Hello, debaters! I am an 11/12 English teacher at Richmond High School within the Internationals' Academy. I love well-explained evidence and extensive vocabulary!

Pronouns: (she/her)

I did not debate in high school, but I was involved with supporting the debate program at Cal during college!

I am currently the policy debate coach for Richmond High School.

Add me to your email chain please - I want to see your evidence: shelliewharton@berkeley.edu

Don’t be afraid to ask me questions before or after the round! I’m not one of those “read my paradigm and then don’t speak to me” judges, and I am happy to answer any questions you might have. I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. Do your best to stay organized. Your disorganization means I have to fight to stay organized, rather than focusing entirely on your argumentation. I’m very open to nontraditional arguments and K affs!

I'm a pretty flexible judge - just make sure that you stay organized, explain your arguments well, and help me understand why I should vote for you. I flow the whole round, and I want to focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round, but I’ll still write notes on the rfd if I miss something.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine:

General:

1. Tag-teaming in cross-x is fine. Prompting during a speech is fine. Neither should be excessive. That being said, if two people are talking over each other, I can't flow/hear anything.
2. Be nice to other people in the round. Being condescending, rude, mean, etc. will impact your speaker points.
3. Speed is not as important as clarity: I need to be able to understand you read your arguments in order to vote on them.
4. Finally, have fun!

I Debated in high school for 3 years

Ld debater in Chabot college

parli adapter

1 and half of public form

I am on the national team for wrestling

Graduated in 2018

I prefer a policy debater

if you do a performance I am fine with it

I am fine with the role of the ballot

I am okay K debates but if you run a K AFF it has better connect with you in some way. Like if you run neoliberalism you better have a passion for why it's bad and if you run ain't-black you better be black or have a valid reason for running it. If you somehow fail to do this then you lose 2 sp and mostly your opponent will pick up on this and turn it against you and you will lose the debate

If you are going to run T iT has to be real and what I mean is if you run there stealing your ground and there no emotion you lose sp and also if you say their aff is not topical or over topical please explain and finally if you run T and it is on topic and you just decided just to waste time you lose 1 point

I LIKE NUCLEAR WAR ARGUMENT

AND GLOBAL WARMING

add me to chain mail contact.walterwilliams@gmail.com

Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy (2009-2013), and a semester of policy at Arizona State University (2013). I have coached policy debate at Chandler Preparatory Academy (Spring 2014-Fall 2018) and was the head coach at BASIS Chandler (Spring 2017-Fall 2019), policy coach at McClintock High School (Spring 2022), and policy coach at Skyline High School (Fall 2023-April 2024).

I will to listen to any argument provided that I am given a reason why it should affect my decision. Make sure to tell me how I should evaluate and weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to think for myself, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round. I am comfortable with speed and focus on resolving substantive issues on the flow in order to make my decision, though I'm fully open to theory arguments.

Please ask me if there is anything specific that you would like to know not included in this paradigm. I try to keep it short because I believe that the point of the debate round is to establish both the facts and the framework for the decision, and writing down my every opinion on debate theory doesn't seem productive for allowing you to debate the way you want.

Email: longdsyee@gmail.com

General thoughts:

As a judge for policy debate, I am not comfortable with debaters spreading. I will warn debaters once about clarity, and speed, after that speaker points will decline and flow accuracy will be in question. I am not well versed in debate lingo, but I can give a common RFD. My paradigm is centered around fairness, critical analysis, and effective communication. I approach each round with an open mind and evaluate the arguments presented based on their merits. Here is a breakdown of my judge's paradigm:

1. Fairness and Impartiality:

- I strive to be an impartial and unbiased judge, evaluating the round solely on the arguments presented by the debaters.

- I expect debaters to adhere to the rules and norms of policy debate, and I will enforce them to ensure fairness for all participants.

- I am open to hearing new and innovative arguments, but they must align with the established rules and standards of the debate.

2. Critical Analysis and Evaluation:

- I carefully evaluate the quality and strength of the arguments presented by each team.

- I prioritize well-reasoned and logical arguments that are supported by credible evidence and analysis.

- I expect debaters to clearly articulate their positions, provide logical reasoning, and respond effectively to their opponent's arguments.

3. Communication and Presentation:

- I value clear and effective communication in debate rounds.

- I expect debaters to present their arguments in a manner that is easy to understand, well-organized, and persuasive.

- I appreciate debaters who actively listen, respond thoughtfully to their opponent's arguments, and engage in respectful cross-examination.

4. Respectful Conduct and Sportsmanship:

- I expect debaters to engage in respectful and civil discourse throughout the round.

- I appreciate debaters who demonstrate good sportsmanship by respecting their opponents and engaging in constructive dialogue.

• I will not tolerate personal attacks, disrespectful behavior, or discrimination in the debate round.

5. Clarity and Organization: I appreciate clear and well-organized arguments, use logical reasoning, and present their arguments in a structured manner.

6. Evidence and Analysis: I value evidence-based as well as current events arguments I appreciate thorough analysis of the evidence presented.

7. Clash and Rebuttal: I want to see debaters engage in meaningful clash and rebuttal. I expect debaters to respond to their opponent's arguments, identify weaknesses in their opponent's case, and provide counterarguments. I see the value in debaters who can effectively refute their opponent's arguments and defend their position.

8. Persuasiveness and Impact: I look for debaters who can persuade me with compelling arguments. I appreciate debaters who can explain the importance and implications of their arguments and show how they relate to the overall debate topic. I want to see debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas and convince me of the merits of their position.