CFL Speech CHSSA State Quals
2024
—
Palo Alto,
CA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Joaquin Abarca
Palo Alto High School
None
Hisham Abdelhamid
Evergreen Valley
None
Samuel Abraham
Clean Judges
None
Shweta Agarwal
Archbishop Mitty
None
Mili Alappatt
Bellarmine College Preparatory
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.
Jayaprakash Ammu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 10:10 AM PDT
I am a parent judge who likes clear and concise arguments that help the flow of the round
Santhi 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
Raghu Appanagari
Presentation High School
None
Harish Appannagari
Valley Christian High School
None
Kiran Aralapuram
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:19 PM PDT
My approach is simple -
1. content - original, no fabrication or speculation with transparent sources/examples.
2. Organization - flow => topic introduction, topic(s), and conclusion. The transition between topics.
3. Presentation - clarity, pauses, audience connect, language quality, voice modulation, and tone.
Thanks to Kids, Parents, Coaches, & Organizers.
Durga Arjun
Palo Alto High School
None
Muhammad Asif
Clean Judges
None
Yang Bai
Valley Christian High School
None
Sunila Bakhru
Archbishop Mitty
None
Sonal Banka
Clean Judges
None
Ning Bao
Clean Judges
None
Fatoumata Barrie
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 6:05 AM PDT
I would like to be on the email chain, my email is fatoubbarrie1@gmail.com
Always impact calc
Policy
Do your best :)
High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity.
I am fine with spread as long as it is comprehensible.
LD/PF/Parli/etc.
Do your best :)
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
Archbishop Mitty
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!
Kurt Berney
Palo Alto High School
None
Shannon Bhat
Gunn Sr High School
None
Rajesh Bhatia
Mountain View High School
None
Gayatri Bhide
Evergreen Valley
None
Joseph Billante
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Manpreet Bindra
Archbishop Mitty
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
Clean Judges
None
Lynbrook-Ronglun Cai
Lynbrook HS
None
Bill Cameron
Presentation High School
None
Alexandra Campbell
Clean Judges
None
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.
Zijian Cao
Monta Vista High School
None
Kaitlyn Carpenter
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Rani Chakraborty
Monta Vista High School
None
Soumen Chatterjee
Monta Vista High School
None
Kuldeep Chauhan
Clean Judges
None
Swatisri Chavali
Clean Judges
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.
Ed Chen
Fremont High School
None
Hui Chen
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Jean Paul Chen
Clean Judges
None
Maria (Tess) Chin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Robert Brian Chin
Los Altos High School
None
Julie Chin Quee
Archbishop Mitty
None
Jungyeon (Winnie) Choi
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 6:30 AM PDT
Hi, I am a parent judge, starting 2023-2024 year.
My decision will be primarily based on
- Clearly presented arguments
- Evidence supporting the arguments
- Clearly differentiating their position during clash
- Well addressed rebuttals
- Being courteous to others
- Keeping time
Vivek Chopra
Clean Judges
None
Nishka Chotai
Cupertino High School
None
Chien-Shun Chu
Clean Judges
None
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
Eric D'sa
Monta Vista High School
None
Shamit D'Souza
Clean Judges
None
Rikti Dalal
Monta Vista High School
None
Kathleen Damarillo
Clean Judges
None
Galen Davis
Fremont High School
None
Julia Deaver
Christopher High School
None
Heather Deng
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:48 AM PDT
I look for the most talented team in terms of their arguments and rebuttals. All teams need to be respectful and please.. talk slowly.
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.
Anand Sadashivrao Deshpande
Monta Vista High School
None
Giri Devaraj
Clean Judges
None
Lydia Ding
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Padma Divakaruni
Evergreen Valley
None
Grace Do
Branham 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
Esra Dumanli
Palo Alto High School
None
Tarun Dwivedi
Monta Vista High School
None
Yvonne Ellefson
San Lorenzo Valley High School
None
Pranoop Erasani
Clean Judges
None
Adam Fagel
Pinewood High School
None
Anthony Fangonilo
Valley Christian High School
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.
Meenal Garg
Presentation High School
None
Manjiri Godbole
Monta Vista High School
None
ZHENG GONG
Valley Christian High School
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.
Jayesh Govindarajan
Gunn Sr High School
None
John Griffin
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Meenakshi Gulrajani
Monta Vista High School
None
Namrata Gupta
Archbishop Mitty
None
Joy Haas
Clean Judges
None
Prashanta Halder
Gunn Sr High School
None
Abhinav Halen
Clean Judges
None
Jyleesa Hampton
Presentation High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:43 PM UTC
Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.
Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.
The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.
I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.
I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.
Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.
I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.
I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.
Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.
Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.
When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.
I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.
Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.
This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.
Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.
I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com
Sungwook Han
Clean Judges
None
Prasann Handigund
Clean Judges
None
Bharti Hathalia
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:37 PM PDT
Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents
David Hensley
Clean Judges
None
Maria Heredia
Christopher High School
None
Sudhir Hirudayaraj
Archbishop Mitty
None
Johnson Hormoz
Valley Christian High School
None
Huimin Hu
Clean Judges
None
Vincent Huang
Clean Judges
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.
Xiaofei Huang
Monta Vista High School
None
Carolyn Hughes
Archbishop Mitty
None
Jenny Hyun
Archbishop Mitty
None
Rajkumar Irudayaraj
Clean Judges
None
Shruti Iyengar
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:54 PM PDT
I am a lay judge but I have 8 years experience judging League debates.
General Stuff:
Just speak at conversational pace and tone and use all your time.
Only go for topicality if its a glaring violation
Try to avoid using terminology-heavy debates.
If aff, focus on defending your policies and answer all of the negs points effectively and clearly
If neg, focus on finding gaps in the policy proposal and carry only the most contested and strongest negative stock issues into the 2NR.
Cross ex is the most important focus area for me in the debate.This is the only part of debate where neg/aff actively clash with each other. I look for teams to use the that time effectively.Don't cut off responses, unless they are stretching the time limit.
Don't give up in round, I keep an open mind throughout the debate, even the last speech.
Jaison Jacob
Clean Judges
None
Bharat Jagani
Presentation High School
None
Archita Jain
Cupertino High School
None
Preeti Jain
Saratoga HS
None
Sanjay Jain
Presentation High School
None
Kalyan Jami
Clean Judges
None
Srilalitha Janaswamy
Saratoga HS
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:45 PM PDT
The following will be the rules/key principles I will use to judge. Please read them all, but for online tournaments be sure to read number 4.
If the speech calls for it then the following rules may be adjusted if required by the speech. For example, if your speech requires a few moments of yelling or mumbling, I will know that it is to add effect to speech. Do not talk too fast, or too slow. I will recognize it if you are stalling for time.
1. Modulation. If you speak quietly or without confidence do not expect to get a good rank. At the same time, if you yell or talk too loud it is equally unacceptable. Do not talk too fast, or too slow. I will recognize it if you are stalling for time.
2. Enunciation. Make sure to enunciate all of your words. If I do not understand what you say it is likely you will be given a lower rank and speaker points will be deducted.
3. Emphasis. The right amount of emphasis in the right places can make your speech stand out. This goes hand in hand with modulation and good emphasis will always increase your speaker points. Do not overdo the emphasis. Stressing every word will only serve to make me annoyed rather than convincing me to give you a better rank. Just like all the other rules - moderation.
4. Online Tournament Specifics. I understand if you have tech issues. Being late because of tech will not affect your rank or speaker points in any way. Try your best to get a space to present with a good amount of room and good lighting, but if you are unable to I will understand, and will only take off points in the most extreme circumstances. For example, if you have very little room but still make an effort with hand gestures and doing what space allows, then do not worry about it. But if you stand perfectly still without any motion and it is clear that there is little effort being put, then I will still mark you down. Make sure your camera works before coming to the tournament. I can't judge you if your video is off. If your video/audio lags or freezes for a couple of moments then don't worry about it. Don't worry if there is unavoidable background noise. Only if it becomes extremely hard to judge will I take points off. All in all, just try your best to get optimal presenting conditions, and if you can't, then don't sweat it and try your best anyway.
5. Please no excessive gratitude or the like. If you keep saying thank you or things like that it will serve no purpose except getting me annoyed and wasting time. That being said, please be polite, just make sure not to overdo it.
6. I will not take off too many points for time. NSDA rules say that if you miss the time limit by more than 30 seconds you cannot get first. That being said, if you hit all the other points missing the grace period will not hurt your speaker points that much. Please try to adhere to the time limit because if there are others who spoke just as well as you, they will be ranked above you, whereas if you had stuck to the time limit it would have been much closer and may have gone in other ways. Also, note that other judges may not appreciate shorter/longer speeches and they may rank you below anyone else who had a speech of the correct time.
7. Be confident and have fun with it!
Hoseop Jeong
Gunn Sr High School
None
Deepak Jha
Valley Christian High School
None
Zixia Jiang
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 1:40 AM PDT
I am Zixia Jiang, a parent judge.
- I will try to avoid personal biases or pre-existing knowledge to influence my decisions.
- Please use signposting to state your points.
- Please speak slowly and clearly. Avoid rapid speech (spreading) and minimize the use of debate jargon. Explain any specific terms in plain English.
- I will be taking notes during each speech to keep track of the key arguments and rebuttals.
- In your final speeches, provide a concise summary of the main points you want me to consider when making my decision.
- Be courteous and respectful to each other. Remember, you're here to help each other improve.
Anjaly Joseph
Clean Judges
None
Justin Ju
Monta Vista High School
None
Sky Juinio
The Nueva School
Last changed on
Thu July 11, 2024 at 1:35 AM PDT
hi! i'm sky.
please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.
email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.
please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.
tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.
read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!
speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.
don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.
rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.
now, specifics!
topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.
theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.
counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.
disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.
kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.
cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.
evidence. again, please cut these correctly (refer to the NSDA evidence rules). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.
public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!
tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)
you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!
Praveen KAKADE
Saint Francis High School
None
Prashanth Kalluraya
Archbishop Mitty
None
Mani Kancherla
Monta Vista High School
None
Nancy Kang
Clean Judges
None
Pushkar Kapasi
Saratoga HS
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!!
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.
Raana Kashani
Clean Judges
None
Chandra Katta
Archbishop Mitty
None
Priyanka Khanduri
Milpitas High School
None
Ridhima Khanna
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Sun February 4, 2024 at 1:35 AM PDT
I am a lay judge with very minimal experience judging policy debate. Hence, I appreciate rounds with an emphasis on clear and effective communication of subject matter and arguments.
Looking forward to it. Good luck!
RK
Ruchira Khuanmuang
Presentation High School
None
Jay Kidambi
Presentation High School
None
Lauren Kim
Clean Judges
None
Robert Ko
Monta Vista High School
None
Vijay Koduri
Fremont High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:12 AM PDT
Hi, I'm Vijay. Here are my preferences for the round:
- Clearly state your contentions
- Speak slowly
- No theory. I don't understand it.
Other than that, everything else is up to you. Have fun!
Lynbrook-Sushma Kore
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 10:27 PM PDT
Hello there!
Some things to consider:
Cases:
Please share cases with each other before your first speech. A speech doc would be helpful if you are reading any cards during your rebuttal. I need to be able to access all evidence that you use.
Speed:
It is the debater's burden to make sure that the speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds.
Impact:
Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clearly stressed and extended. It's worth repeating and stressing if you feel you have the winning arguments. Don't just say "______ impact has more chances of happening than my opponent's impact of ____" I would like to see evidence on anything you do present on impact debate.
Clash:
Clash is necessary. You must convince me that your arguments outweigh your opponents. Dropped arguments leads to that argument being won by whichever side presented it. If your opponent dropped an argument, make sure to clearly state that during your speech in case I miss it on my flow.
Off-Case:
I am okay with Topicality/interp. If one does run T/interp the opposing side I would say the other side has to respond. If the T has been dropped, whoever ran the T is more likely to win the round.
I am familiar with the capitalism K, ethical imperatives K, and Feminism K. If you read any unfamiliar K's, please explain well.
Counterplans are okay with me. Make sure to explain how your counterplan would have more benefits than your opposing side.
Refutes:
Any cards you read against your opponent, be sure to ask if I or the opponent would like to see them before moving on. (or just use a speech doc like I mentioned earlier)
Other:
Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.
Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!
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!
Jane Kuo
Palo Alto High School
None
Charlie Kwon
Clean Judges
None
Jongrak Kwon
Clean Judges
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.
Edgar Ladaga
Milpitas High School
None
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.
Jun Li
Presentation High School
None
Catherine Liang
Valley Christian High School
None
Camille Lindsay
Valley Christian High School
None
Last changed on
Mon April 22, 2024 at 8:47 AM PDT
lay
Weidong Liu
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Gary Loo
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 9:31 AM PDT
My philosophy and decisions regarding Debate judging is based on the following...
- Do the debaters have a good strong point of contention to the side they are speaking about.
- Do they provide references to the information given or quoted.
- Do they have statistical data that backs up their claim.
- Does their cross examination challenge the point of contention.
- Are the debaters speaking clearly, concisely and understandable.
- Is there some eye to eye contact with the opponent and the judge.
- Does their final speech capture all the points and rebuttals discussed.
Ashima Loomba
Monta Vista High School
None
Lynbrook-Lawrence Louie
Lynbrook HS
None
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?
Mary Ma
Clean Judges
None
Abhijit Mahabal
Monta Vista High School
None
Lynbrook-Dolly Mangla
Lynbrook HS
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.
Smrithi Manickam
Palo Alto High School
None
Sunitha Manikoth
Fremont High School
None
Tomas Margain
Mountain View High School
None
Lynbrook-Michael Martin
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Sun January 28, 2024 at 3:21 AM PDT
Please deliver your arguments to me as you would to your younger sibling. This means speak slow and don't assume that I already know anything about what you're talking about. I am more interested in the quality of the arguments than in their quantity.
Please also listen carefully to your opponent and respond to their arguments or explain how their arguments are irrelevant. Merely repeating your position in response their arguments is not persuasive. I tend to be persuaded by the side that has done the best job of clearly identifying the disagreements between the two sides. Whoever can do that often has the stronger contentions anyway.
Erin Matheson Ritchie
San Lorenzo Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri April 12, 2024 at 9:44 AM PDT
Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.
In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.
Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).
PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.
LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.
Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.
Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.
Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.
Colin McCarthy
Clean Judges
None
Dipa Mehta
Archbishop Mitty
None
Rakesh Mehta
Clean Judges
None
Subbu Meiyappan
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 4:23 PM EDT
I am a parent judge. So please keep technical aspects of the debate to a minimum. If you can avoid spreading it would be perfect. Try and avoid speed-talk. I appreciate addressing and making eye contact with the judge. Please explain some of the definitions and/or acronyms you may be using. I give credit to sticking to the full topic. For example in one session "Should liberal countries coerce non-liberal states to become liberal', it is not about liberalism vs autocratic govermnents - it should be about the entire topic. I don't mind if you remove your mask to talk during your turn. I typically take notes and keep time. Before every section try and provide a roadmap of what you are going to present and stick to it. I love a good debate or a speech! Good luck!
Leena Menon
Monta Vista High School
None
Atul Moghe
Clean Judges
None
Prachi Mohapatra
Valley Christian High School
None
Feroz Mohummed
Presentation High School
None
Kevin Morrow
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:53 PM PDT
I am a parent judge who prefers debating by the five stock issues (but not a must).
This includes inherency, significance and harms, solvency, topicality and the disadvantage. (and counter-plan)
As long as you speak clearly, stay on topic, be more convincing than your opponents, handle yourself well during cross-X, I'll vote for you.
Cheers!!
Bakul Mukherjee
Monta Vista High School
None
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.
Abhinav Nagabhirava
Clean Judges
None
Sujay Nair
Clean Judges
None
Dooheui Nam
Los Altos High School
None
Kate Nam
Archbishop Mitty
None
Anil Nanduri
Presentation High School
None
Amit Nangare
Valley Christian High School
None
Ramya Narayana
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Anna Nelson
Fremont High School
None
William Newhall
Clean Judges
None
Mary Nopa
Archbishop Mitty
None
Lynbrook-Brian Ogata
Lynbrook HS
None
Warren Pang
Clean Judges
None
Eshwar Parigi
Archbishop Mitty
None
Alissa Park
Homestead HS
None
Karen Parker
Clean Judges
None
Marshal Paterson
Fremont High School
None
Madhura Patki
Valley Christian High School
None
Sruti Patnaik
Clean Judges
None
Les Phillips
The Nueva School
Last changed on
Wed January 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM PDT
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)
If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.
NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.
Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).
I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.
I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.
I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?
When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM
For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.
Indrani Pillutla
Presentation High School
None
Lynbrook-Kruti Pota
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 4:09 PM EDT
I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.
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
Leila Rahmatian
Clean Judges
None
Anitha Rajesh
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Sun January 14, 2024 at 1:08 AM PDT
I'm a lay, parent judge. This is my third year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I have judged both Novice and Varsity: however, I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments. I prefer the typical conversational speed. The rate of delivery doesn't weigh heavily on my decision as long as I'm able to understand. Some tips that you might want to take into consideration are:
1. Being assertive is good, but please don't be offensive or overly aggressive.
2. I like a great Cross-Examination.
3. Having good evidence comparison is an added bonus, don't just take into account that evidence is right on face
4. Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well
5. Please talk clearly and slowly.
Arathy Ramanujam
Clean Judges
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.
Last changed on
Thu May 23, 2024 at 3:34 AM PDT
From San Jose CA. My son is active in debate and I've judged speech and debate competitions for ~6 years.
Speed- I prefer elucidation and clarity to speed.
I like fewer more well developed points versus lots of varied but weaker arguments.
I dislike rude behavior, verbal or through gestures.
I really enjoy the creativity that teams bring to their debate topics and the diligence they bring to the preparation.
Benzila Rappai
Clean Judges
None
Umair Rauf
Archbishop Mitty
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.
Ranjani Renganathan
Presentation High School
None
Saba Rizvi
Los Gatos
None
Jon Roth
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 8:26 AM PDT
I am a parent judge, do not spread. Present yourself confidently and be organized. Don't interrupt each other in cross-examination.
Arzu Saglam
Clean Judges
None
Lynbrook-Tanaz Saiyed
Lynbrook HS
None
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!
Mary Sargious
Fremont High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 10:26 AM PDT
Name: Timothy Knox School
Affiliation: Fremont
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 2
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 1
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum
What is your current occupation? Canvasser
Speed of Delivery: A fast pace is fine, but don't spread. If there are any further questions both teams may read part of an old speech before the round and I'll say so if you're going too fast.
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Whatever you believe is the best tactic for the particular debate. I suppose I lean towards big picture.
Role of the Final Focus: Distilling the debate down to the few questions that I should consider in my decision.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: As they say about voting: early and often. Don’t just say “Extend our Johnson 18 evidence” without then clearly articulating what it is in response to or simply the fact that it hasn’t been responded to.
Topicality: I loved debating topicality when I competed in Parli. However, I don't expect nor wish to see it in Public Forum. Unless of course, the other team does do something significantly abusive to warrant it. Please deliver in Interp-Violation-Standards-Voter format.
Plans: This is PF so no. You all should know that.
Kritiks: Same as topicality. F
lowing/note-taking: I flow on paper.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style. However, in close rounds style is what will prevail even for flow judges.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? The more speeches it's extended in the more likely I'm going to weigh it in my final decision. If an argument isn't extended in summary, I likely won't vote on it. I don’t find rebuttal to FF extensions to be convincing.
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? I don't require but recommend it when reasonable.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Unbelievably unlikely. Arguments that are extended throughout the debate even if won only marginally will be preferred. There’s an exception if both teams then run it as a voter.
If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. "Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out." - Dr. Mungin my professor.
Shital Sarvakar
Mission San Jose High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:45 PM EDT
I am Parent Judge and I have experience in judging LD and PF for about 3 years. I like crisp and clear speaking during debate. Fast or slow does not matter as long as I can understand. I prefer to listen to actual facts rather than just theory. Please be respectful of your opponents. Off-time roadmaps helps me while judging and I believe will help the candidates also from speaker point of view.
Please introduce yourself and introduce topic in 1-2 sentence .
Arguments- Back them up with good evidence, data , analysis.
Cross fire- Be respectful and stick to the points
Speaker points - Clear concise with moderate pace speaking , good performance in crossfire will get highest speaker points.
Enjoy debate and have fun.
Please reach out to me if you have any questions.
Pearl Scott
Clean Judges
None
Prakash Sethia
Mission San Jose High School
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 11:26 PM PDT
Hi Everyone. I am an experienced parent judge, and know how to take general notes and as long as you send a doc, that is well formatted, you can probably get away with talking a little faster. As for my general preferences.
1. YOU ARE IN A LAY ROUND! Thus I expect you to utilize delivery and external persuasive techniques. The winner isn't who can win the most arguments, its the one who wins the most impactful argument and can present it in a way that shows its impact. Thus not only explaining what the voters are, but why those must be the voter is very important.
2. CX is very important. This is the only time in the debate round where you can directly engage with you opponent, so use it. This is the time you show me how your opponent doesn't know what they are talking about, by asking strategic questions and replying strategically. Considering all this, it is never okay to be rude to your opponent or to make your opponent feel uncomfortable.
3. Delivery. Like I said you can go slightly faster (not spreading), as long as you are clear. Clarity is key. This is reflected not only in whether you stutter or not, but also word choice and being able to explain a concept in a way that is easy to understand.
These are my general preference, and should give you an idea of how you want to structure your speeches. Note I am taking notes, not flowing, thus it would be great if you guys could adapt to these criterions, cause otherwise the lense at which you look the round from may be different than how I look at the round.
Alpa Shah
Palo Alto High School
None
Swati Shah
Milpitas High School
None
Junaith Shahabdeen
Presentation High School
None
Shirley Shan
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:59 PM PDT
I am a parent judge who has judged for about two years. I won't understand super fast talking of any kind, so I advise you to speak at a normal pace.
I will only vote based off what is said in the round, and will not make any assumptions myself. This means that you should assume that I know nothing about the topic, which is probably true. If you want me to consider an argument, I suggest you bring it up in the final speeches of the debate. This is mainly where I will make my decision, so I think clearly stating your reasons on why you won here is important.
Other than that, have fun.
Kalpana Sharma
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 8:39 AM PDT
Parent judge with minimal experience. Please talk slowly, be organized, and let me know if you have any more questions.
Manisha Sharma
Monta Vista High School
None
Priyanka Sharma
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:36 PM PDT
Newer parent judge, please speak slow.
Seema Sharma
Archbishop Mitty
None
Vasist Sharma
Milpitas High School
None
Sushma Sheshadri
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 12:29 AM PDT
I am very new to the world of debate. I would like to see clear argumentation with great delivery. Please don’t speak too fast while debating, as it becomes hard for us parent judges to understand. Extra points for strong rhetoric and good summaries of key arguments at the end. Be persuasive, but be respectful to your opponent. Please speak clearly. Best of luck to everyone!
Lynbrook-Xudong Shi
Lynbrook HS
None
MahadevaPrakash Shivaswamy
Saint Francis High School
None
Sonali Shrivastava
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Sridhar Sikha
Clean Judges
None
Lynbrook-Yugan Sikri
Lynbrook HS
None
Mandeep Singh
Clean Judges
None
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 2:11 PM PDT
Name: Priti Singh
Pronouns: she/her/hers
General Information: Please keep in mind that I am not a flow judge, so I may not remember every single argument you bring up during rounds! I will listen to CX, but I won't take the information/empirics shared in CX into account while deciding who wins. However, if anyone is disrespectful or blatantly rude during CX - I will deduct speaker points.
Along with what you present, how you present is equally important - clarity, pace and posture count.
reminder: PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will just assume your opponent cannot either.
Sonia Singh
Clean Judges
None
marin spalding
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 12:34 PM PDT
Please don't run critical affirmatives in front of me. Please go at a conversational speed. I can't understand/ be able to flow spreading. If running a theory, please walk me through it so I understand you. I will judge based on how persuasive an argument is. I will also take evidence into account. I’m not big on debate jargon. Please be polite to your competitors. I also will a lot of times judge on if an argument is responded to.
Kalyani Sridhar
Washington High School
None
Shruti Srinath
Archbishop Mitty
None
Michael Su
Clean Judges
None
Karthikeyan Subramaniam
Clean Judges
None
Julia Sullivan
Clean Judges
None
Shri Sundaram
BASIS 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.
Angela Tang
Valley Christian High School
None
Huibin Tang
Gunn Sr High School
None
Bhuvana Thiagarajan
Mission San Jose High School
None
Shufang Tian
Clean Judges
None
Sharon Tracey
Clean Judges
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 2:25 PM PDT
I am a lay judge, so whenever you talk about anything, please make sure that you explain it thoroughly. I know little to nothing about this topic so just keep that in mind.
How I will vote.
1. The first thing that I will take into consideration is whoever proves more convincing to me, whoever proves that the benefits outweigh the harms or that the harms outweigh the benefits.
2. Whoever debates better. I would also vote for a team that refutes all of their opponents points compared to a team that drops all of their opponents points. Whoever keeps their case alive at the end, and destroys their opponents or whoever convinces me to vote for them in this way will definitely earn my ballot.
Not as important but I may include some of this in my decision
1. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES. For example: If you take like a minute of prep extra and YOUR OPPONENTS POINT THIS OUT TO ME, this will affect my decision. Please use your respective amount of time for speeches, there is a 10 second grace period after every speech, and 3 minutes for prep.
2. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL. Although this is competitive, it is still done for fun. There shall be no disrespect shown to anyone else, as this is a formal setting and must be looked upon as.
3. PLEASE NO SPREADING. IF you do so, I may not catch everything which will affect my decision.
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 2:24 AM PDT
Do your best!!!
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.
Zaid Umar
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:58 AM PDT
Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.
THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:
Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.
Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
JUDGING PREFERENCES:
I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.
In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.
That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).
I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.
You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.
More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:
"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.
Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.
There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.
Basically: debate like it's trad LD."
SPEAKER POINT SCALE
Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
MANOJ UNNIKRISHNAN
Saratoga HS
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 10:47 AM PDT
DEBATE:
I am a parent judge. I appreciate clear enunciation and reasonably paced speaking.
Current and up to date information and references are important to be me as part of the evidence.
Maintain decorum at all times during the debate.
I am keen on clear rationalization of the argument. Don't rush.
Convince me with good evidence and carefully made arguments. Minimize repetition.
SPEECH:
This is my 4th year as a speech judge. I appreciate clear enunciation, well paced speaking and loud voice.
I enjoy HI and OO speeches. Time management is important. Use pauses and time gestures as appropriate.
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
Vishnu Vennelakanti
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Sat March 23, 2024 at 3:40 AM PDT
I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.
Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:
1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).
2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.
Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.
I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.
I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.
Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).
Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.
Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.
Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.
Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.
Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.
I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.
Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )
If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.
In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).
It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.
I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.
+ speaks for Lebron.
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
Mahesh Vittal Viveganandhan
Clean Judges
None
Greg Vosganian
Clean Judges
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.
Ted Wang
Clean Judges
None
Weijia Wang
Valley Christian High School
None
Last changed on
Sat March 23, 2024 at 4:39 AM PDT
I’m a parent judge, I’ve judged a couple tournaments. Please speak at measured speed. I have a wide array of topic knowledge.
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)
Rosa White
Valley Christian High School
None
Dongxiang Wu
Palo Alto High School
None
Lynbrook-Junqing Wu
Lynbrook HS
None
Sophie Wu
Palo Alto High School
None
Wesley Wu
Valley Christian High School
None
Weiqi Xiao
Gunn Sr High School
None
Ellie Yang
Mountain View High School
Last changed on
Sat March 9, 2024 at 3:19 PM PDT
a few points:
- I am a flay judge.
- I flow on paper, so please speak with poise and do not spread
- a combination of rhetoric, structure, and body language win on delivery/the lay appeal
- on the flow side, I vote based on (1) collapsing. providing me with the clear/cleanest points to vote on in a debate will win my ballot-(2) quality + depth of your contentions. this means that I will highly value the link chains/impact worlds (whichever is relevant in the round)- and (3) dropped contentions. make it extremely clear which points your opponent has dropped/conceded (and why they matter!), as I will take these into high consideration
- when your opponent is speaking, please stay respectful
- if you want to communicate with your partner, please try to "look like you're talking at a whisper." what I expect/mean by this is to not look like you're talking normally at a normal volume- it can be distracting for both your opponents and the judges.
- instead, I really don't mind any other communication as long as it's out of the frame or make it look like you're whispering- simulating an in person tourney
- remember, each debate is a learning experience, not a symbol of how adept you are because so many other factors+ implicit biases go into each RFD.
- good luck!
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.
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 5:39 AM +07
Hi! I am a parent judge. Although I am flay, I have judged for many years and has experience to some extent. Here are a few preferences that may win you a round:
1. Please be nice to your opponents. If something rude or offensive is brought in, I will automatically vote for the other side.
2. Please do not spread. You can speak at a fast pace as long as it is clear, although I do prefer a slower and steadier pace.
3. When your opponents ask for cards, please give them in less than 2 minutes. After 2 minutes is up, it will count as your own prep time.
4. I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to flow something brought up in cross, please extend them in later speeches.
5. I have some knowledge over this debate topic, but please do make sure you explain your arguments clearly.
6. I prefer Truth > Tech, but if your truth makes no sense, then I will not buy it.
7. Please weigh impacts and bring up voter issues in the final speeches.
8. I will provide a 10 second mercy rule after you have reached the speech limit. Note that I will not flow anything after that.
9. Have fun! I am looking forward to seeing you all! :D
Ting Yao
Palo Alto High School
None
Choon-Hoe Yeoh
Valley Christian High School
None
Howard Ying
Castilleja School
None
George Yu
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Mon January 22, 2024 at 12:41 AM PDT
I judge based on the notes I take. I try hard not to inject my own knowledge and opinions into a debate.
Please engage one another's arguments and provide clash. Please provide well-developed arguments with good warrant and impact. I would be more impressed with one to three well-developed, deep, and logical arguments over eight superficial, conclusory, and/or flat-out-ridiculous arguments.
Theory arguments have their place. If you make a theory argument, please convince me that your theory argument is actually worth caring about and is relevant to this topic, to this debate, and to your deserving to win.
Please be a human talking to another human and not a space alien talking to a computer. This means (1) you should be respectful to all, (2) if you speak too fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you, and (3) if you decide to use jargon, please explain the jargon as if I don't know what it means. Debate is supposed to develop great leaders, and great leaders can communicate to all people, not just to other specialized people exactly like themselves.
Good luck!
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).
Sughra Zaidi
Rise Academy
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 8:05 AM PDT
About me:
I am a mother of 1 high school child. This is her 2nd year judging in LD, PF and OI, DI, Impromptu speeches. I have been in the academic field for the past 6 years. Prior to that, I was in a start-up and corporate environment.
My paradigm is:
Judging Debate
All participants should act with civility, be respectful and gain respect.
I am ok with all speaking styles as long as it is followable. If I miss something I will ask the teams for the cards and reference documents.
If using technicalities please make sure it is explained in short as I do not have to not score according to what you deserve for not understanding a concept.
Impacts and their relevancy to the topic have a lot of weight in my scoring.
Avoid controversial topics unless absolutely necessary.
I take notes throughout to avoid going off-topic or adding random facts or comments.
points given based on how you speak and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc you will be marked down to the lowest.
Let your opponent complete their thoughts in cross before interrupting.
Judging Speech:
I follow the tabroom room rubric closely.
General:
I do not shake hands.
Houyou Zhang
Palo Alto High School
None
Liping Zhang
Valley Christian High School
None
Lydia Zhang
Clean Judges
None
Wei Zhang
Valley Christian High School
None
Yi Zhang
Clean Judges
None
Youwei Zhang
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Julia Zhu
Clean Judges
None