32nd Annual Stanford Invitational
2018
—
Stanford,
CA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Jehad Abushama
Evergreen High School
Last changed on
Sun December 31, 2017 at 4:58 PM EDT
I am a parent judge so please speak slowly (no spreading), have clear and logical arguments, and be respectful of your competitors and your judge.
Hitesh Adesara
Cupertino HS
None
Amit Agarwal
Leland High School
None
Nupur Agrawal
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat February 9, 2019 at 11:26 PM PDT
I’ve been judging speech and debate events for 4 years now. I prefer speakers who speak clearly and slowly. Your presentation should also be calm and controlled. I also vote based on your emotion or vocal variation. If any point in your speech is not clear, I will mark it down, so be sure to stretch out your impacts so they’re clear.
Samuel Ahn
Leland High School
None
Pam Alster-Jahrmarkt
ILEAD Schools
None
Shashi Aluru
Mission San Jose HS
None
Pandian Angaiyan
Monta Vista High School
None
Indira Anupindi
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Geeti Arora
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sat December 26, 2020 at 6:04 PM EDT
School Affiliations: DVHS
I’ve been judging various different Speech and Debate events for about 4 years.
“What you say” is as important as “how you say it”. I award points based on arguments you make to support your points, logical flow and clarity of your speech, as well as how you deliver it.
What influences my decision making at the end of the debate is: Logical reasoning, clarity of speech, effective delivery, overall being civil and not being rude.
I take notes for each speaker/team, keeping track of the main arguments and more importantly what I liked in the speech vs areas of improvement. I don’t look for random facts here and there. Rather, I look for strong evidence that supports your arguments and adds to your points.
Effective cross examination for me means bringing out valid points to challenge the other team and not being rude or overly aggressive.
Make sure your arguments and evidence is true, but use your debate skills to put those points across in a way that can influence the audience/judge.
Uma Asthana
Notre Dame HS
None
Katie Aubin
Stockdale High School
None
Aline Awais
Granite Bay
None
AnnMarie Baines
El Cerrito
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM EDT
I have been coaching forensics since 2001, leading programs in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and all Individual Events. I am now the Founder and Executive Director of The Practice Space, a non-profit dedicated to elevating underrepresented voices through public speaking programs, curriculum, and coaching. I also coach debate coaches and have started 5 forensics programs. In high school, I competed on the national circuit in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, going to elimination rounds at many major tournaments, including State Championships, Stanford Round Robin, Glenbrooks, UC Berkeley, Emory, and winning MLK. I also went to State Finals and Nationals in Individual Events (Dramatic Interpretation and Duo Interpretation).
The following refers to all forms of debate:
As a judge, I believe that speech and debate should be about communication and persuasion. While I can handle speed and know the jargon, debate should ultimately be about making the right choices in the round and giving strong explanations. I flow well and am okay with kritiks and topicality (although not enamored with them). Don’t let speed and jargon get in the way of clear communication. It’s not about winning every argument, but choosing the right ones by identifying the right clash, weighing the arguments, and concluding with a clear and persuasive story of the round. I ultimately judge rounds based on standards.
To me, the final speeches are the most important. Be clear about the standard for the round and don’t forget to impact well. I hate off-time roadmaps and starting off rounds with “time starts now”. Balance defense with offense and paint the picture of your side’s world. Do NOT be rude! I do not vote for people who are rude. If you are on the negative, make sure you leave enough time for clear voting issues in your last speech and don’t spend the whole time on line-by-line. The final affirmative speech should not contain line-by-line.
Harveen Bal
Leland High School
None
Priya Balachandran
Leland High School
None
Raghuraman Balasubramanian
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat September 15, 2018 at 1:47 PM PDT
I prefer traditional debate. Prefer clarity of content as opposed to volume. Speak slowly. Extend based on tags and author name not just author tags. If you wanted it in Final Focus extend in summary. Evidentiary value matter- author indicts key.
Savita Banerjee
Mission San Jose HS
None
Monika Bansal
Saratoga HS
None
Brad Barnholtz
West Ranch High School
None
Murali Bashyam
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Janine Bautista
Oakwood
None
Brady Beckman
Eastview HS
None
Sonu Bedwa
The Golden State Academy
None
Renata Belash
Sonoma Academy
None
Vijay Bellam
Cupertino HS
None
John Bellamy
Rocky Mountain HS
None
Taylor Belmonte
University Laboratory School
None
Rajesh Bhatia
Monta Vista High School
None
Tina Bonilla
Jesuit High School
Last changed on
Thu November 16, 2017 at 12:23 PM PDT
Hello everyone! I'm a relatively new judge so please bear with me. :)
Parli Debate:
Please refrain from the use of speed/spreading (I can handle a faster paced speech but not too fast)
Please do not present K-theories
It would be preferred if you kept your voices to a medium/low tone (don't shout)
Avoided to many POIs (I don't mind the use of them, but don't abuse them)
If you can, please use a source or two (although you don't have to)
Organization is key! (I judge primary on flow)
Impromptu:
No canned speeches!
Judson Brandeis
Monte Vista
None
Kishan Bulusu
Oakwood
None
Robbie Cantrell
Gresham-Barlow HS
None
Adriana Chan
Velasquez Academy
None
Gavin Chan
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun February 4, 2024 at 4:02 AM PDT
Just go with your preparation and keep it relevant to your topic and do your best. You'll be judged by each of the judging criteria outlined for each event. I'm given equal weights for each criteria at this time (may do weighting in near future).
Elis Chandra
Monte Vista
None
Hsiu-ju Chang
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Wed November 9, 2016 at 9:24 AM PDT
I am a judge who does not do well with fast speaking. I like it if points are explained very thoroughly and logically. I do not have much experience in debating, so debate terminology may need to also be explained. I do not like it if points are backed up by false facts or no facts, so make sure to have evidence!
Additionally, I do not understand theory or Ks very well and would prefer on-case, traditional debates.
Marylyn Chang
Monte Vista
None
Benjamin Chapman
Modern Rhetoric
None
Rajeeb Chatterjee
Cupertino HS
None
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 1:11 PM PDT
I'm a parent judge with over four years of experiencing judging speech and debate. For debate, I value argumentation more than delivery, but please signpost and make your arguments relatively easy to understand. I don't understand theory, Ks, topicality, or any of that, so please don't run that. Above all, be respectful and have fun!
Fay Chen
Homestead HS
None
Brenda Cheung
Leland High School
None
Mallikarjun Chillal
Cupertino HS
None
Madhavi Chimata
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Young-suk Choi
Leland High School
None
Jayesh Chokshi
Cupertino HS
None
Nadia Choudhry
Leland High School
None
Indrani Chowdhuri
Gurukulam Enrichment Center
None
Maggie Constantino
Carter HS
None
Yvette Cordero
Los Osos HS
None
Jeffrey Cormier
Leland High School
None
Julie Cox
West Albany High School
None
Alisa Currier
Claremont
None
Dharmesh Dadbhawala
Evergreen High School
Last changed on
Sun December 31, 2017 at 9:31 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I appreciate well-spoken and confident debaters. Speak slowly and be logical. Signpost your evidence clearly. Tell me exactly what I'm voting on. Keep your arguments simple. Ask me any further questions about my judging preferences right before the round begins.
Manish Das
Milpitas HS
None
Lynbrook-Amy Deng
Lynbrook HS
None
Nayan Desai
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Rama Devuapalli
The Golden State Academy
None
Shamsher Dhaka
Branham High School
None
Hongbin Dong
Leland High School
None
Tom Doomany
Leland High School
None
Sujatha Doraiswamy
Saratoga HS
None
Megan Dorsey
George Ranch HS
Last changed on
Tue March 5, 2024 at 12:07 PM CDT
General Experience:I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in extemp and LD as a student and went to nationals in LD.
Speech Paradigms:
Extemp: You must answer the question. I will weigh both content and delivery when making my decision. Academic integrity is paramount, so I may check your sources. An excellent speech will clearly answer the question, offer insight and analysis (in-depth look at the issue), back arguments up with relevant and timely sources, and do all of this with a conversational and professional delivery.
OO & Info: I am looking for a balance of content and delivery. Do you bring forth new ideas or perspectives with your topic? Do you offer insight and analysis? Do you make me care? I expect top speeches to have smooth and professional delivery that uses variation in rate, tone, and volume to keep listeners engaged. It is nice to hear ideas backed up with research. Informative speeches should have visuals that contribute to our understanding of the topic (not just something for us to look at and you to do.)
Interp Paradigms:
I love a great performance that showcases your talents while clearly presenting distinctive characters. BUT I equally want content and understanding of the material. Have you cut a selection from the source that conveys a story or point or theme? (And am I able to follow it with your interpretation?) Does your "cast of characters" use vocal variety, physical movement, and overall performance to aid (as opposed to hinder) my understanding? And I love to see classic works, so bonus for high quality content done well.
L-D Debate: I am a somewhat old-fashioned L-D judge. I want to see persuasive communication and a clash on values and value criteria.
Experience:
I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in LD as a student-- when dinosaurs roamed the earth and LD was value, not policy, debate.
What I want to see:
I like a mix of pragmatic and philosophical arguments. The winning debater will have a mix of persuasive speaking, logical arguments supported by either philosophy, empirical evidence or expert opinion, and the value which has been proven to be superior based on the criteria in the round. I don’t want to see evidence during or after the round. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a kritik.
Delivery:
I will flow. I don’t have a problem with speed. Keep in mind, I value convincing delivery in making a decision, so don’t go for speed if you can’t do so clearly and persuasively. You should stand when you speak.
Deal Breakers:
Your chance of winning the round drops dramatically if you:
- don’t allow fair ground for debate
- are rude to your opponent
- show me the back of your laptop instead of your face
- mis-use or mis-quote evidence (academic integrity is paramount!)
Taisia Dubinina
Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 5:24 AM PDT
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
Irina Eizner
Monte Vista
None
Flower Eller
Saratoga HS
None
Allison Evans
Claremont
None
Chien Fang
Monte Vista
None
Zahra Fattah
Monte Vista
None
Katie Fauria
Presentation HS
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.
TJ Forman
ILEAD Schools
None
Alane Fronczek
Northwest Independent
None
Richard Fu
Leland High School
None
Tim Galusha
Sonoma Academy
None
Neeru Gandhi
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Last changed on
Sat September 26, 2020 at 12:31 PM PDT
I have been judging various Speech events for the last 4+ years and familiar with most formats of speech. Enjoy speech & debate very much and happy to be a judge. I want this to be an enjoyable activity for all involved so expect the participants to be courteous to the judges, organizers and to each other.
I judge on:
1. Content organization: cutting, easy to follow story line, structure, Attention Grabbing Intro/closing that connect the story together. Memorization of your speech is table stakes !!
2. Delivery Style: Your overall energy, blocking voice modulation, use of space , conveying the emotion of your piece. Try to speak at a pace that someone who is going to listen to your speech only once can still follow along and understand.
Wish you the very best of S&D Experience !!
Jessica Garman
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
Arman Ghafari
Claremont
None
Veena Gireesha
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Aruna Goli
Evergreen High School
None
Deepa Gopinath
Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Angela Govig
Almaden Country Day School
None
Radhika Gudavalli
Pleasanton Independent
None
Amit Gupta
Mission San Jose HS
None
Mandeep Gupta
Cupertino HS
None
Rajesh Gupta
DN Independent
Last changed on
Fri December 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM PDT
Speech:
It's pretty straightforward. Articulate clearly, don't use filler words, be witty, and be better than your competitiors. :)
Past Experience: I have judged LD for about 30 rounds. In addition, I started judging Parli and Speech last year, with about 10 rounds judging in each field.
Paradigm:
General: I am what my son calls a "lay judge." My main focus is in communication ability. However, I tend to be generous with Speaks (if you get below 28, you must have REALLY done something to get on my nerves, like being rude).
Theory, K's, (Counter)Plans: Don't even bother trying to run "lay theory" while I am your judge. Theory/K's are a waste of debate time, and I would rather have solid refutation than mere complaints. That's not going to get you a win anytime soon. As for Plans, in a Policy resolution, you better have it well laid out for me, with EXACTLY what you want to achieve along with HOW you will accomplish your goal.
Satire: Funny. Don't expect me to understand it.
Spreading: If you speak quickly and communicate your ideas effectively, you will be fine. Try not to go above 275 wpm, though. At that point I can't keep up.
Weighing: Look, if you are going to pay over $50 to come to a tournament, the least I can expect you do is weigh your arguments against theirs. Don't forget to connect every argument you have to the weighing mechanism in question.
Arguments: I am not going to understand arguments that require comprehending a huge number of links (I don't even know what that means; my son told me that I should write that, though.). Make it simple and to the point and you will have me rooting for you to win.
General Knowledge: It's really interesting when debaters connect a topic to a current event, as it crystallizes the argument for me a little more. Of course, I understand that there are some topics that just can't have that happen. However, if you can, kudos to you :).
Etiquette: I don't need your "thank you for coming" and "we appreciate you being here." I appreciate it, but it is not helping you to win/gain Speaks.
TL;DR: I am a lay judge, and don't run anything a common man wouldn't understand. Most importantly, SPEAK CLEARLY. I give the ballot to the person who speaks the most effectively.
Last changed on
Thu February 1, 2024 at 8:49 AM PDT
I am a parent judge, and vote on debate events based on clarity of the argument supported by evidence, examples. Quality wins over quantity. Be respectful to the other speakers. I judge speech events based on good structure identifying the problem and solution with examples and conviction on both. Additionally looking at impact of the speech with poise, vocal variety and strong delivery with effective body movement.
Madhusudan Gururajachar
Cupertino HS
Last changed on
Thu March 4, 2021 at 1:05 PM PDT
Paradigm for Speech Events:
I value the following aspects during judging:
- In terms of content of the speech, a clear line of sight from [ the central theme to supporting arguments to reasoning and evidence] would help me follow the speech.
- Creativity and uniqueness of arguments
- In terms of style : Reasonable pace with thoughtfully inserted pauses.
I do take notes, as detailed as possible.
Paradigm for Debate Events:
This will be my 4th year judging PF. Parent judge, so nothing crazy/too tech. I do take copious notes, and I'm probably tech>truth to some extent. Anything outright false/offensive will not be considered.
Procedural fairness is quite important to me, so don't steal prep, go over time, miscut evidence, or bring up new things in later speeches.
A few things:
- Please extend warrants in back half speeches (if your link chain is conceded and fully extended in the back half it's GGs)
- Don't be rude in CX, but don't be boring either (stay professional)
- Warrant your evidence, contextualize everything to your arg
- Don't run trivial args, run something that actually matters or just introduce your weighing early on (case/rebuttal)
As always, ask me any questions you have before round. (my kid wrote this so clarify if needed)
Faisal Habib
Monte Vista
None
Santosh Hambir
Cupertino HS
None
Mike Hinson
Monte Vista
None
Samantha Hirst
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:02 PM PDT
Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.
email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com
Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.
Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.
I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.
CX Paradigm
Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.
Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.
Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.
Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.
Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.
For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.
LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.
PuFo Paradigm:
Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.
Mikayla Holzinger
Claremont
None
Jason Hsieh
Monte Vista
None
Charles Huang
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Thu February 9, 2017 at 5:16 PM EDT
Parent judge, don't speak fast
Hazel Huang
Rosemont Speech and Debate
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 1:43 PM EDT
I am a lay, parent judge.
Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.
I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.
Speak slowly and clearly.
my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com
Larry Hung
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Wed January 30, 2019 at 1:03 PM PDT
1. Confidence and fluency of Participant.
2. Presence of mind of participant.
3. Relevance to the topic: Construction, content, presentation and Delivery.
4. keep in mind the time limit.
Sajid Husain
Gurukulam Enrichment Center
None
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 10:08 PM EDT
Hi, this is Ayesha Iqbal. I'm a parent judge and am excited and looking forward to being a judge. I have a little experience in judging, as I have been at multiple different tournaments over the past few years. I will be looking for kids who are persuasive with their content and delivery. And not rushing or speaking too fast, as it will help me to understand and judge better.
Anand Iyer
Cupertino HS
None
Ganesh Iyer
Lynbrook HS
None
Syed Jafri
Monte Vista
None
Upesh Jain
Notre Dame HS
None
Woo Jang
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Ravi Joshi
Leland High School
None
Anu Kabra
Monte Vista
None
Srinivas Kadiyala
Homestead HS
None
Mukesh Kataria
Irvington HS
None
Tejal Kathrani
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri September 18, 2020 at 1:07 PM PDT
I run a software consulting firm here in Bay area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past 2 years at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Speech, and Congress as well.
Things I would be judging will be based on the following criteria
- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
- Topic grounded strategies/demonstration of research and topic knowledge are good for speaks.
- I am the numbers guy and like to hear solid numbers or quantitative data for your arguments.
- Quality always trumps quantity.
- Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.
- Clarity over speed
- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate
- I have researched the topic to some extent but do not understand very nuanced arguments.
- I like when two teams have clash on their cases, but don't be overly aggressive or rude when pointing it out.
- Insults, rudeness, and swearing are not good and will be looked down upon .
- Respect your competitors, partner and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.
- I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place. That is my very Important criteria for judging of debate rounds
Finally make the debate fun. Being nice is good. Smile and have fun. Winning and losing is a part of life so have fun and enjoy and do your best.
Neeraj Kaul
Cupertino HS
None
Cindy Ke
Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Last changed on
Thu February 8, 2018 at 4:13 PM EDT
I have judged Original Oratory, Dramatic Performance, and Extemporaneous Speaking at this year's Columbia Invitational. I'll be able to keep up with any piece thrown my way-have fun!
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 10:48 AM PDT
I am “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.
Mayuri Khanna
Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Jaya Khera
Presentation HS
None
Andrew Khieu
Granite Bay
None
Jamie Kim
Valencia High School
None
Yoonies Kim
Monte Vista
None
Michelle Kito
El Cerrito
None
Rajesh Koilada
Notre Dame HS
None
Manish Kumar
Monta Vista High School
None
Namit Kumar
Cupertino HS
None
Sunil Kumar
Milpitas HS
None
Alexis Lake
ILEAD Schools
None
David Lake
ILEAD Schools
None
Iain Lampert
ILEAD Schools
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:10 AM CDT
1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.
2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.
3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.
3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.
4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.
5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.
6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.
7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."
Greg Lannan
ILEAD Schools
None
Gilbert Lau
Leland High School
None
Erica Lee
Cypress High School
None
Euan Lee
Wilcox High School
None
Yoon Lee
Leland High School
None
Fred Leninger
Cypress High School
None
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2020 at 8:44 AM PDT
Parent Judge.
John Lewellen
MB Academy Irvine
None
Liam Li
Rosemont Speech and Debate
None
Rundong Li
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Sheng Lin
Leland High School
None
Jen Lu
Leland High School
None
Beverly Lui
Leland High School
None
Jonathan MacMillan
PalmTree Academy
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:08 PM PDT
I’m a high school teacher and former parli debater. I coach congress. In debate I want to see the topic debated. I’m not really interested in complex theory debates. Please don’t spread. I’ll do my best to flow the round and reference it when you argue why your team has won.
Rajasrinivas Malladi
Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Gregory Malley
Los Altos High School
None
Last changed on
Wed February 17, 2021 at 9:05 AM PDT
Speak slowly! Articulate your verbiage with great diction. Please present as few contentions as possible to allow both the affirmative and negative teams to have a quality debate. Always have excellent eye contact with the judge. Take pauses occasionally to allow everyone a break from the intensity of the argumentation. Use wit from time to time to lighten the moment. Never, never be sarcastic against your opponent! Be as passionate as possible no matter what side of the debate you are on.
Pushpa Manickam
Cupertino HS
None
Scott Marcus
William Howard Taft HS
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:01 PM EDT
Updated for 2020-21
Pronouns: she/her/hers
If you have questions about anything here, just ask!
Congress:
-I don't have a preference between early/mid/late round speeches - just give the best speech. I evaluate each speech for the role it needs to serve in the round. So, if you're sitting on a neg and we go to a 2-minute recess because you're insistent on doing a crystallization speech and no one else has a neg, I'll be annoyed. If you're able to show me multiple types of speeches throughout the session (especially if I'm the parli), that's great.
-I hate one-sided debate - it isn't debate. I don't have a set rule "if you speak on the same side as the previous person I'll mark you down x # of ranks," but it definitely has a negative impact on the final ranks. If you speak on the same side as the previous person, it is very, very unlikely (albeit not impossible) I will rank you in the top 3. This is even more true for a crystallization speech.
-Expectations for authorship/sponsorship/1st aff: problem/solution; identify a framework/burden/scope to evaluate debate; have a central narrative
-Expectations for mid-round speech: Refute; have a central narrative
-Expectations for late speech: Refute & boil the debate down to a main issue or 2; have a central narrative
-Have a clear, specific, and offensive thesis coming out of the introduction.
-Have clear warrants; if they stem from the legislation directly, even better. Particularly in mid/late speeches, weighing/clash is super important.
-Clear, humanized impacts are key.
-I'm not going to open the legislation packet - it's your job to bring it to life for me. If I know a detail of the leg from coaching my own students but you don't mention it, it won't help you - I'll be as tabula rasa as possible with the docket.
-No rehash. It's possible to extend something from your own side with new warrants/impacts, but new data is just rehash.
-Neg speeches can't say the leg is bad because it doesn't do something unless that thing is mutually exclusive with the action of the legislation; if the leg is that we should all eat more bananas and your neg is no we should eat more apples, unless you can prove that we can't eat apples AND bananas the point doesn't work. I also don't love points about complacency - they generally feel stock to me (unless you're talking about a social issue when the issue attention cycle is a legitimate concern). Both of these types of points (do x not y; complacency) feel like avoidance of engaging with the actual legislation - neg speeches must demonstrate the inherent harm(s) of passing.
-No stock intros/conclusions - if it could work for any piece of legislation, it's too vague. I like an attention-grabbing intro of some kind and when the conclusion ties a bow with the opening.
-I don't have a preference for being in the simulation or avoiding it. If you start talking about your constituents and your office in D.C., I will likely roll my eyes. On the other hand, talking about your current high school Bio class doesn't work either.
-Stay involved throughout the entire session. If you give an A+ speech but ask zero questions, you'll get ranked below an A- speech and strong, well-spaced questions.
-I will rank you as the PO if you're a strong PO (fast & efficient, knowledgeable about RR, clear command of chamber). Being the PO is neither a guarantee of a rank nor of a drop for me - if you do an A job as the PO, it'll be ranked the same as if you did an A job as a speaker.
PF:
-I don't flow cross; if you want me to evaluate something out of cross, you need to mention it in a later speech.
-If you want me to evaluate something from FF, it also needs to appear in the summary.
-Make sure to identify moments of clash. Don't let the two ships just pass in the night; tell me where the boats crash and why yours stays afloat.
-Make sure to weigh arguments. Tell me what the key points of the debate are so that I don't have to determine them myself.
-I won't make a decision based on politeness, but being excessively rude/abrasive in cross annoys me and will negatively impact your speaker points.
-Unless there's true abuse in the round, I won't vote on theory.
-I haven't judged circuit PF since Stanford 2019, so you're better off avoiding "progressive" PF stuff. Treat me as more flay.
Venkata Marrapu
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Michelle Martin
Yucaipa HS
None
Leilani McHugh
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:42 AM PDT
My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.
I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.
I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.
Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?
Amy McLoone
Analy High School
Last changed on
Fri February 10, 2017 at 1:18 AM PDT
I equally weigh the intelligence and strength of your arguments and the eloquence of your speeches. I strongly dislike arguments that perpetuate oppression, inequality, or supremacy. In addition, I like to see that you have both a comprehensive knowledge of the topic as well as a good time debating. After all, the purposes of debate should be education and fun.
I do not condone rudeness to myself or to your opponents. While I will not vote against you because of your mannerisms, I do take your politeness and graciousness towards your opponent into account when giving speaker points and evaluating cross ex. Similarly, you will not win because of your manneristic dominance or aggressiveness towards your opponents.
I prefer speeches jargon free.
Good luck, and I look forward to seeing you all on the circuit!
Nikunj Mehta
Cupertino HS
None
Vivek Menon
Gurukulam Enrichment Center
None
Alwyn Miranda
Presentation HS
None
Ariane Mitchell
Claremont
Last changed on
Sat September 21, 2019 at 1:19 AM PDT
I am a parent judge who has experience since 2017. For speaker evaluations, I pay attention to basic skills like enunciation, intonation, volume, pacing, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures. For debate, I keep track of arguments and logic presented by each side, as well as whether counter-arguments were persuasive. If appropriate to the debate form, I also consider the strength of the evidence presented by each side. The winner of the debate is the side with the most clearly communicated and defended arguments. I strongly dislike spreading.
Meykia Mittag
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
Ehab Mohaisen
Wilcox High School
None
Kanu Mohanti
Mission San Jose HS
None
Alison Moller
San Marino HS
None
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2018 at 4:13 PM PDT
I take a holistic approach to judging debates - the winner will be the person/team that has the most convincing overall presentation. The quality of the reasoning and the evidence used to support contentions carries more weight than the number of contentions. I do flow and will consider the failure to refute or address a significant point to be a basis for giving the win to the other team. A minor point that flows through will rarely be a determinant of the outcome.
You will likely lose if you make unsupported assertions; make up or misrepresent facts; or abuse your opponent or the process. The likelihood of winning are greatly enhanced if you are able to clearly rebut your opponent's voters and emphatically point out why your contentions should prevail.
Trish Morton
ILEAD Schools
Last changed on
Fri September 6, 2019 at 9:47 AM PDT
Debate:
3rd year of HS PF judging experience. I have judged at several local and away tournaments.
Paradigm-type items:
I do mind speed.
I disfavor jargon.
Provide a roadmap at the beginning of your speeches.
Avoid conclusory statements not supported by logic and evidence.
I prefer to let you monitor your own time so I can put my entire focus into the debate.
Education:
B.A. Political Science M.S.U.
J.D. Southwestern University School of Law
LL.M. (Taxation) Loyola Law School
CA Bar Member #212258
Good luck and have fun!
Sateesh Mucharla
Monta Vista High School
None
Ezequiel Murillo
Green Canyon High School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 4:22 AM MDT
Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.
-----------------
BACKGROUND:
Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.
Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events.
JUDGING:
Interpretation:
Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.
Blocking: I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.
Characterization: I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece, I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.
Public Address Events:
Content: Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea. If you are providing sources, are you citing the original source, & dates.
Delivery: How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.
Impact: I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?
Lincoln Douglas:
As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.
Public Forum:
I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.
Lekha Nair
Notre Dame HS
None
Swarmistha Nath
Monta Vista High School
None
Rajni Navin Chander
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri October 19, 2018 at 2:13 PM PDT
I like to hear all arguments in the debate.
I usually take notes to provide feedback on performance.
Good luck!
Vinod Nawani
Cupertino HS
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:00 AM PDT
About myself and my judging style.
-
Judged in speech and debate events for two years.
-
Value content over presentation style.
-
Value Quality over Quantity. If I don’t understand the content, I can not give you credit for it. Please slow down if you are looking for better scores.
-
Expect teams to respect the time limit, play nice and be polite and respectful.
Priti Nayak
Leland High School
None
Patrick Ngoon
Leland High School
None
Chau Nguyen
Presentation HS
None
Trung Nguyen
Monta Vista High School
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:20 AM PDT
I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.
Debate:
In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.
I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.
I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.
If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.
I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.
I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!
Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.
IEs:
These events are my jam. :)
Arun Nilkant
Monta Vista High School
None
Tracey O'Rourke
Leland High School
None
Ruita Pai
Notre Dame HS
None
Annamalai Panchanathan
Mission San Jose HS
None
Uma Panidapu
The Golden State Academy
None
Jung Park
Nova 42 Academy
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:37 AM PDT
I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.
What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.
Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.
Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.
Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!
Peter Park
Leland High School
None
Patience Patchet
Sonoma Academy
None
Malav Patel
Saratoga HS
None
Abhijit Patra
Saratoga HS
None
Elizabeth Patterson
Chowchilla High School
Last changed on
Sun January 14, 2018 at 4:50 AM PDT
Elizabeth Patterson, JD
Merced College
Instructor of Political Science; Business Law
Debate and Speech Adviser, Director
NPDA Paradigm
Debated 4 years NPDA)
Arguments:
I am an open-minded educator and welcome all arguments competitors present (including but not limited to critical theory arguments, procedurals of any kind, etc.) I will flow and weigh arguments through the lenses in which the debaters provide (criteria/paradigm).
Unless some competitor code of conduct/law is violated, I will not intervene unless the debaters implore me otherwise through their advocacy.
Organization/Structure:
Please present arguments in a way that is clear; sign posting and brief road maps (where are you going first off case, etc.) are extremely critical at all levels of debate. I will not time brief road maps unless they include a substantive discussion of arguments to be presented (Ex. of effective non-timed road map: first I will go off case to the K debate, next to the Politics DA, then on case to Adv. 1, etc.)
Rate of Delivery:
Any rate of delivery debaters engage will be flowed and evaluated based on the discursive criteria the competitors advocate. While a quick rate of delivery may be strategic and advantageous at times it should not interfere with clarity and basic structure and sign posting. If you feel excluded from the debate because of another competitor's rate of delivery, please make those arguments and tell me how I should weigh them.
Additional Information:
Please ask if you have additional questions for clarification before the round. Have fun!
Jessica Patterson
ILEAD Schools
Last changed on
Thu June 18, 2020 at 6:37 AM PDT
Been judging speech and debate competitions for about 7 years. I'm a theatre teacher, so I tend to gravitate towards IEs. I'm pretty lay when it comes to debate. I've judged enough over the years so that I can follow along with fast speaking, but not with spreading. I really really love it when arguments are clear, contentions are loudly numbered, and definitions are offered to me if the topic has to do with international relations or foreign policies. Be nice to each other.
Rajiv Pendyala
Monta Vista High School
None
Alex Pollayil
Leland High School
None
Chris Poole
Sherman Oaks CES
None
Kiran Potluri
Cupertino HS
None
Krishna Prakash
Monta Vista High School
None
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:00 AM CDT
I am a teacher and coach at Eastview High School (MN) - the 2023-2024 school year is my 21st year coaching and my 25th year involved in speech and debate. Full disclosure: I don't judge a whole lot. I'm usually doing other things at tournaments. But: I do actively coach, I enjoy judging almost every time I get to, and I like to think I'm fairly predictable in terms of what I look for and prefer.
You can ask me questions in round if you wish.
PF: I can "handle speed", though I don't know that I've seen many fast PF debaters. I have seen many blippy PF debaters. To me, speed does not equate to 40 cards, of varying word count, that are blippily extended. I very much prefer depth and extension of ideas than extension of tons of author names that all don't say a whole lot.
Congress: What I most value in this event include:
(1) Debating! Pre-scripted speeches (with the exception of an authorship) don't do much for me. Each speech should be somehow moving the debate forward; when speeches are merely read, they don't have that power. This also means that rehashing of points should be avoided. If you do discuss arguments previously made, what can you do to move them forward and develop a deeper line of analysis? Some type of impact analysis, new weighing, perhaps a new facet of the problem? Just repeating argumentation doesn't help move the debate forward.
(2) Thesis-driven speeches. I like to see a clear framework, clear organization, and a coherent structure that all supports some major theme within your speech. A hodgepodge of impacts and arguments that feel unrelated don't have as much weight as a speech that has a central, core idea behind it.
(3) Evidence. Moreso than an author name, I do like to hear credentials and dates. Not only that, evidence comparisons are so often key to the debate - why should I prefer your evidence over other evidence that has been heard so far in the round?
(4) Diversity of Cycle Position. If I hear a debater give me four first negative speeches, I don't feel like I get a true sense of the skill of that debater. Preferably, I'd like to hear each entry speak in different parts of the cycle. If you give me a first negative, maybe work to have a speech near the end of the debate to show my your crystallization skills. If you have a mid-cycle speech, maybe work to have a constructive speech next time. Obviously, your precedence and recency determines some of your order, but work to showcase differing skills in the round.
(5) Cross-x is important, but not everything. Speeches carry far more weight than questions. I do listen to questions, take into account your chamber activity, and really enjoy hearing c-x's that bring up holes in a position (or expertly bolster a position). But too often, I see debaters hurting themselves in c-x more than helping themselves. Overly aggressive, snippy, demeaning c-x's just don't help build a debater's eithos. Two competent debaters can have a good discourse without resulting to being mean. In c-x, I like to get proof that you truly "know your stuff" - that you're researched, have a handle on the topic, and didn't just read some brief that was given to you.
(6) Knowledge. The very best debaters, in my opinions, are the ones that have a fundamental understanding of the issues and can communicate them in a clear, impactful way. That simple statement is really hard to master. It is fairly clear when a person is well read, can respond to arguments with substantiated claims on fly, and can think on a deeper level. Show me your mastery of the content and you will be rewarded.
Finally, (7) Just Debate. I enjoy Congress - but when debate devolves into games and tricks designed to disadvantage any given speaker, I get frustrated. In my humble opinion, the very best debaters work to get their wins through mastery of the content, clear argumentation, and a firm but kind debating style. Resorting to games is beneath that. Have fun, for sure, but don't do so at the expense of others.
Isaiamuthu Premsankar
Cupertino HS
None
Chris Price
Tahoma Senior HS
Last changed on
Thu February 29, 2024 at 4:46 AM PDT
It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what I hear so watch your speed and clarity. Communicate ideas in an organized and professional manner. You WILL NOT win by trying to confuse your opponents.
Looking for solid evidence-based logic, reasoning, and depth of analysis.
Clearly state contentions, your own and your opponents, both in constructive and rebuttal
Rita Prichard
Granite Bay
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:07 AM PDT
I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. I reject speed for its own sake, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. A K will need to be explained very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.
Neeraj Purandare
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Vinayak Puranik
American High
None
Yan Qu
Los Altos High School
None
Shabana Qureshi
Granite Bay
None
Sasha Rabich
ILEAD Schools
Last changed on
Fri February 23, 2024 at 12:58 PM PDT
Hi there, I've done 4 years of parli, one in open High School, three in the Community College Circuit, at one point or another have competed in every debate format. I enjoy clash in my debates. Run whatever you want I'm front of me as long as you take the time to impact it out. Don't make me do the work for you, Tell me why i should vote and where. Been out of the debate scene for a bit, always excited by interesting ideas and we'll thought out strategy.
Siva Raja
Monte Vista
None
Prasad Rallabandi
The Golden State Academy
None
Eby Ramakrishnan
Monta Vista High School
None
Lynbrook-Meena Ramanlingam
Lynbrook HS
None
Kartik Ramaswamy
Leland High School
None
Ananthakrishna Ramesh
Cupertino HS
None
Esmirna Ramirez
Albany
None
Saify Ranapurwala
Cupertino HS
None
Anil Ranka
Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Raj Rao
Leland High School
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 11:24 AM PDT
lay judge, dont go fast and be respectful.
Scott Reimert
Presentation HS
None
Wei Ren
Cupertino HS
None
Joseph Richards
Mira Loma High School
None
Eric Roberts
Leland High School
None
Rachel Rothenberg
ILEAD Schools
None
Rebel Saint Lilith
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat April 6, 2024 at 3:14 AM PDT
I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.
I have about 10 years of experience in the speech and debate world. I primarily exist in speech land, but I have judged a lot of debate and love a strong argument and good links. That being said, I enjoy when a speaker can clearly articulate their arguments, and use delivery based methods of persuasion to help sway the ballot.
I am always hopeful for a debate where there is a lot of clash, and a clear path to the ballot.
I love when debaters give me voters and a clear articulation of why they believe that they have won the ballot.
Raj Sakharkar
Velasquez Academy
None
Amit Sanyal
Homestead HS
None
Ratna Saripalli
Monte Vista
None
Judy Seto
Leland High School
None
Zakia Shaikh
Leland High School
None
Sawsan Sharweed
Riverside STEM Academy
None
Last changed on
Wed December 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM PDT
Debates: I want you to convince me that your side is the "correct" one. Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not. I have judged lots of PF, Parli, and LD, but consider myself a "Flay" judge.
Spread at your own risk! Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me with information and data vice being "on point" with your arguments it will most likely work against you. On the flip side providing me lots of relevant information and facts can help you, as long as it is all germaine and meaningful. There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value well founded points that are delivered deliberately and effectively more than those that are delivered haphazardly or in a flurry of words. Take your time and DON'T WASTE WORDS!
I will reward elequent / articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins, so focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points - that is what will decide whether you win or not.
Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex! I realize your tempers may flare depending on what your opponents may say or do, but part of what I am looking for is your ability to remain professional and level-headed despite that. I have been known to "ding" a team if I feel they were excessively rude and/or condescending.
IEs: I am looking for a presentation / performance that has a solid underlying message / meaning and I really want to feel that it is coming from your heart vice just being recited. I believe IEs can and should make people think as well as just be entertaining. A topic that is "funny", "tragic" or "sorrowful" isn't necessarily thought provoking. Your use of the whole "stage", eye contact, projection, inflection, etc. really influence how powerfully your message comes across. I want to sense an aura of confidence and command of your material when you are performing. Endeavor to "Own the Room!"
Daniel Shih
Mission San Jose HS
None
Sushma Shirish
Cupertino HS
None
Tanuja Singh
Notre Dame HS
None
Anoop Singhal
Cupertino HS
None
Puja Singhal
Cupertino HS
Last changed on
Fri February 18, 2022 at 11:48 AM PDT
-Parent judge. Both of my children did LD debate so I have over 4 years of experience in judging LD
-I love interesting and unique arguments and philosophy
-Clearly articulated arguments without spreading or rushing through are preferred
-I love literature as I am an author myself
-I don't really understand circuit but if you explain your argument properly I can follow along
-Strong speakers usually win my ballot over others
-Please don't be rude or aggressive to your opponents
-I try my best to flow speeches
-Passion for the topic goes a long way. Do debate because you enjoy it don't seem forced :/
-I'm not strict I will go along with what you say but just please be mature and kind towards your opponents and please don't interrupt especially in cx.
Happy Debating !
-
Shaheen Sohi
Monte Vista
None
Brandon Spars
Sonoma Academy
None
Kirsten Spears
Leland High School
None
Ritu Srivastava
Leland High School
None
Kevin Steeper
Sonoma Academy
Last changed on
Fri November 4, 2016 at 12:15 AM PDT
Most Important Criteria
I'm a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn't respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I'll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won't do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I'm also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you'll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts).
Predispositions
The only thing I'm predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you've been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I'll still vote on it even though I won't want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it's warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative's case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I'd rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren't, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations.
Speed/Jargon/Technical
I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I'm not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don't speed the other team out of the room. If they call "clear" or "slow", slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed.
NOTE: I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It's your debate, it's up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn't a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say.
NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES: Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.
Brandon Stewart
Mission San Jose HS
Last changed on
Sun January 8, 2023 at 3:17 AM PDT
I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.
Debate
1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.
1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.
2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.
2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).
2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.
3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.
3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\
3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.
4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.
4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.
5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.
6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.
Joanne Stowitts
Cajon High School
None
Mark Stowitts
Cajon High School
Last changed on
Thu January 25, 2024 at 1:23 AM PDT
Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA
I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.
LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.
Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.
Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.
In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.
Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.
Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.
Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.
Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.
Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.
Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.
Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.
Gongyu Su
Monte Vista
None
Nikki Sullivan
Sonoma Academy
None
Priya Sundar
Los Altos High School
None
Ganesh Sundaresan
Monta Vista High School
None
Dennis Tabofunda
Cupertino HS
None
Darin Taylor
Leland High School
None
Hovig Tchalian
Claremont
None
Neeta Thakur
Notre Dame HS
None
Aswini Thirupathi
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun October 6, 2019 at 9:57 AM PDT
I am a lay parent judge and have judged very few PF rounds before.
I prefer a normal speaking pace during speeches and crossfire.
I would also like speakers to provide an off-time roadmap before speeches and signpost during speeches.
I do not know much debate jargon.
Be courteous to each other throughout the round.
Bharathy Thridandam
Carlsbad HS
None
Lexi Tippings
Schurr High School
None
Gwen Tran
Leland High School
None
Linh Tran
Homestead HS
None
Rita Tripathy
Mission San Jose HS
None
Sunil Tripathy
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Tabrynn Tucker
Green Canyon High School
None
Nanny Tunnell
Monte Vista
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 3:08 AM PDT
Hello all,
This is my criteria for judging.
1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round.
2. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.
3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.
4. Do not be rude. Screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head shaking, and showing general contempt is not acceptable.
sunitha Turlapati
Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Tony Ugalde
Schurr High School
None
Jessica Uy
Claremont
None
Emily VanGerpen
Aspen
None
Arun Varshney
Cupertino HS
None
Sridhar Venkataraman
Mira Loma High School
None
Suresh Venkataraman
Cupertino HS
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 1:06 AM PDT
While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my second year judging Public Forum.
I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.
Christopher Vu
Leland High School
None
Sudha Vuyyuru
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Tue January 19, 2021 at 9:56 PM EDT
School Affiliations:
Dougherty Valley High School
Judging/Event Type:
Speech Events
How many years have you been judging?
7 years
How will you award speaker points to the debaters?
I will look for fluency and well rounded speech.
What sorts of things make a decision at the end of the debate?
Confidence and clarity of thought, expression and conveying the topic to any one with or without knowledge on the topic.
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?
No
Preferences on the use of evidences?
Make sure that they are recent and credible.
Thoughts on real world impacts on the debate?
It is important to articulate the impact.
How do you judge cross examination?
I have no experience in judging debate events
How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?
If the speaker knows what they are saying about. Both truthful arguments and debate skill are equally important.
Rajan Wadhwa
Monte Vista
None
Dylan Wan
Granite Bay
None
Eddie Wang
Saratoga HS
None
Linda Wang
Leland High School
None
Maggie Wang
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT
2022 Update
Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!
2021 Update
You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.
2/4/2020
Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!
4/4/2015
I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.
My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.
I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.
Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.
I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.
I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.
Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.
Terry-Lynn Whitfield
Claremont
None
Geoffrey Wiederecht
American Heritage
None
Rachel Wilczewski
Gresham-Barlow HS
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT
Background
I was a high school and college policy debater in the 1980's. I have taught policy debate for 21 years both in California and Oregon. I have coached several policy teams to nationals. I love this form of debate.
Paradigm
I am a real world policy maker judge, who is somewhat traditional. I look to see who advocates for most viable and beneficial policy. I am a recovering stock issues judge.
What Makes Me Smile
I like to see an organized flow, with lots of analysis connecting evidence to claims. I also like to see a fun spirited debate, where debaters are polite to one another and are in this activity to learn, not just to win.
Speed
I can flow a fast debate, but prefer communication over speed. I find that most policy debaters who spew, can't really handle the speed they are attempting and therefore lose their judge and opponents, ultimately rendering this communication event moot. However, if you must race through your arguments, at least be slow and clear on the tags.
K's
I do not like Kritiks. I will listen to them and weigh them against other arguments on the flow, but overall am not a big fan. If you run a K, make sure to fully explain your philosophical position and don't run positions that will bite your K.
T
I will vote on T if not used as a time suck. "If you run it, go for it, don't kick out of 4 T's in your last rebuttal."
Tag Team CX
I don't mind tag team cx; however, I award speaker points based on your ability to ask and answer questions, so if one partner is "tooling" another, then one of you will suffer point wise. I like to see that both partners are knowledgable about the topic and debate theory and get disgruntled when one partner will not allow the other partner a chance to answer any questions.
Flex Prep
What? Really? No!
Flashtime
I don't count flash time as prep time, unless it becomes ridiculous.
Last changed on
Tue March 5, 2024 at 5:26 AM PDT
cwilson@rialtousd.org
I am currently the head coach for Carter High School. Our team excels in speech events, so that is where most of my expertise is, but I also have extensive experience in coaching Public Forum, Congress, and Lincoln Douglas.
My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round.
Just because I coach debate, don’t assume I know all of your terminology you learned in camp this summer; it’s definitely worth your time to make sure you explain your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. Keep me focused on your tactics and argument and not trying to figure out your fancy debate vocabulary.
The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions.
A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.
I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t.
I am old-school when it comes to LD. I don’t expect, nor do I respond well to, spreading. As a coach, I don’t see the real-world value in talking as fast you can. If your strategy is to be incoherent so your opponent drops contentions, know that I will absolutely drop contentions as well. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.
In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans, but I am convinced this is not good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
I don’t typically enjoy Theory debates. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. In rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.
I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.
Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.
Lastly, don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill, but be nice about it. I won’t respond well to any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, though. I want to be entertained and I often respond well to tasteful sarcasm.
Kristin Wilson
Gresham-Barlow HS
None
Jill Wu
Monta Vista High School
None
Krishna Wudaru
Mission San Jose HS
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 11:20 AM PDT
Hello, I am a parent judge.
Nanlan Xu
Monte Vista
None
Zishan Zhang
Cupertino HS
None
Lichen Zhao
Leland High School
None
Hang Zhou
Leland High School
None