Kotari
Monta Vista High School
None
murthy krishna
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 8:47 AM PDT
I am a lay parent judge who has judged PF, LD, and various speech events in the past two years. Please do not spread or speak at very fast speeds, speak clearly and slowly so I can catch everything. I can't evaluate any advanced argumentation/theory/Ks, so please avoid it.
Be respectful and have fun!
Senthil Krishnapillai
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:55 AM PDT
I am a parent who has judged for 5 years. Please be civil and respectful in round. Speak at a reasonable speed, and make sure to have organization in your speech.
Eric Kunze
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Hon Wai Kwok
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 12:42 AM PDT
I have been judging public forum debates since 2021. Here are my expectations
-
Lay Judge Background: As a lay judge, I am not deeply familiar with the technicalities of competitive debate. Please keep your arguments simple and avoid complex debate jargon.
-
Clarity and Pace: Avoid spreading and maintain a clear, moderate, and comprehensible speaking pace. I may struggle to comprehend points delivered at a high speed.
-
Data-Driven Approach: With my background in engineering, I am inclined towards a data-driven or evidence-based approach. I encourage you to provide solid evidence to support your contentions and to critically challenge your opponent's evidence.
-
Preference for Quantifiable Impacts: I have a preference for arguments with quantifiable impacts. Make sure to clearly articulate how your evidence supports these impacts
Jongrak Kwon
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 11:57 PM PDT
I am a parent judge with a couple of experiences on impromptu and original oratory only. I can try judging other types of speech, but I cannot do any type of debate.
Larry Lai
Clean Judges
None
Subbu Lakshmi
Bellarmine College Preparatory
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.
Andrew Lee
Archbishop Mitty
None
Brian Lee
Leland High School
None
Hyunseok Lee
Clean Judges
None
Jieun Lee
Clean Judges
None
Nanda Lekkelapudi
Clean Judges
None
Mark Lewis
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat March 18, 2023 at 10:22 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging speech and debate. I have judged OA, Policy and Parli and I have reviewed all the other speech and debate formats to become familiar with them. Please send me your evidence and include me on the email chain at markedwardlewis@gmail.com
I would like to see that you have an understanding of the issue(s) and the arguments and that you provide credible evidence that supports your case. If you want me to evaluate something then warrant it, don’t rely on the existence of evidence to explain your argument. Please avoid using jargon and explain your arguments in a way that is easy to understand – you are very familiar with what you are talking about but I am not so make sure that I will be able to understand your points.
On those same lines, if you spread then be clear so that I can understand you, remember this is my first year so I want to be able to flow. In my opinion, debate is about making a point and if you fail to do that just by speaking fast and expecting that to all get across it won’t work for me.
I don’t like when teams run arguments just to throw off their opponents or when they attempt any stunts thinking that will help their case. Stay on topic, don’t misrepresent evidence, debate fairly be professional and respectful.
Good luck
Ji Li
Leland High School
None
Lynbrook-Yening Liang
Lynbrook HS
None
Rui Lin
Leland High School
None
Sridhar Lingam
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:14 AM PDT
Hello Everyone,
I have been volunteering as a parent judge in S&D tournaments for the last 5 years. My personal beliefs border on moderate philosophy. I am very open to listening to arguments on either side of the spectrum and I especially like the ones that are logical and convincing. I don't like it when people speak too fast since most of them are trying to scram in a bunch of arguments at the same time which otherwise don't stand on their own.
I also like the flow of the speeches, a simple and easy to understand structure, and, the ones that follow the time requirements.
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.
Danzhou Liu
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Mon April 22, 2024 at 8:47 AM PDT
lay
Tom Liu
Leland High School
None
Ying Liu
Clean Judges
None
Eileen Long
Valley Christian High School
None
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:30 AM EDT
I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 6:18 AM PDT
I primarily judged speech events and coached limited prep speech for some students.
My judging criteria for extemp:
Content:
Analysis: Does the speech demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue and its complexities? Does it go beyond simply summarizing the news?
Argumentation: Does the speech present a well-defined central thesis? Are there strong supporting arguments with evidence?
Source Consideration: Does the speaker utilize a variety of credible sources to support their claims?
Transitions: Does the speaker give a transition between points?
Delivery:
Voice: Is the speaker's voice clear, audible, and varied in pitch and pace?
Articulation: Does the speaker enunciate words clearly and avoid filler words ("um," "like")?
Stage Presence: Does the speaker exhibit good posture, eye contact, and use of gestures to engage the audience?
Time Management: Does the speech stay within the allotted time limit?
Mark Mabie
The Nueva School
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2024 at 11:28 AM PDT
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below
Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.
If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round
IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is
1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness
If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.
Philosophy of Debate:
Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.
I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told
Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.
Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)
Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.
Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.
Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.
Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.
I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.
Parli specifics:
I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.
Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.
Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.
Public Forum specifics:
I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.
I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.
Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.
Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.
Lincoln Douglass and Policy:
I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.
Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com
Ritika Maheshwari
Clean Judges
None
Somnath Mani
Valley Christian High School
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.
Tomas Margain
Mountain View High School
None
Erin Matheson Ritchie
San Lorenzo Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri April 12, 2024 at 9:44 AM PDT
Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.
In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.
Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).
PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.
LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.
Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.
Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.
Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.
Mrinal Mathur
Monta Vista High School
None
Colin McCarthy
Archbishop Mitty
None
Dipa Mehta
Archbishop Mitty
None
Rakesh Mehta
Archbishop Mitty
None
Subbu Meiyappan
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 4:23 PM EDT
I am a parent judge. So please keep technical aspects of the debate to a minimum. If you can avoid spreading it would be perfect. Try and avoid speed-talk. I appreciate addressing and making eye contact with the judge. Please explain some of the definitions and/or acronyms you may be using. I give credit to sticking to the full topic. For example in one session "Should liberal countries coerce non-liberal states to become liberal', it is not about liberalism vs autocratic govermnents - it should be about the entire topic. I don't mind if you remove your mask to talk during your turn. I typically take notes and keep time. Before every section try and provide a roadmap of what you are going to present and stick to it. I love a good debate or a speech! Good luck!
Ashish Mittal
Archbishop Mitty
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.
Shilpa Moghe
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 5:51 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. Please explain arguments thoroughly and clearly at a reasonable pace.
Hemalatha Mohanan
Clean Judges
None
Feroz Mohummed
Presentation High School
None
Hyun Moon
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I started judging in 2021.
Do not spread or run theory. I prefer speakers go not too fast and carefully establish their logical framework, rather than glossing over a list of items. If I cannot understand, the contents do not matter. Once I understand, I vote for both arguments and speaking.
Be respectful and courteous to your opponent.
I prefer to give a written comment instead verbal comment at the end of the debate.
Kevin Morrow
Archbishop Mitty
None
Jitendra Mudhol
Fremont High School
None
Lakshmi Mudlapur
Clean Judges
None
Benjamin Murillo
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 4:43 AM PDT
Benjamin M.
I take on my role as judge from an impartial view to whichever side of the topic a team has been assigned to but rather observant to how each team have embraced their side of the argument and the delivering of such in a clear, concise and convincing fashion.
I assimilate with much more ease facts and true figures rather than personal opinions or unprovable references. I also value beside s the delivery of the main argument the physical performance itself as connecting to audience, gestures, stance, speech speed, eye contact.
As tribute to the effort put in their preparation for the event, I dedicate my total and undivided attention to the speaker in order to absorb the performance in its entirety in order to make a fair and unbiased decision of the outcome.
Satish Musukula
Clean Judges
None
Aniruddha Nabar
Archbishop Mitty
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.
Tejinder Nahal
Clean Judges
None
Sujay Nair
Archbishop Mitty
None
Nupura Neurgaonkar
Archbishop Mitty
None
William Newhall
Clean Judges
None
Song Nguyen
Clean Judges
None
shailesh niranjan
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 10:45 PM PDT
Hi,
I am a parent judge. I have some experience with judging LD
Please be respectful, stick to the facts, manage your time, and speak clearly.
Fewer well developed points is my preference
Last changed on
Fri March 22, 2024 at 9:30 AM PDT
Debate:
I am a parent judge who doesn't have any experience in judging circuit/fast debate; please refrain from spreading or some of the jargon used in those faster styles.
For Policy Debate specifically, I evaluate the round based on evidence and stock issues; I will take your framing into account, but I will vote for a more credible, logical, and understandable case most of the times. If you bring up any other technical arguments outside the stock issues, please be clear and specific for me to follow.
No Kritik please!
For LD:Please state your value and criterion clearly and don't rush through them!
Ash Olakangil
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Eshwar Parigi
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sejal Parikh
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Ashajyothi Parupalli
Monta Vista High School
None
Marshal Paterson
Fremont High School
None
Sudhir Pathak
Monta Vista High School
None
Sruti Patnaik
Clean Judges
None
Yogi Petkar
Fremont High School
None
Suma Potluri
Saratoga HS
None
Rashmi Prasad
Clean Judges
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
Arathy Ramanujam
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:23 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I look for the data and and evidence supported arguments during the debates.
Manish Ranjan
Clean Judges
None
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.
Vibhor Rastogi
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:58 PM PDT
Exposed to a lot of expository speaking in my professional career working with some remarkable speakers. I care about the overall presence of the contestant along with the overall structure of their piece and I appreciate speeches that are delivered with confidence and enthusiasm!
I like to take specific notes around the overall speech structure and delivery, and share feedback in the ballot.
Pearl Scott
Clean Judges
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!
Neil Shah
Leland High School
None
Swati Shah
Milpitas High School
None
Vibhav Shah
Clean Judges
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
Seema Sharma
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!
Winnie Shin
Leland High School
None
Sonali Shrivastava
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Mandeep Singh
Clean Judges
None
Sonia Singh
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sweta singh
Clean Judges
None
Krisshnaveni Sivanesan
Presentation High School
None
Becky Slama-Bennett
Clean Judges
None
Shruti Srinath
Archbishop Mitty
None
Karthikeyan Subramaniam
Clean Judges
None
Julia Sullivan
Archbishop Mitty
None
Jennifer Sumant
Los Altos High School
None
Uppiliappan Sundaram
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Sat March 23, 2024 at 12:44 AM PDT
Speakers,
Please present your topics clearly & slowly. This will help me to follow your presentation and judge better.
Bozhao Tan
Homestead HS
None
Angela Tang
Valley Christian High School
None
Ariadne Tcharos
Clean Judges
None
Rashmi Thirumalachar
Washington High School
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 6:20 AM EDT
I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.
Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.
Shufang Tian
Clean Judges
None
Rakesh Tiwari
Clean Judges
None
Hoang Tran
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 2:24 AM PDT
Do your best!!!
chuong truong
Clean Judges
None
Gilbert Tsang
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat March 16, 2024 at 2:56 PM PDT
I am a parent judge, and will ignore theory during debate.
Gao Tu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:43 AM PDT
I am a parent judge.
Kazi Tulip
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:07 AM PDT
I am a PF lay judge. Few notes:
-State your points clearly and concisely with researched backup arguments, avoid jargon
-Make sure to cite your evidence
-Please be respectful of your opponents
-Make sure to time yourself
-Will provide written feedback after the round, no verbal feedback
All the best!
Brajesh Upadhyay
Leland High School
None
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!
Mohit Vaswani
Clean Judges
None
Usha Vedula
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat March 9, 2024 at 1:28 PM PDT
This is my first time judging debate tournaments. Would appreciate if all the rules are explained at a slow pace.
Mahesh Vittal Viveganandhan
Clean Judges
None
Greg Vosganian
Clean Judges
None
Christopher Vu
Leland High School
None
Jo-Ann Wang
Leland High School
None
Lynbrook-Juan Wang
Lynbrook HS
None
Lynbrook-Lijuan Wang
Lynbrook HS
None
Shuyi Wang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed June 19, 2024 at 9:01 AM PDT
Debate:
I am a newer/less experienced Debate judge and would appreciate debaters use traditional speaking speed.
Speech:
I have been judging speech events since 2017 and have coached students who focus in Original Oratory, Informative, and Impromptu. Prior to my U.S. high school speech judging experiences, I was professionally trained in pubic speaking in my native language; my career involves a high amount of marketing content development, corporate/executive communications, and public relations.
In speech writing, I look for a clear roadmap, strong arguments backed by research (I don't need to agree with your statistical findings or your conclusion, but your findings should fully support your viewpoints), and pragmatic solutions for issues you identified.
For interpretation events, especially those that compose of multiple literature works, I hope to not feel that the selections are pieced together. In other words, the structure should be logical, cohesive, and seamless.
For speech delivery, I look for genuine emotions that help me relate to the urgency of your topic: why is it important now and why your viewpoints, research, and life experiences are the right ones to help your audience understand it holistically. I also appreciate speakers who are able to present with their unique styles, even if there are parts where further polishing is needed.
Over the years I've heard a good number of strong speakers who sound just like Haris Hosseini or JJ Kapur in one of their NSDA speeches. While I admire these students' technical excellence, I also feel that their speeches inevitably become less personal and less distinctive in my ears. It's a fine balancing act between finding inspiration from great speakers/speeches and developing your unique voice.
Xiuzhong Wang
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 2:23 PM PDT
I have served as a judge for debate for four years and I prefer slower speech with proper short pauses.
For congressional debate, I would love to see new arguments that really advance the debate.
For speech, I prefer the structured approach with emphasis and rigor logic.
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 5:17 AM PDT
Zita Wang
I am a parent judge. I judged speech and debate in different tournments in the past three years.
Take your pace, provide framework, and love to hear your summary about why you should win.
Be confident, run your flow, respect your competitors, and have fun!
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 1:57 AM PDT
Long time coach with tons of judging experience across most events. California doesn't have OI, Prose, or Poetry so those would be exceptions.
Policy, PF, LD, and Parli you can run any argument you wish. However, you'll need to go slow and explain the position. "Politics Disad" means nothing to me....explain the argument. The default is probably for a debater to think I'm a slow judge or a traditionalist, and on some level that is true, but I'm willing to listen to most any argument if it's explained and warranted.
Ashish Warty
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 4:37 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with some experience in judging but not with fast debate. Please avoid using terms that novice parents do not understand.
For Policy Debate specifically, I evaluate the round based on the clarity of your point, evidence, and ability to handle cross-examination of issues. I will consider your framing but will vote for a more credible, logical, and understandable case most of the time. I also prefer summarizing your argument and points at the end of the debate.
Yupan Wen
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 12:16 AM PDT
~~~~General~~~~
I am a first time parent judge--please speak slowly.
Remember to have fun!
~~~~Speech~~~~
I will not give you time signals (although I can if you ask)
Jeremy Werner
Clean Judges
None
Eric Wilcox
Archbishop Mitty
None
Jennifer Wilkinson
Clean Judges
None
Danielle Williams Nidome
Archbishop Mitty
None
Eric Wong
Leland High School
None
Sheryll Wong
Clean Judges
None
Dongxiang Wu
Palo Alto High School
None
Lynbrook-Junqing Wu
Lynbrook HS
None
Young Xie
Clean Judges
None
Ting Yao
Palo Alto High School
None
Choon-Hoe Yeoh
Valley Christian High School
None
Lei Yin
Leland High School
None
Sangho Yoon
Palo Alto High School
None
Jing Zhang
Leland High School
None
Lynn Zhang
Leland High School
None
Youwei Zhang
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Wenhua Zhao
Leland High School
None
Julia Zhu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None