SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational
2019
—
Santa Clara,
CA/US
Individual Events Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Bruce Adelstein
Valley International Prep
None
Akshay Agarwal
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 10:21 PM PDT
Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments
Geeta Agarwal
The Golden State Academy
None
Sassan Ahmadi
Monta Vista High School
None
Shireen Alazzawi
Notre Dame HS
None
Rebecca Allison
Notre Dame HS
8 rounds
None
Neha Annamalai
Mission San Jose HS
None
Archana Arunkumar
The Quarry Lane School
8 rounds
None
Kavitha Atanchery
Monta Vista High School
None
Janis Bajor
Palo Alto HS
None
Harveen Bal
Leland High School
None
Sonu Bedwa
California High School
None
Vishakha Bhadra
The Quarry Lane School
None
Harsh Bhargava
Fremont High School
None
Rajib Bhattacharya
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Sanjukta Bhattacharyya
Leland High School
None
Bhaskar Bhupalam
Mission San Jose HS
None
Jennifer Billante
Almaden Country Day School
None
Kishan Bulusu
Oakwood
None
Sean Burgess
Davis Senior HS
Last changed on
Thu January 3, 2019 at 7:14 AM PDT
I am a parent with experience judging at league and invitational tournament events since 2016. I have no personal experience competing, but I appreciate creative and well-argued approaches to the resolutions. I frown upon cases that appear to be lifted from the internet since conventional and formulaic case presentations tend to sound more alike as the season progresses.
Please do not spread at the expense of diction. If you see me put down my pen, I am no longer following your argument. I judge based on clear logical flow of arguments and proper clash. While I try to follow the technical aspects of the debate (e.g. if contentions are addressed or not in the rebuttal), I do not appreciate when students argue that they win the debate based on technical principles alone.
Absent unethical behavior, I expect to award points in the 27-29 point range, holding 30 for exceptional and rare cases. I put a high value on professional demeanor and frown upon overly aggressive attacks on your opponent. I also frown upon asking opponents to repeat what they just said, with the exception of asking to see cards. Full points will not be awarded if a competitor's ultimate case is based on mass extinction or nuclear annihilation where I have to suspend my otherwise tabula rasa foundation.
Kulwinder Chaddha
Saratoga HS
None
Dave Chamberlain
El Roble Intermediate
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:28 AM PDT
David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.
In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.
In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.
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. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.
Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.
Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.
Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.
Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".
Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.
Adriana Chan
Velasquez Academy
8 rounds
None
Mouli Chandraekaran
Granite Bay HS
None
Subha Chandran
Monte Vista
None
Lisa Charpontier
Notre Dame HS
8 rounds
None
Rajeeb Chatterjee
Cupertino High School
None
Nagaraj Chekka
Monta Vista High School
None
Anna Chen
Leland High School
None
May Chen
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Ming-teh Chen
Menlo-Atherton High School
None
Anis Cherif
Westmont
None
Lynbrook-Sarada Cherukupalli
Lynbrook HS
None
Naveen Chhangani
Mission San Jose HS
None
Ramakrishna Chilukuri
Presentation HS
None
Kristy Chow
Milpitas HS
None
Mario Chow
Milpitas HS
None
Samantha Chu
Almaden Country Day School
8 rounds
None
Jiyoun Chun
Notre Dame HS
None
Hormazd Commissariat
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Jeffrey Cormier
Leland High School
None
Pamela Curry
Fremont High School
None
Sneha d'Abreu Noronha
Leland High School
None
Abhijit Daga
The Golden State Academy
None
Peal Das Gupta
Cupertino High School
None
Michael Daugherty
Claremont
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:38 AM PDT
I am currently the assistant debate coach for Claremont High School. I have been judging and coaching on and off for the last 8 years since I graduated from high school. In high school I primarily did circuit LD but also did parliamentary debate making it to the semi finals of the NPDL TOC. My background is in science so I will more often than not need extra explanation for philosophical arguments, that doesnt mean I wont vote on them but I am less likely to vote on underdeveloped arguments or simply off a tagline. Also, coming from LD i believe that the framework debate is very important in setting up how the judge should evaluate arguments. Absent of any framework I will resort to net benefits. I have no issues with either theory or Ks, but prefer debates to be accessible to both debaters. For example, I have no issues with flowing speed but if you are spreading simply because you think it will prevent your opponent from responding I will dock your speaks and assume you were too afraid to debate the actual topic at hand. The same should apply to theory and critical arguments, if you are using these arguments because they have a legitimate educational, or otherwise (fairness, preventing harms, etc.,) purpose in the round I have no problem voting off of them.
Matthew Dean
Mountain House HS
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat December 4, 2021 at 7:12 AM EDT
Matthew Dean: idc what you call me, I called the judge “your honor” because I was in Mock trial for four years. But besides that, I really don't care. You can pick a random name to call me in round honestly, literally anything, just be consistent. I'll probably find it funny and give you higher speaks.
Email: Mhadd.eon@gmail.com
I try my best to be tabula rasa but don't try to convince me death is good.
I originally had a really long paradigm on here but, realized no one's gonna read that, so here ya go. I'm a flow judge and I will accept plans in LD, I hate K's and k style debate. However, I will accept them.
Real quick, if you feel the need to run a K I gotta be given the K, unless its off the cuff, which then idc. Progressive argumentation is something I am painfully used to, I did policy debate and some LD though mostly policy. I understand progressive debate just not overly fond of it. However, if you want to do it just do it right and there will be no problems!
I'm fine with unique arguments and really have fun with your rounds ok?
If your case needs to be disclosed because you are going to spread, please give it to me, but be warned I flow, and will only judge you off of what I can HEAR, so if you're too fast and I have to shout clear you've lost speaker points. I did Policy for multiple years and am adept at good spreading I know what bad spreading sounds like. In events like LD please focus on value debate, If I don't hear about it you don't win. I cannot stress this enough if your argument says that not voting for you is racist, sexist, or some other stupid ism that somehow I am for not choosing you, I won't buy it. I want to hear you win on the merits of your ability nothing more. Try to stay away from attacking opponents verbally you will lose the round if you do. I expect people to avoid flimsy link chains (but if you can back it up I don't care how long that chain is). I truly love clash, the more arguments clash the more engaged I will be in the debate. The number one voter in every round is impact calculus, and how you prove to me the effects and true weight of your impact on the world, and/or the negative impact of your opponent. I did debate during high school, I did policy and went to nationals twice in it, I did PF for every year. I did parli for every year and went to states twice in it, I did LD and went to the NCFL national tournament in it. I know every debate event both on the circuit and off of it, feel free to ask clarifying questions as I'm not going to type everything out on here.
Nayan Desai
Saratoga HS
None
Shantanu Deshpande
Palo Alto HS
None
Padma Desikachari
Cupertino High School
None
Gurdaver Dhaliwal
The Quarry Lane School
None
Sharan Dhaliwal
Leland High School
None
Kanchan Dilip
Presentation HS
None
Mohammed Djebroun
Leland High School
None
Jonathan Duval
Leland High School
None
Rajesh Edamula
Saratoga HS
None
Abdellatif El Moznine
The Golden State Academy
None
Diana Escobar
Cristo Rey High School
None
Gina Fagin
Hire
8 rounds
None
Dominic Fernandes
Monta Vista High School
None
Rodney Fierce
Sonoma Academy
Last changed on
Wed September 21, 2022 at 1:24 AM PDT
rodney.fierce@sonomaacademy.org
Dr. Rodney Fierce (he/him/his)
I received a BA in English from Princeton University (2007), a Masters in English from Simmons University (2012), and a PhD in English from The University of Southern Mississippi (2020). From 2012 - 2017 I was a college professor at Simmons University and The University of Southern Mississippi, and have been a Humanities Teacher at Sonoma Academy since 2017.
Please do not be disrespectful without reason. In terms of argument, I prefer tech over truth and be able to counter each argument. I will stop listening once the time is up. Please also time your own speeches.
Jose Flores
The Quarry Lane School
None
Carolyn Day Flowers
El Cerrito
None
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 6:39 AM PDT
A little about me:
Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present
Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020
I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.
-
I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.
I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.
Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.
Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.
For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.
Truth > tech.
*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*
In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.
WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.
Kimberly Fradelis
Bentley School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:23 AM PDT
Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience
I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".
I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.
By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?
Lena Frazee
Castro Valley High School
None
Lani Frazer
Sonoma Academy
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 7:04 AM PDT
Email chain/contact: lanikfrazer@gmail.com
About me - I was the director of speech & debate at sonoma academy for 4 years, and coach for 3 years prior. I debated at SVDP and at Cal and have taught at the CNDI. I no longer do anything debate related.
General - My judging philosophy is pretty simple - you should ultimately do what you do best. I prioritize specificity, contextualization, and evidence quality over your style of debate. Really, I can't stress this enough. I don't judge many policy v. policy debates, but I am able to adjudicate them. I do, however, primarily judge K v. K/clash rounds.
Organization is very important. I flow on paper. I am not a fan of huge overviews and card dumps- please do the work for me and tell me where I should flow things. Explaining warrants is crucial. Empirics and examples are great. Impact analysis is critical. Tech should be truth.
Topicality - I will vote on topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation is good, predictable, and resolves their voters. You should be explaining why, as a whole, your vision of the topic is good, and have tangible impacts. Potential abuse isn't super compelling to me, but I'll vote on it if you tell me why I should. Ks of T are often pretty trifling and need to be explained in depth. "Community consensus" on T doesn't mean much to me and should not be taken for granted.
Theory - I have a high threshold for theory debates and find them to be blippy and frivolous most of the time. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, but if there is a voting issue it must be thoroughly articulated and should have a very strong presence in the 2nr/2ar. Slow down, be clear, and do more than read the shell.
Framework - I mostly judge debates wherein affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I am fine with this. Should affirmatives at least be in the direction of the topic? Probably, but not necessarily. Framework read against a K/performance aff that does something concrete is typically not a good argument to read in front of me. You should be engaging in what they do and you should do more than say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Provide a creative topical version, and explain why fairness or education or whatever comes first (and why this means the aff can't access their own pedagogy). Do more than provide a case list, but explain why those cases are good for debate. I tend to think that fairness is more of an internal link and not a terminal impact, but if you're winning that I will vote for you.
The K - love it. I spend a lot of time reading critical theory and am probably familiar with your lit, but I will not do extra work for you, so the less jargon/more explanation, the better. Be specific and have contextualized links (the link should be to the aff and not the world). You should also answer all of the aff's impacts through turns, defense, etc. Framing is super important. The permutation is underutilized. Impact turns on the aff are cool, but not when it's something you shouldn't say pedagogically.
Disadvantages - Fine. Win your link, turn/outweigh the case, impact calc. Intrinsicness is silly and I'll probably not evaluate it much unless it's seriously mishandled (though it can be compelling against things like riders DAs, which are, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of fiat).
Counterplans - Great. I love a creative advantage CP. You should have a solvency advocate. I definitely lean neg on most theory arguments here, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.
Let me know if you have any questions. Shoot me an email before the round if you want me to be aware of access needs, pronouns, etc.
Kris Freitas
Buhach Colony HS
None
Kunal Gandhi
Hopkinsville Independent
Last changed on
Sun October 3, 2021 at 3:01 AM PDT
If the topic is complicated and less in news, it is OK to spend a few moments educating the audience/me (judge). If providing context helps you build foundation for your arguments, go for it.
Quickly listing your position/arguments during the debate a few times is a good strategy. Ability to list, at a high level, your arguments and what you have covered helps the judge and you. It also reflects a methodical approach on your part.
If you have limited number of arguments, it is OK. You can explain why your argument(s) have the weight and why your argument(s) matter more than the number of arguments that the other side may be making.
If you notice that the other team introduced a new argument late in the debate and/or cited a source, when sources are not to be given credit for (say, in late rounds), I would notice that too. You are free to point out. I would prefer that you make your point quickly, and move to discussing substance. Also, you are free to tell me what arguments "flow" and what do not. As I am listening, I am making up my mind and such suggestions form the speaker do not generally make a difference in how I perceive the debate.
Above everything else, I look for:
* how you assign weight to your arguments,
* how critically you think about the impact of both side
* do you acknowledge obvious weaknesses and weigh them against the benefits
* how well you address what your opponents bring up
Many times, I do not know immediately at the end of the round who the winner is going to be. I take notes aggressively during each round. I review my notes after the round, some times agonize, and then decide. Regardless, of when I make up my mind, I do not prefer to share the results immediately after the round with the teams.
Neelam Gandhi
Monta Vista High School
None
Cheney Gao
Leland High School
None
Swati Garg
Infinite Academy
None
Last changed on
Sat January 18, 2020 at 7:42 AM PDT
Flowy debate judge. Values concise and orderly substantive clash (on warrants, links, and impacts), good time management, consistent strategy, effective use of cross ex, and signposting. Mostly tabula rasa but dings for gross fantasy and adds points for good argumentative use of accurate knowledge of real world. No speaks given for extensive use of debate jargon. Spreading fine as long as the diction is crystalline.
Arash Ghaffari
Leland High School
None
Shilpa Ghorpade
Stratagem Learning
None
Ellen Gillis
Leland High School
None
Linda Golan
Notre Dame HS
None
daniel goldberg
Monte Vista
None
Sridhar Gollapudi
Mission San Jose HS
None
Patrick Gonzales
Cleveland HS
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:58 AM PDT
I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.
But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.
Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?
Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo
Ivan Gonzalez
Almaden Country Day School
None
Rajalakshmi Gopalakrishnan
Mira Loma High School
Last changed on
Fri April 16, 2021 at 10:03 AM PDT
Congratulations for qualifying to TOC.
Here is what you need to know about my judging preferences:
1. I am a lay judge. I will take Truth over Tech...I will take logical analysis over unexplained cards .
2. No spreading please. If I do not understand what you said, then I cannot give you credit for those arguments.
3. I will pull strongly contested cards in the debate.
4. I expect that you are courteous to your team mates and opponents.
5. Theory , Ks fine by me .
Good Luck and may the odds be forever in your favor :)
Rajashree Govindan
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 2:33 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and have judged a few tournaments. I won’t be familiar with the topic so please talk clearly and provide definitions. While I do not flow I will be taking notes. Please convince me why you should win and make sure to weigh. In order to win, please make sure to clearly outline your arguments and respond to arguments from your opponents clearly.
Gurmeet Gulati
The Quarry Lane School
None
Sarika Gulati
Monte Vista
None
Naveen Gunukula
Leland High School
None
Akash Gupta
Monta Vista High School
None
Ankur Gupta
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sun April 7, 2019 at 5:39 AM PDT
An avid debater - both extempore and prepared during my younger days.
Winner of the Inter Collegiate debates during my engineering and business school day.
This is my first formal year of judging both speech and debate events and I love providing constructive feedback to all participants that can help them with their future rounds.
Interest in wide ranging topics including technology, psychology, politics and current affairs, sports, cinema and visual arts ... Avid sportsperson and an enthusiast, Coach and Mentor for Robotics and Odyssey of the Mind teams !!
Lynbrook-Shivani Gupta
Lynbrook HS
None
Last changed on
Thu November 11, 2021 at 3:38 AM PDT
Hello! My name is pronounced Hiwad (HUH-wahd). My background is in Parli Debate, where I competed for 1 year each at the high school/college levels and I now coach.
I weigh Education and Organization heavily. I enjoy when the second constructive speeches add new information to the round.
On Speed, I prefer when debaters are strategic and quickly go through important points and slow down for arguments you want to emphasize for me/your opponents. I do not prefer spreading as it is usually tough to flow; if you do, I welcome the opposing team to call “slow” in chat or aloud if needed.
I reward Theory when it is carefully and thoughtfully run, but not when it amounts to filling time. It is okay to run Theory and not collapse to it in the end, it is just like any other argument and only a priori if you argue that it is.
For kritiks, be prepared to send your opponents the main text upon request: Role of the Ballot and the Alternative. I find round-specific, as opposed to canned, kritiks to be the most compelling, effective, and educational. I have limited exposure to aff kritiks, FYI.
Provide quick off-time roadmaps. Always weigh your impacts. Don’t hesitate to use POIs and POOs. When you collapse to the argument you want me to vote on, please do so clearly and ideally more than once.
Good luck and have fun!
Jenna Haiwen
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Sat January 16, 2021 at 11:59 PM PDT
Hello,
I am a novice Parli judge and a traditional debate judge. Please speak slowly, no Kritiques, no theory, please sign post and keep it simple.
Lee Hamilton
El Cerrito
None
Alan Hao
Aragon High School
Last changed on
Tue November 5, 2019 at 7:51 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:
Understanding of the resolution;
Reliability of the sources used;
Relevance of examples to the argument;
Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;
Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;
You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.
Lynbrook-Thippeswamy Hariyaplar
Lynbrook HS
None
Sharon Hartman
Almaden Country Day School
None
Aarash Heydari
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat November 23, 2019 at 11:30 PM PDT
I am a former policy debater from Harrisonburg, Virginia. I am now a former ghost-member for the Cal Policy debate team.
I try to go by the flow. I like strong links.
I am open to any types of arguments.
Be thorough in your explication.
I prefer debates with clash. Why should you win the debate? Be sure to have a mix of offense and defense.
Sophie Ho
Leland High School
None
Edith Huang
Los Altos High School
None
Carolyn Hughes
Almaden Country Day School
None
Priyanka Inani
Monta Vista High School
None
Deepali Jain
Cupertino High School
None
Vanita Jain
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
James Jaquet
Oakwood
None
Mani Jayaraman
Cupertino High School
None
Manikantan Jayaraman
The Golden State Academy
None
Sudhakar Jilla
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Mon September 16, 2019 at 1:25 PM PDT
Hello, I am Sudhakar Jilla and I have judged for various schools over the last 5-6 years. I'm an average lay judge with no significant biases. nor am I ideologically opposed to voting for any argument. I think there's a side to be heard on everything - no hard and fast rules.
I am not a flow judge and I try to weigh arguments in terms of how convincing they are, do they back up with concrete evidence, defend their point of view and so on. Speed talking, being rude, condescending attitude, lack of clarity, not being respectful are definite turn-offs. If I can't hear or understand something important, it is your loss. I also don't appreciate misconstruing of evidence; if the card does not make sense to me, I will call for it and check to see if it states what you claim it says. I also expect opponents to call for evidence as well.
I don't understand all the debate jargon and would appreciate if you create clear link chains and explain them clearly. Interact with your opponents argument and tell me why I should prefer your argument over theirs.
Happy Debating !
Qiufeng Jin
Modern Rhetoric
None
Adam Jones
Los Altos High School
None
Thomas Joo
Davis Senior HS
None
Srinivas Kadiyala
Homestead HS
None
Anitha Kannan
The Quarry Lane School
None
Surya Kannan
Infinite Academy
None
Ramesh Kanugula
Granite Bay HS
None
Aditi Karandikar
Leland High School
None
CHRISHMA KARKADA
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT
Hey guys,
LD
I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:
-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.
-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.
-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.
-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.
-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:
-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.
-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.
-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this
-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this
EXTEMP
I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.
I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.
I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10
Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!
As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.
Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.
Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!
Suhas Karke
Granite Bay HS
Last changed on
Fri November 15, 2019 at 9:41 AM PDT
I have judged for local league for Oratorical Interpretation for speech and public forum.
Raana Kashani
Leland High School
None
Mukesh Kataria
Irvington HS
None
Sameer Kazim
Granite Bay HS
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 9:51 AM PDT
Background:
Competed in Public Forum and Parliamentary style debate in high school, along with entering in DI, TI, Duo, and Impromptu. Went to States in TI (semi-finalist) and Nationals in TI and World Schools.
Debate Preferences:
I want on-case debate. If you come into Aff constructive rejecting the resolution, I am going to be heavily inclined to give you the loss. Likewise, if your Neg theory shell is non-topical, it will count against you. Do not run a K, do not spread, and do not be extratopical unless you want an L.
I dislike the strategy of throwing as many statistics in an argument as humanly possible and letting them speak for themselves. Explain why your numbers are important, don't just throw them at me. I will value a better explained and nuanced argument over one comprised of only statistics.
Most importantly, remember that debate exists to discuss policy and understand foreign perspectives, whether that be your motivation to participate or not. Treat your opponent with respect. You don't know their social, economic, or educational background, nor is it your (or anyone's) place to disrespect it. You can have fun in the round and still create thoughtful, argumentative discussion. Please keep this in mind in-round.
Bonus speaker point if you can make me laugh :P
Speech Preferences:
Not too much to say here. I know that speech rounds can be tedious and repetitive. That doesn't mean every single speaker isn't deserving of your attention and respect. Clap for speakers, be encouraging. Don't be afraid to laugh or react to a speech because it might elevate their ranking above yours; it won't. If anything, it will make you look more attentive and supportive. You can compete without being toxic. We're all spending a lot of time and money to be here, might as well have fun with it :)
Sarswati Khadka
Irvington HS
None
Ganesh Khandpekar
Irvington HS
None
Mayuri Khanna
The Golden State Academy
None
Raj Khaware
The Quarry Lane School
None
Mahjoube Kiani
Davis Senior HS
8 rounds
None
Sangsun Kim
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:36 PM PDT
I used to judge many speech events. Here are a few things important for speakers in speech events: Effective voice modulation (exaggerated voice is okay too), a bit slower pace (slower & faster mixed pace works better), Use of articulation a few times, gestures (not necessarily all the time), and bigger excitement.
I am new to PF debate judging. I feel better when debaters present enough evidences with confidence and logical justifications for their arguments.
Good luck!
Anita Kommineni
Vrisa Speech Academy
None
Sitapani Koneru
Athens Debate
None
Ravikumar Krishnaswamy
Mission San Jose HS
None
Omar Kudsi
SF Waldorf HS
None
Amol Kulkarni
Presentation HS
None
Sunil Kumar
Milpitas HS
None
Veera Kyabarsi
Mission San Jose HS
None
Iain Lampert
Valley International Prep
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..."
Sherri Lassila
Palo Alto HS
None
Robert Laurence
Presentation HS
None
John Le
Amador Valley High School
None
Brian Lee
Leland High School
None
Euan Lee
Wilcox High School
None
Kelvin Lee
Monta Vista High School
None
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:16 AM PDT
I have judged several years for speech events and believe speech and debate is a great platform for students of all level to participate and benefit from it. Since our competitors have worked hard to share their performance with us, I try to also share something useful for them to takeaway with them when I write my ballot.
Linying Li
Davis Senior HS
None
ning liu
Modern Rhetoric
None
Vincent Liu
Leland High School
None
Ashley Lohmann
Mountain House HS
None
Maggie Looc
Saratoga HS
None
Last changed on
Tue January 16, 2024 at 7:43 AM PDT
Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com
TL;DR If you run Ks in anything other than LD, you probably want to strike me. If you run performances or non-topical Affs in any debate event, you definitely want to strike me.
Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.
General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list several argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments.
Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.
Lincoln-Douglas Note: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.).
Style: Keep roadmaps short and off-time. I can’t handle TOC-level speed, but feel free to speak much faster with me than you would with any lay judge. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I have to do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using excessive speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.
Speaker Points: I reward you for
- signposting THOROUGHLY
- impact and warrant comparisons
- being courteous
- being strategic
- being efficient
- being witty/humorous
Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.
Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on either. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.
Kritiks: Unlikely to vote for most, as it's hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework. I will not usually vote for kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them. If you’re blatantly using Ks to exclude debaters with a more traditional style, you’re going to lose.
Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.
Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.
Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.
Other
- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.
- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"
- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.
- I’ll disclose at every tournament where it’s allowed. If it’s not allowed, I’ll still give oral critiques after the round, if time permits. Whether I’m giving an RFD or not, don’t be afraid to challenge me on anything I say. We can’t learn if we can’t have a discussion.
Melissa Loupeda
Cristo Rey High School
Last changed on
Sun September 20, 2020 at 4:10 AM PDT
Unlike many judges, I participated in mock trial for 4 years and coached it for 2. But I have been judging debate (mostly policy) more recently LD for a year. TLDR do not spread. I will not necessarily take away points but I highly prefer having one single well-developed argument than 100 ones you spit out as fast as possible. If I can't understand you, your speaking points will suffer. If I'm not making constant eye contact it's because I'm processing on paper/flowing -- I am paying attention to you. That also means I tend to vote on the flow and want you to tell me how to evaluate the round. I am more of a flow and classical judge.
I'd be careful with progressive debate -- if you have a K, T, DA, PIC etc please, please, please tie it back to the main argument/question -- EVEN if you're using it to dismiss the main argument I need to hear that so I know you understand what you're doing and are not just regurgitating some technique a friend or coach told you about. Progressive debate techniques have potential but I really dislike when they are used as a reason not to even address the topic at all -- just be clear about why you've chosen your direction.
I can't emphasize enough my preference for a rich, in-depth, well-developed, argument. I prefer that over "gotcha" statements against your opponent. If you do pull a "gotcha" don't just leave it hanging (that's why I don't like them to begin with), explain why your opponent's oversight reinforces why you're right beyond just saying "and that's why we're right" -- ie "my opponent has clearly failed to consider issue x, allowing it to be dropped" or "my opponent's willingness to conflate these two issues in their framework is why our framework does the question justice." If you're "got" by your opponent please do explain why it wasn't actually a "gotcha" moment if possible -- it's totally possible to flip it on them and I do appreciate that.
I strongly prefer concrete examples over abstract theory. If you use theory, I prefer some use of historical or contemporary real world examples to show how your ideas would be implemented.
Explicit examples go a long way!
email - mloupeda@stanford.edu
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 7:53 AM PDT
This is my first year as a judge in speech and debate tournaments.
Have fun, be courteous, and good luck! :)
Tanuja Madhavapeddi
AB Miller Independent
8 rounds
None
Andres Maldonado-Liu
Cleveland HS
None
Sandeep Mangal
Saratoga HS
None
Alok Mathur
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Sharad Mathur
The Golden State Academy
None
Prashant Mendki
Monta Vista High School
None
Bev Mercurio
Oakwood
None
Tim Minvielle
Leland High School
None
Sambit Mishra
American High
None
Ruchi Mittal
Cupertino High School
None
Kyla Miyashiro
Granite Bay HS
Last changed on
Sat January 18, 2020 at 12:15 AM PDT
Experience:
I competed in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate in the high school league. I did DI and TI for my main speech events. I went to States and Nationals in TI.
Debate Preferences:
I would like to stick to case debates in round. Please avoid using a K in the debate round, and do not spread. Provide your own analysis for the cards you provide in your speech. Don’t just attempt to provide as many cards as you can without proper explanation to its importance in your argument. I tend to place higher praise on those who are able to provide clear, logical reasoning behind their arguments while using their cards as backing to their claims, not the groundwork. Be respectful to your opponents while creating insightful argumentation.
Speech Preferences:
Every speaker deserves your attention and respect. Feel free to react to your opponent’s speeches. It won’t help your own speech ranking if you try to refrain from reacting to the other speeches. Ultimately just have fun because everyone has worked hard to get their speech to where it is.
Raviprasad Mummidi
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Lynbrook-Vinay Murthy
Lynbrook HS
None
Amit Mutsuddy
The Quarry Lane School
None
Nandan Nabar
The Golden State Academy
None
Archana Naik
Almaden Country Day School
None
Krishnan Nair
Cupertino High School
None
Lekha Nair
Notre Dame HS
None
Mythili Nair
Evergreen Valley
8 rounds
None
Last changed on
Sat September 19, 2020 at 7:07 PM PDT
I used to be a parliamentary debater and went to nationals in public forum. I am well versed in all forms of debate and don't have any particular grievances that anyone should worry about except for the fact that I don't like spreading. You can speak fast but if you start to spread then I wont write anything down and you'll subsequently lose the round. Stick to good ol fashioned debate and you'll probably be fine. Please ask me any specific questions you have before the round and I will be happy to answer or clarify anything.
Meera Natesan
Monta Vista High School
8 rounds
None
Ron Nelson
New Roads School
None
Suktak Ngan
Thornton Junior High School
None
Bindu Nimmagadda
Vrisa Speech Academy
None
Denis Nishihara
Woodcreek HS
None
Krishna Noru
Vrisa Speech Academy
None
Kevin O'Neill
Homestead HS
None
Iqlas Ottamalika
Monta Vista High School
None
Gerard Pallipuram
Monta Vista High School
None
Lynbrook-Bharathi Pandrangi
Lynbrook HS
None
Euna Park
Cupertino High School
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!
Giorgi Pilpani
Monta Vista High School
None
Saileela Policepatil
Amador Valley High School
None
Nagendra Prahalad
Presentation HS
None
Robert Prichard
Granite Bay HS
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 7:21 AM PDT
I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, 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. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.
In LD the Negative must refute the Affirmative case in the first speech. An unaddressed argument in this first speech is a drop/concession. I would allow Neg to cross-apply arguments from the NC in later speeches if they naturally clash with the aff case.
P.S. I have decided that most circuit-style debate is pretty embarrassing from a performance standpoint. I think it gives competitive debate a silly aspect that undermines its credibility and therefore undermines the value of the activity. I would probably say linking into this argument would get my ballot most of the time so long as one side is not also engaging in silly debate stuff. If both sides are super silly in performance and/or argumentation. I will decide based on the most outrageous dropped argument.
YuviCeli Przygoda
El Roble Intermediate
None
Neeraj Purandare
Presentation HS
None
Sanjeevan Raghavendran
Leland High School
None
Priya Rai
Fremont High School
None
Anand Raja
Irvington HS
None
Rajesh Raja
The Golden State Academy
None
Ramesh Rajan
Westmont
None
Saumya Rajan
Los Altos High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 3:41 AM PDT
I have been a judge for about 3 years now. I have judged almost all IE's from prelims to finals round. I am a software engineer by profession and I used to be very nervous about speaking in front of others when I first started my career. However over the years that has become one of my strengths. I enjoy listening to various perspectives. I look for a good flow of thought in the speeches.
Eby Ramakrishnan
Monta Vista High School
None
Shubha Ramdas
Leland High School
None
Arvind Rangarajan
Mira Loma High School
Last changed on
Thu February 14, 2019 at 5:37 AM PDT
I am a parent judge doing debate and speech judging for couple of years.
Please make sure you explain your arguments clearly. Convince me as to why i should vote for
you over your opponent with concrete facts that can be validated. I don’t buy into Theory and Kritiks.
Feel free to ask any questions, set ground rules between you and opponent before the debate rounds starts.
BE RESPECTFUL. GOOD LUCK!!!
Suresh Rao
Monta Vista High School
None
Gita Rao-Prasad
Cupertino High School
None
Ashish Rastogi
Notre Dame HS
8 rounds
None
Shailesh Rathi
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat October 26, 2019 at 9:48 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and I have experience judging PF and LD for 2 years.
DECISION CRITERIA: I try to keep an impartial opinion about the topic, and base my decision solely on the points made by the participants, how well they defend their own points, and raise issues with opponent's points. I evaluate the content, examples, and data and check for consistency and evaluate how well the data supports the contentions. For my decision, I try to evaluate all aspects and all rounds of the debate from the contentions to the rebuttals and summary. A coherent point by point summarization at the end is always a good way to make an impression.
FLOWING: I like to flow along with the participants so that I can review my notes later, and provide detailed feedback to the participants.
SPEAKING PREFERENCE: I prefer speaking styles which make it easy to grasp the content. Try not to just read your notes, but speak to the judge with the help of your notes. Going too fast or providing data after data (which marginally supports your contentions) is NOT the best way to impress. Also being argumentative with your opponent is not a good impression and might reflect in the speaker points. In terms of speed, I prefer a normal (or slightly fast) speaking style as long it is understandable to the judge and the opponent.
Patricia Robles
Evergreen Valley
None
Rosanna Roxas
North Hollywood High School
None
Michael Ruiz
Castro Valley High School
None
Daryl Sando
Redwoods Academy
None
Sudha Santhosh
The Golden State Academy
None
Prakash Sarma
Cupertino High School
None
Jennie Savage
Palo Alto HS
Last changed on
Sun December 13, 2020 at 6:44 AM PDT
LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.
Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.
Samir Sawant
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Hyunmi Seo
Leland High School
None
ron seto
Leland High School
None
Fatima Shabbir
Monte Vista
Last changed on
Sat March 7, 2020 at 12:10 AM PDT
I’ve been judging for a while. My decisions are based of persuasive arguments backed up by evidence. Please, speak slowly and clearly. Good luck!
Monica Shah
Monta Vista High School
None
Vipul Shah
Saratoga HS
None
Homayoon Shahinfar
Leland High School
None
Shirley Shan
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:59 PM PDT
I am a parent judge who has judged for about two years. I won't understand super fast talking of any kind, so I advise you to speak at a normal pace.
I will only vote based off what is said in the round, and will not make any assumptions myself. This means that you should assume that I know nothing about the topic, which is probably true. If you want me to consider an argument, I suggest you bring it up in the final speeches of the debate. This is mainly where I will make my decision, so I think clearly stating your reasons on why you won here is important.
Other than that, have fun.
Pingping Shao
Monta Vista High School
None
Serena Shaw
El Cerrito
None
yaching shih
Leland High School
None
Yuseung Shin
The Golden State Academy
None
Hozefa Shiyaji
Fremont High School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 6:06 AM EDT
I am a parent judge and would like debaters to consider the following:
- I will only make decisions on arguments that are understandable to me. So if presenting complex arguments, please try to break them down and explain them clearly.
- Please do not speak too fast; it will be harder for me to follow and process your arguments. Speak at a normal conversation pace and keep arguments clear and concise.
- Please be polite and respectful to the opposing candidate during cross-ex.
Sydney Shoell
The Harker School
None
Maulik Shukla
Cupertino High School
None
Rajeev Shukla
The Golden State Academy
None
Dave Sick
Leland High School
None
Thomas Simon
Vrisa Speech Academy
Last changed on
Mon October 19, 2020 at 7:33 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I have judged parliamentary debate before so I am aware of the format.
Arguments
Please be clear and read your arguments slowly so that I can understand. If you read them fast (spread), I will not be able to flow properly. Try not to use extremely technical terms that are not very obvious and even if you have to, please explain it clearly.
I prefer traditional on case debate. I'm fine with counterplans but please explain it clearly.
I am not familiar with Ks (kritiks) and theory so please refrain from running those arguments UNLESS there is actual abuse of rules present. If that is the case, please explain the abuse VERY clearly. Please don't run theory just for the sake of running theory.
Other
Use the last speech to explain exactly why you should win the round. Weigh out the impacts of both sides.
You will be awarded high speaker points for speaking clearly, having a good presentation, and being respectful to your opponents.
Tanuja Singh
BASIS Fremont
None
Nidhi Singhal
Cupertino High School
None
Maz Songerwala
Hire
8 rounds
None
Mohsen Soroushnejad
Leland High School
None
sreevani sreejith
Notre Dame HS
8 rounds
None
Raji Sridar
Leland High School
None
Shruti Srinath
Silver Creek Academy
8 rounds
None
Shruti Srinath
Silver Creek Academy
None
Jialing Sun
Amador Valley High School
None
sara sun
Leland High School
None
Jina Sung
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat September 26, 2020 at 8:30 AM PDT
- Speak clearly and articulate your words
- I’d appreciate if you avoided jargon. If you do use specialized terms, please define them.
- I take evidence heavily into account. Please provide your evidence clearly and link it to your claim. Don’t make up evidence — if I hear something I know or suspect to be false, I will fact check it and hold it against you.
- If you run a counter plan, please state clearly that you are doing so. I expect the same level of detailing in a counter plan as well as aff’s plan. Being vague will make your counter plan much less viable to me.
- I dislike Ks and Theories, meaning I heavily lean towards on-case debate. You will most likely lose me in any given K or Theory, as I am lay judge.
Shiby Surendranath
Thornton Junior High School
None
Arya Sureshbabu
Irvington HS
None
Dennis Tabofunda
Cupertino High School
None
James Tang
Monta Vista High School
None
Ahmed Tantawy
Leland High School
None
Aklilu Tesfa
The Quarry Lane School
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.
Jatinder Thukral
Cupertino High School
None
Kevin Thurber
Mountain View High School
None
Zhiyu Tian
The Golden State Academy
None
Poonam Tiwari
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Tanisha Tol
Evergreen Valley
8 rounds
None
Carl Trig
ModernBrain
None
Vijay Ubhayaker
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
8 rounds
None
Srinath Udupi
Leland High School
None
Satya Vaidyam
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Fri November 17, 2017 at 11:33 PM PDT
Don't spread. I'd prefer if you spoke slowly and clearly with logical arguments.
Arun Varshney
Cupertino High School
None
Mohit Vaswani
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jana Veitsman
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Vijay Vemuri
Cupertino High School
None
Priya Venkataraman
Picket Fence Academy
8 rounds
None
Chitra Venkataramanan
Leland High School
None
Aparna Venkateswaran
Redwoods Academy
None
Vishnu Vennelakanti
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Sat March 23, 2024 at 3:40 AM PDT
I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.
Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:
1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).
2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.
Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.
I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.
I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.
Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).
Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.
Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.
Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.
Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.
Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.
I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.
Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )
If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.
In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).
It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.
I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.
+ speaks for Lebron.
Arun Vijayendra Rao
Leland High School
None
Gopinath Vinodh
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:42 AM PDT
Teams must respectful of eachother.
Facts and evidence are the most important in a round.
Christopher Vu
Leland High School
None
John Walburg
Claremont
None
Candace Wang
Palo Alto HS
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sun November 24, 2019 at 2:16 AM PDT
I am an ex-LD debater with an emphasis on framework arguments. I do not like theory. If this is an LD round, I want a values debate, with persuasive, coherent, and eloquent arguments. Sign-posting is important! If you don't sign-post, it is very easy for the debate to get muddy very quickly. We don't want that. I can't be as fair and as effective of a judge if that happens. Also, please come prepared, be professional, and you'll perform well. So let's make this a great round: sign-post, weigh, crystallize, win. Looking forward to evaluating your round and good luck!
Ning Wang
Leland High School
Last changed on
Mon February 13, 2023 at 12:36 AM PDT
Use the pronouns people ask you to use. I will end the round if it gets brought up, but that's not the reason you should respect other people. I am a parent judge who primarily focuses on speech. Delivery is very important to me, but I will be taking notes. I hope to enjoy a respectful and educational round, good luck and have fun!
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:56 PM PDT
I have been judging speech events since 2017 and have coached students who focus in Original Oratory, Informative, and Impromptu. Prior to my U.S. high school speech judging experiences, I was professionally trained in pubic speaking in my native language; my career involves a high amount of marketing content development, corporate/executive communications, and public relations.
In speech writing, I look for a clear roadmap, strong arguments backed by research (I don't need to agree with your statistical findings or your conclusion, but your findings should fully support your viewpoints), and pragmatic solutions for issues you identified.
For interpretation events, especially those that compose of multiple literature works, I hope to not feel that the selections are pieced together. In other words, the structure should be logical, cohesive, and seamless.
For speech delivery, I look for genuine emotions that help me relate to the urgency of your topic: why is it important now and why your viewpoints, research, and life experiences are the right ones to help your audience understand it holistically. I also appreciate speakers who are able to present with their unique styles, even if there are parts where further polishing is needed.
Over the years I've heard a good number of strong speakers who sound just like Haris Hosseini or JJ Kapur in one of their NSDA speeches. While I admire these students' technical excellence, I also feel that their speeches inevitably become less personal and less distinctive in my ears. It's a fine balancing act between finding inspiration from great speakers/speeches and developing your unique voice.
Wenli Wang
Davis Senior HS
None
yt wang
Leland High School
None
Anupama Wankhade
Mission San Jose HS
None
Kathi Wear
El Roble Intermediate
None
Bernice Wei
Modern Rhetoric
None
Richard Weth
Leland High School
None
Danny White
Almaden Country Day School
8 rounds
None
Joe White
Woodcreek HS
None
Danielle Williams Nidome
Hire
8 rounds
None
Cami Wisowaty
Palo Alto HS
8 rounds
None
Yvonne Wong
Leland High School
None
Chien-Yeh Wu
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun October 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM PDT
Preference:
- no spreading
- logics
tyan Wu
Modern Rhetoric
None
Last changed on
Thu October 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM PDT
I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.
Zhong Xu
Leland High School
None
Hongli Yang
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 10:57 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging IE. I award speaker points based on how well I can understand you. So please speak with clarity and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend.
Good luck and have fun!
Jie Yao
Monta Vista High School
None
YING YE
Leland High School
None
Renhe Yin
Evergreen Valley
None
Milene Yip
Saratoga HS
None
Carol Zhan
Monta Vista High School
None
Chunbin Zhang
Mission San Jose HS
None
David Zhang
Leland High School
None
Julia Zhou
Leland High School
None
Jack Zhu
Leland High School
None
JianWei Zhuang
Leland High School
None