Western JV Novice National Championship
2015
—
CA/US
Novice LD Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Raj Aji
Young Genius Academy
Last changed on
Fri February 10, 2017 at 10:12 PM PDT
I love judging so long as you keep me engaged in the debate. You lose me if you are not articulate and organized. Be aware that I am a parent judge, and have never debated before.
I appreciate if you are clear about your framework and listing of your contentions. I can’t vote on anything I don’t understand. I like original, well thought of and supported arguments. I have been a lawyer in Silicon Valley for over 20 years so I have heard my share of bullshit arguments.
I will not vote for and probably will not even listen to any Kritiks, theory, or pre-fiat arguments. Any Plans or Disads should be structured in a way that a parent judge would understand. I like simple policy arguments with a lot of warrants.
I like debaters who listen well and respond appropriately. Be confident but not arrogant. Be graceful and authentic. Be respectful of the judges but not solicitous. Be creative, curious communicators. Most of all have fun :).
Albaaj Albaaj
College Prep
None
Deirdre Baker
College Prep
None
Sanjay Bansal
The Brooks Academy
9 rounds
None
Jay Belur
Pinewood HIgh School
None
Rehka Belur
Pinewood HIgh School
None
Akshat Das
Milpitas High School
None
stacy dawson
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat November 15, 2014 at 1:29 AM PDT
My Debate Experience:
I competed in policy debate for 7 years, 3 at Lone Peak High School and 4 at Weber State University. I am a 4 time consecutive NDT qualifier.
I now coach Policy and LD at Leland High School.
Philosophy:
Pretty run of the mill, I suppose. I don't really have anything specific that I want to see or not see. Debate is debate, so do that.
*If any of this makes you want to ask questions, feel free.
Zarek Drozda
The Harker School
9 rounds
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2018 at 5:26 AM PDT
General: I debated for four years on nat circuit at Harker. I'm open to any sort of argument, but here are my defaults:
Theory:
- If your A strat is to run a bunch of theory spikes/presumption triggers every round and do no topic prep, don't pref me :D I will not vote on frivolous theory.
- I'll still listen to any shell you read, especially if there is legit abuse in the round. Well-executed plans good/plans bad, pics good/bad, etc. are fine.
- I default to competing interpretations and drop the argument, but I'll vote on whatever is decided in the debate.
- RVIs are fine.
Fmwk/Philosophy:
- I ran mostly util and policy style arguments, but you can read whatever you want so long as you justify your framework fully and explain how you (and your opponent) can weigh under your standard clearly
- Just because you win framework or ROB doesn't mean you win the round - weigh your links
- I'm not very compelled by skep - its probably defense
Kritiks:
- Run them - I think they're the most educational part of debate, but if you read a rather uncommon K (i.e. something other than Cap, Fem, Racism, Anthro, etc.) make sure you explain them in english and not esoteric philosophical terms.
Most importantly, have fun! Debate is about learning and having fun while learning, not just trophies :D
Eric Foster
Palo Alto High School
None
Manijeh Ghasemi
Lynbrook High School
9 rounds
None
Madhu Gupta
Palo Alto High School
9 rounds
None
Sujata Gupta Aji
Young Genius Academy
9 rounds
None
Dewi Hartono
Young Genius Academy
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:01 AM PDT
I am an experienced parent judge. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments. I will decide based on the arguments' quality and how well you articulate it.
Tzufang Huang
Young Genius Academy
None
Ashish Karkare
Milpitas High School
9 rounds
None
Jodi Kruger
Harvard-Westlake School
None
Nathan Leal
The Brooks Academy
Last changed on
Sat September 19, 2020 at 12:40 AM PDT
Competition Experience:
Competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.
Flay Judge
Public Forum
I have not done any prep on the Sept/Oct topic so anything that you read will be new to me.
I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.
I do not flow crossfire. Any concessions made during cross need to be brought up in the next speech.
First summary needs to extend defense. Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.
I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.
Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.
Anna Lu
Palo Alto High School
9 rounds
None
Annie Marple
Milpitas High School
None
praveen midha
Young Genius Academy
None
Preeti Midha
Young Genius Academy
9 rounds
Last changed on
Wed February 8, 2017 at 7:48 AM PDT
I've been judging lay debate for two years. I'm fluent enough to understand terms like "extend across the flow", but make sure to explain everything when making arguments. I'm fairly competent at flowing, but going too fast means that I'm not able to write everything down. On the topic of speed, please slow down! Speak as you normally would, but anything faster means I either won't be able to understand it or flow it.
Please keep it simple in terms of non-specalized arguments. Reword anything like a DA or K to a contention and make sure to explain it very clearly (if you still think that's the best strategy). Any philosophical debate outside the areas of Util and Deont will need explaining.
Just be a nice person in round. I prefer quality over quantity, so arguments need to be well developed and thoroughly explained in order for me to vote on them. I have no specific argument preference, but anything explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a definite "no-no".
Roadmap: I love roadmaps, but make sure you aren't using too much time that doesn't count towards your speech.
Extensions: Extend arguments yourself. Don't just tell me the card name; explain the specific piece of evidence.
Speed: GO SLOW!
FW: Please have a clear framework that's well explained.
Theory: Don't go here.
Signposting: Do this! It helps me a lot with flowing otherwise arguments just get all jumbled up and mixed together.
Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity.
Prep: Manage your own prep time with your own timer.
Anna Nakai
Palo Alto High School
9 rounds
None
Aysha Rehman
Milpitas High School
None
Changjie Sun
DV Bridge
None
Yongming Sun
DV Bridge
None
Sreedhar Tallapaneni
DV Bridge
9 rounds
None
Henli Tjokodjojo
DV Bridge
Last changed on
Wed October 3, 2018 at 2:41 PM PDT
Hello,
My name is Henli Tjokrodjojo,
I work in finance, so if you talk about the economy, that is something up my alley.My affiliation is with Dougherty Valley High school, and I have been judging for 6 years in Public Forum, Extemp/Impromptu/Interp, LD. I do not like fast speaking, but a bit of speed is okay as long as I can understand it.
I award speaker awards based on how confident you are as well as your argumentation. I generally give a range of 26 to 29 with an average of 27.5 or something. Just please don't be rude to me or your opponents. Make sure to explain your arguments.
I make a decision based on a couple of things.
A small part is how you present your arguments. Obviously if you cannot articulate your arguments well, you won't be getting my vote. The biggest thing is your explanation. I think interacting with your opponents arguments and explaining how they are wrong and how you are right makes me vote for you. I do take notes, while I don't flow, I try to take detailed notes on what you are talking about. Truth over tech.
MISC weighing stuff.
1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily
Clothing/Appearance: 1 Use of Evidence: 8 Real World Impacts: 9 Cross Examination: 7 Debate skill over truthful arguments: 2
I also prefer no spectators because I feel like it is unfair for a debater to have spectators for them while the other does not. This can be distracting. However, if both debaters are okay with spectators, i may be okay with it.
Please ask me any questions before the round, but if it's towards the end of the day I may be a bit more quiet :) you know, cause I will be tired.
Wesley Wong
DV Bridge
None
Jenny Xin
Palo Alto High School
9 rounds
None