2018 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US
Daniel Foltz Paradigm
Former high school debater, primarily competing in parli, impromptu, and extemp. Competed in top tier of California league and invitational parli, coached at SNFI, and judged at a variety of invitational and league tournaments, primarily in parli, but also in PF and IE's. Go whatever speed and make whatever arguments you want - I'll listen to most anything at any level of theory, but if you make an argument that seems especially weak, I'll be more likely to accept refutations to it with less effort. I'm expressive as a judge - use that. Just want to watch some good rounds, learn some new things, and hopefully laugh a bit.
Haley Hansen Paradigm
Dinnett Hermosillo Paradigm
El Camino College
I tend to keep my judging absolutely neutral meaning that I will look at your debate as objectively as possible. Through the debate I will be seeing what arguments are brought up and if they are effectively carried over. The use of proper warrants is of great importance to me. During impact Calculus do not just focus on our own argument but rather really bring out how it compares to your opponents. Also, during rebuttals really emphasize what effects this has on the real world.
I am okay with speed but it will usually depend on whether you speak clearly or not. Do not go so fast that you cannot be understood or you will lose speaker points.
If the circumstance presents itself in which you must run topicality do so CORRECTLY. It is not enough that you mention that an argument is non-topical or unfair you must have Interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. If you run a proper topicality that appeals to my sense of justice you might win the round on that.
All in all be respectful and have fun while debating.
Meera Keskar Paradigm
NPDA style Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17); Assistant Coach at New Roads School. Flow and Lay Parli (circuit). BP and Policy at USC (current).
I’m a sophomore in college who did high level parli. I will vote for anything as long as you explain it well. As a judge, I’ll probably vote for whoever has the clearest path to the ballot. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me.
I will call clear if I have to, but speed isn’t a problem. Keep taglines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.
I’m down for them as long as they have a link. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt . Never have read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. I have very strong dislike for Nietzsche (Amor Fati), Anthro and Deleuze. Additionally, if you force me to listen to the bastardized debate version of a philosopher, I will auto-drop you out of respect for the great mind who you chose to dishonor. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework.
Make sure to explain how the CP functions. Good case debate is better than bad K or theory debate, so don’t be cheaty just because you have a backfile. If you choose to read a perm, I need you to read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text.
Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and default to theory comes first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. High threshold for PICs bad. Low threshold for condo.
Always default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. This is huge. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.
Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory
25 - Learn to think before you speak (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)
26~26.5 - Serious strategic errors that probably lost you the round
26.6~27 - You probably still lost the round, but at least you didn't double turn yourself in every arg
27.1~27.5 - Eh you had strategic errors but you did more good than harm
27.6~28 - Pretty darn average
28.1~28.5 - I probably nodded because you poked at your opponent's case and it slowly crumbled (should break)
28.6~29 - Damn you know what you are doing strategically (should be in finals)
29+ - GOOD GOD PLEASE WIN THE TOURNAMENT
I don’t shake hands. Germs are gross.
Off-time road maps ONLY.
Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be the plebe who tag teams the whole time. I will nuke your speaks.
Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.
Shadow extensions are awful.
**Feel free to email with any questions - firstname.lastname@example.org
or FB message me
Linda Kittell Paradigm
I like a well organized speaker, those that come into the room late, change their shoes, fix their hair....not so much.
I appreciate the speaker that makes unusual assessments or provides unique remedies.
Respecting the opponent while arguing their contention is better than insulting their person. Debate doesn't mean personal attacks free-for-all.
The burden of proof is what is relevant, I evalute all the situations - if you noticed a missed arguement of your opponent don't assume I caught it, point it out.
Spreading? As long as you speak slowly, feel free...ha ha ha
Saaj Kulshreshtha Paradigm
Hi! Gonna keep this short -
Feel free to do whatever you want in terms of argument style.
I don't care about presentation. For the love of God, don't spend time introducing yourself and thanking everyone for being there. It's annoying. I just want you to make smart arguments.
I hate voting on blippy arguments so if you think something is important and should determine the round, spend time on it in the rebuttals. The 1ar/1nr should write my ballot for me.
It's always a good idea to collapse in the 2nc/1nr. I hate how repetitive the 1nr is becoming so I will be lenient on new args but don't make a billion LBL args.
Reasonably sized overviews are nice, impact framing is critical, and good argument interaction makes you seem smart.
Hate theory debates and I default to reasonability unless really persuaded otherwise. If you're blatantly abusive i think going all-in on theory is okay.
Be organized, tell me how many sheets I need for each speech. Speed is good but make sure you accommodate your opponents first and me second. If I'm not flowing you're probably doing something wrong.
You'll get high speaks if you try to clash instead of shy away to some strategic margin - 1nc's that are just case turns make me happy.
Please don’t make boring arguments. Make me laugh. I’m a game theorist so almost anything you say will be flowed and taken seriously as long as it’s not like racism good.
Run kritiks if you know what you're talking about. I think they're really fun and important debates to be held.
I love you but don't shake my hand. :)
Iain Lampert Paradigm
TLDR: Am I a lay judge? Kind of yes; kind of no.
- I competed in parliamentary debate for two years at Cleveland HS (5th @ CHSSA State Championship, 2010). I competed in Impromptu (1st @ CHSSA State Championship, 2010) as well, but that doesn't matter to my debate paradigm aside from influencing my love for wordplay and Whose Line Is It Anyway-style humor.
- I also competed in collegiate mock trial for four years at UCLA, where I was on two National Championship teams (2011, 2014). I was the top speaker at the equivalent of Mock Trial TOC on our 2012 TOC championship team as well as highest-ranked overall TOC individual competitor in 2013.
- I've coached at James Logan High School, La Reina High School, Dougherty Valley High School, Nova 42 Academy, 3P Speech LLC, Emerson Middle School, and the Stanford National Forensic Institute. I've founded programs at CHAMPS Charter, Los Angeles CES, Valley International Prep-South, iLEAD North Hollywood, iLEAD Encino, and Valley International Prep High School.
- I believe in generalized, holistic coaching (that is, I don't specialize in any particular events and am always trying to learn more). I would call myself an expert in platform speaking, interpretation, spontaneous speaking, and lay debate (anything that you'd see at a State or National Championship). I have flowed and can comprehend Public Forum/Parli TOC rounds. I'll try my best with LD/CX TOC rounds.
- I've taught United States History, Theater, Communications, Mock Trial, and Speech & Debate. I've served as the West Los Angeles District Chair for the National Speech and Debate Association since 2015.
- Debate is a game. Mastery requires an understanding of strategy, logical argumentation, and memorable rhetoric. As John Kotter of the Harvard Business School indicated, we SEE, then FEEL, then REACT. Our first impulse is to favor inputs that make us FEEL positive things. That means that perceptual dominance in-round really matters. That does not mean that dominance is the same thing as volume, or aggression, or rudeness. When someone really appears 'in control,' we feel it.
- Winning according to the rules of the round is impressive, but creating a lasting impression with neat turns of phrase and passionate delivery--the sort of credible presentation that would be accepted in other public speaking forums--is exceptional. I love to see it in round.
CRITERIA FOR JUDGING:
- I don't love debate jargon since I've seen it become a lazy fallback for too many debaters. At worst, new competitors are shut out of the community because they're not up-to-date on the latest edition of the LD-ictionary. I can't stand that. If a newer debater asks you for definitions, please explain it to them in simple, accessible language. If you're using a particularly arcane term--something you didn't even know about until your second or third year as a competitor--make sure you tell me what you mean so I don't misconstrue anything.
- Ks are Kool, but I really need to see that you care about the value of debate as an activity, and feel strongly about the deleterious impacts of your opponent's verbal misconduct. Show me passion! Show me indignance! Show me how they're spitting in the face of this wonderful activity! A deadpan, uncaring K is the worst, and it's difficult to vote on--if it doesn't sound like you really care, why should I? The same goes for T. Once you're running debate theory in the round, I no longer evaluate it as a "blank slate"--I consider my own views on what's most educational for debate, because I can't divorce arguments about what's best for debate, and the impact my decision might have, from my own beliefs and experiences.
- Turns are great. Love 'em.
- I don't want to hear word-for-word rehash in the rebuttal. Take a step back and write my ballot for me with three to five voting issues. Give me a clear road-map with their taglines.
- Call your opponents out on logical fallacies. This is the easiest way to get me to disregard one of their contentions.
- I want to see how all of your arguments are directly related to your proposed value. Make it SUPER obvious to me. If you don't do that, I won't weigh 'em. If you can show me how your arguments also tie into your opponent's proposed value, so much the better.
- I don't like full-on-spread debate AT ALL. Word economy is hugely important to clarity, and even top-tier debaters often spew out countless filler words to maintain fluency. You don't need to do this! Using fewer words to leave the same impression and communicate the same content is ALWAYS preferable. I'm hugely receptive to speed Ks. I'm pretty familiar with antiblackness, feminism, capitalism, queer theory, biopower, and securitization. Beyond that, we're in the Wild West, my friends.
- You REALLY need to slow down for card author names if you want for me to flow them. That said, just because Professor Morris from Stanford has X opinion about Y value doesn't automatically make it true; the only reason citations here are important is because avoiding plagiarism is good. Statistical citations, assuming you can explain to me how they arrived at those numbers, are far more credible and meaningful when it comes to earning my ballot.
- I won't yell CLEAR. I'll just stop typing. If I'm not typing, it's because I can't understand you, I don't know where I'm supposed to be flowing, and/or you're just repeating yourself.
- Assume I know nothing about the topic at all. Explain what's going on to me. I'll only intervene if something is glaringly, blatantly incorrect.
- I think watching cross-ex is the best part of judging debate. If you don't cut each other off repeatedly, that's a plus. If you demonstrate courtroom-esque "witness control" and legally proper questions (a nice combination of leading and open-ended questions; nothing compound or overly long), I'll shower you in speaker points and praise. CX is binding.
- Tell me where I should be flowing. "We're on the affirmative's second contention, first subpoint. Now, let's move to their second contention, second subpoint." I never want to hear "and also" when I could be hearing "Go down to their third contention, first subpoint."
- Don't tell me to cross-reference different points. Do your own work and tell me how the arguments interact.
- I believe in the "affirmative burden of proof" in LD and Parli. The AFF gets the privilege of having the last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If debaters argue to a draw, then I tend to "default NEG." This is not true in PF.
Best of luck!
Rachel Lobo Paradigm
I compete at El Camino College in parliamentary debate and LD, and also coach Parli at South Torrance High School.
TLDR// It's your round, do what you want with it.
As far as arguments in-round, there is rarely one I will not vote on. I am flow-centric, and will try my best to keep any outside knowledge away from the debate (although I am not sure that anyone is actually capable of this, so don't make things up, etc.). Also don't be indignant to the other team. I love sass and sarcasm but there is a line that you should do your best not to cross.
I do not care if you sit, stand, or do a handstand while you speak, and spreading is fine with me as long as you do not use it as a weapon to exclude your opponent.
I will gladly vote on any theory position, if the abuse is potential or articulated. I also default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
Unless told how to evaluate the round, I will default to net-benefits, so make sure you read impacts. That being said, if you do read a framework, you need to extend it throughout the debate or at the very least tell me how it functions.
K debate is cool, although I prefer topic specific links, and unless you use the links well, I will be quick to buy any no link arguments. I'm down with K affs but also sympathetic to neg framework. If you read a performance, I might not be your best critic as I am not always sure how to evaluate a performance but I will try my best.
Scott Marcus Paradigm
Adele McGraw Paradigm
Bob Moore Paradigm
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.
Ennis Ogawa Paradigm
I am new to the game. Impress me.
Mika Okabe Paradigm
Anne Parizeau Paradigm
I have been judging for the past four years and I have judged parlimentary debate along with individual events and other types of debate.
I am fine with spreading, but if you do, please make sure I can understand you. Do not spread and then sit down with time left on the clock. Only spread when necessary for your case. I do take notes on everything you say, so please do not feel the need to repeat yourself. I do not want to hear a 3 minute speech lengthened to fit the 7 minute time. If you have said everything you need to, please just sit down. Get rid of the fillers and get straight to the point. The length of your speech does not equate to the quality of it. Please be polite and professional. You are in a professional setting, so act that way toward your opponents. Speak with confidence, but do not speak in a condescending tone. I am an adult, not an uninformed child, so treat me as so.
Weighing your arguments
I am a lay judge from southern California so I am not familiar with Ks and Theory arguments. What I do believe is that Parlimentary requires evidence. I do not buy the argument that evidence is not needed because parli is "common knowledge". You should be able to provide evidence as support for your "common knowledge". You are given topic areas in advance. Even though you do not have access to the internet, you do have access to any saved articles or published information, so take advantage of that resource and plan ahead accordingly. I am also a logical judge. If you can convince me of an argument in a logical fashion, please do. This being said, I will judge your arguments in a logic-based way, so if they do not make sense and you have not convinced me there is correlation or causation, I will not vote for that argument.
Megan Reichmann Paradigm
I competed as a part of El Camino College's debate team this last fall. My background is primarily in Parliamentary debate, but I also was involved in IPDA. So with that in mind, I definitely know the rules of debate and can follow you down most rabbit-hole of technical arguments you want to go for. I'll list my views on certain aspects of debate:
Structure: please be hyper-organized. I tend to favor teams who sign-post and keep things line-by-line (unless you're in IX calc)
ON/OFF Case: remember to have responses to you're opponent's cases, because in reality that is literally what debate is. I love engagement through things like case turns.
Topicality: I like it if it's done correctly. It's a tool for the neg, so if you're abusing it and it's an obvious time suck I won't be happy. Aff, remember to respond to everything.
Counterplan: I also like CPs. I'm fine with PICs and topical CPs, but just remember to explain NB.
Kritiks: Don't go for it unless the round truly calls for it. I don't like Ks. I recognize it when it's used correctly, but I value true debate.
Speed: I can follow if both teams are willing, but I was in IPDA so persuasion in rebuttals are important.
Overall, just remember to IMPACT OUT and EXPLAIN in the context of the value. Lay things out for me. Make it easy for me to want to vote for you.
Mark Windham Paradigm
I debated policy in high school and NDT circuit for UC Berkeley in the 1970's, breaking at the major tournaments. After 24 years as a lawyer, specializing death penalty defense, I became a Superior Court Judge in 2008. As a parent I have returned to the activity, founding a program at New Roads School and coaching for five years. I am indeed a parent judge, but one who understands why you have a perm spike in your K thesis.
Though I evaluate professional advocates every day in my courtroom, I am judging you within a high school debate paradigm. I endeavor to adhere to your norms, but I reconcile this with my professional experience, which is grounded in real human controversy with consequences to human life and liberty. Your argumentation may be just as sophisticated as that of the lawyers, but courtroom rules are different. At tournaments I do my best to respect generally accepted debate theory.
I'm a ‘policy maker’ in that I weigh impacts and a ‘Tabula Rasa’ judge in that I am an open-minded skeptic. You have the burden of persuasion on claims you assert, requiring sufficient warrant; dropping is concession, but not equivalent to proof. Sophistry has no weight. Delusionary impact scenarios are not persuasive; prove real links. Regardlesss of points of order I protect the flow.
Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Obviously, right? Sometimes this seems lost, however, at the highest levels, when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation or rejoinder does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. Perhaps, for example, one of your three responses is the "right" answer to a perm; that might not be enough unless you convince me in the rebuttal that this assertion wins that argument. I don't pretend to be a computer - I want to be persuaded. While I vote on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge. For me that would tend to be reasonable weighing of human impacts, or in a meta-debate, something which inexorably results in the most desirable policy fact or value conclusion.
I’m open to authentic value debate, even in policy rounds, and vice versa; ‘net benefits’ will not always be the best framework for evaluation of a resolution. In the real world, cost/benefit analysis is bounded by value limits. While I enjoy policy topics the most, fact resolutions happen! Deal with them. They are the basis for real world argument in science and in law, for example. Impact calculus is misplaced here; preponderance of the evidence, as measured by its persuasive force, is a legitimate standard, as is hypothesis testing.
Novel advocacies such as kritiks, kritikal PMC’s, unconventional counterplans, severance permutations, conditionality, theory and narratives are fine, but artifice may diminish your effectiveness. I prefer substance to procedure. It is most important to address the social issue at hand; clever arguments shouldn't be made for their own sake, but only to advance the substance of your position. I would consider argument that clearly abusive theory is a reverse voting issue. I appreciate case debate.
Speed is not a problem, per se, if you speak very clearly. Repeating your tags would be helpful. If I don't understand you, you can't win the argument. I will not say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ so pay attention to the judge. While I enjoy and prefer the breadth of argumentation you may present using an accelerated pace, if you double breathe I can't flow you. But fast is fine if it is audible, clear and persuasive.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to evaluate your debate. I hope that I may contribute to your education as an advocate, with the aspiration that you will use this experience to make this world a better place. I hope to learn from you as well so that I may do the same.