Sara Sanchez Paradigm

Last changed 10/7 2:45P CDT

Name Sara Sanchez
Affiliation: NAUDL
School Strikes: Glenbrook South, Lexington
Last Edited: 10/7/2019, Edited for New Trier 2019

General Overview: I default to the least interventionist way to evaluate the round possible. I’ve pretty much voted on anything that you can think of, and likely some things that you can’t. I have not been historically inclined to accept/reject any arguments on-face. That said, the following is true:

Impact calculus and comparison is your friend. I cannot stress this enough. I'm routinely surprised by the number of quality rounds I judge where each team is weighing their impacts but no one is weighing their impacts vis a vis the other team. It is not enough to explain your scenario for solving/avoiding war, explain to me why that matters in the context of the other team's genocide impact.

I would like you to be driving questions of impact calculus and framing. I prefer to be reading your evidence through the lens you have set up in round. You should be telling me what your evidence says and why it matters. This means I probably give a little more weight to spin than some judges, you should be calling out bad evidence that is being mischaracterized if you want me to read it. Obviously, I have (and will) read evidence on questions that have not adequately been fleshed out in round when it’s necessary, but now you are held accountable for my understanding of the card, which may, or may not, have been on the flow. So please, weigh those issues for me, and we’ll all be happy.

Clarity & Organization: This section used to be a note about speed. It was a gentle request that you keep in mind that reading 3 word theory arguments at the same rate as the cards you are reading was obviously silly and difficult to flow. I am now substantially more concerned with clarity in general. I can understand a pretty rapid rate of delivery. I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the sub-points of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While my speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices among the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round. If I cannot understand large swaths of your speeches and/or you are jumping all over the flow with no attempt to answer arguments in the order they were made, your points will be low (think less than 27.5 range). If, on the other hand, I can understand almost every word of your speech, and you consistently following the line-by-line structure of the round, your points will be high (think 29-29.5 range) to ensure you have a better chance at clearing if points become an issue. If you have questions about this, please ask before the round.

Clipping: I am disturbed that the number of clipping incidents seems to be on the rise and that there appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes clipping. Card clipping, is failing to read sections of the card without marking audibly during the speech and on the speech doc (or on paper, if you are not paperless). It can be definitively determined by recording the speech and playing it back with the speech doc. It is an ethical violation and if proven will result in zero speaker points for the debater(s) who have clipped cards and the loss. If an accusation occurs I will stop the round, ask for proof, and make a determination about the accusation at that point in the round. That decision will determine who wins the round. I will also make a point to talk to your coach after the round to explain what I believe happened and why. I reserve the right to adjust the policy according to circumstances (i.e. accidental clipping in a novice round is different than clipping in a senior varsity debate).

Please be nice to each other and have fun. I’ve yet to have someone upset me to the point where it has lost them the round, but I will not hesitate to punish people for being rude via speaker points. Debate is a wonderful activity, that I care about a lot, and we don’t all give up our weekends, nights, and a decent portion of our social lives to be verbally abused or to witness said abuse. That said, competitive spirit is fine, flat out rudeness is not. If you need clarification on where the line is, feel free to ask.

Speaker points Apparently I needed to bump these to align with point inflation, so I have. Points probably start at a 27.5-28. Anything over 29.5 is rare, it's been years since I gave a 30. If you get below a 25 it's probably because you did something offensive/unethical in the round, and I'll likely tell you about it before I turn in my ballot.

27.5-28 Average
28.1-28.7 Good, but probably will miss on points or go 3-3
28.8-29.2 Good, chance to go 4-2 and clear low
29.2-29.5 I believe you should get a top 20 speaker award at this tournament
29.5-29.8 You were one of the most exceptional speakers I've heard in years, and should be in the top 5 speakers of this tournament.

What’s above is more important than what is below, as I will default to the round that is given me, however I’ll include a couple of notes on specific positions. The below list is not exhaustive, if you have specific questions, ask.

Topicality/Theory: I’m more than open to these debates, I have no problem pulling the trigger on them. I tend to evaluate these debates in a framework of competing interpretations. You should have an interpretation in these debates, and you should be able to articulate reasons (with examples, evidence, and comparative impacts) that your interpretation is preferable to the other team's. You should be explaining why your arguments matter and what the world of your interpretation looks like (case lists, argument ground). You should not assume that the 3-word blippy jargon we all use now is an argument, because I don't tend to think it is one. If you've done the above things, and you want to go for theory or T, you're probably fine. That said...

Counterplans: I personally tend to error negative on a lot of theoretical CP objections when these aren't adequately debated in round (dispo, PICs, condo, etc.) I'm probably more sympathetic to objections to consult counterplans, or procedural counterplans like delay, sunsets, etc. I love specific counterplans and adore specific PICs, so you have a bit more of an uphill battle on the PICs bad debate. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate PICs/Dispo/Condo bad args, feel free to make/go for them, see the interpretations note above. I am more likely to vote on nuanced theory arguments than generic ones. For example, conditional, consult, counterplans bad is more persuassive than just conditionality bad.

Condo - couple of extra notes: I think that having more than one K and one CP in the round is pushing the limit on conditionality. You would still need to do work here to earn my ballot, but it's definitely viable. I also tend to think that uniform 50 state fiat counterplans that counterplan out of all solvency deficits are not good for debate. The reason for this is that I tend to like solvency advocates for counterplans and there isn't one for those types of CPs. These are both cases where, if sufficient analysis was done, I'd be okay rejecting the team. For the record, I have not voted on either of these yet, because no one has made these args in a compelling enough way, but the potential exits.

The K: I don’t have a problem with it generally. I’ll entertain various frameworks and interpretations of debate, but this isn't where I spend most of my research time. I’m also reticent to vote on “framework” in terms of "there should be no Ks in debate ever." I don't think this line of argumentation is necessary or desirable—it seems to me people should just be able to answer the arguments that are leveled against their case. I tend to believe both sides should get to weigh their impacts. I find framework debates generally lack a decent amount of clash, which is incredibly frustrating for me to adjudicate. Framework debates that center on the question of accurate methodology, bias and substantive education are by far more persuasive.

If you’re running a K in front of me on the negative, specific links and a solid articulation of what the alternative does will help you. Let me know what the world looks like post-plan and why that is different post-alt. Similarly if you're running a K aff, you should explain to me how your action truly shifts mindsets, what the role of the ballot is, etc.

The above noted, I find myself focusing more on policy literature than critical literature these days. My undergrad and graduate work is in political science and international relations, not political theory/philosophy. I tend to be much more familiar with some K authors than others. I've read a decent amount of Foucault, I've read almost nothing Lacanian. In addition to Foucault I am substantially more familiar with Ks centered around IR theory, non-psychoanalytic capitalism and questions of gender and identity. I am less to not at all familiar with psychoanalysis, Nietzsche and Heidegger. I personally lean towards believing realism inevitable type arguments and that floating PIKs are bad (reason to reject the alt). While I do everything possible to objectively evaluate the round that happened, this is probably why I’ve noticed a very slight tilt towards the policy side of things in these rounds.

Affs that don't have topical advocacies: I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I feel as though I've been asked to objectively and neutrally evaluate a set of arguments where the people proffering those arguments in no way practice the same neutrality has always created a lot of tension for how I evaluate these arguments. To that end I offer my full disclosure of my connections to, and beliefs about, this activity. If you would like to attempt to change those biases, you are welcome to try, but the bar for such debates will be high, because I am not neutral on this.

I came back to debate 15 years ago after a brief hiatus working in politics and public policy because I firmly believe there is no stronger or more effective pedagogical tool. I have routinely been impressed by the skills and information this co-curricular activity provides for the participants that practice it. I chose a career in debate at the time because I think that teaching young people how to debate a topic while switching sides and researching policy and philosophy is one of the best things our educational system has to offer. I worked hard for my debaters, in class, after school, on weekends, and during summers because I believe this game, even with its imperfections, is good. It will be difficult for you to get my ballot if your goal for the round is to convince me that 15 years of my life and countless hours of work has been a mistake. I also see problems in this activity in terms of equity and access. There are good reasons my work after directing large debate programs focused on education policy, equity, and now urban debate. If your arguments are criticisms of debate you should take all of that into consideration when trying to win my ballot.

Surveillance Topic Addendum: I currently work for NAUDL, I run our national tournament, write curriculum for our coaches and work on our file set each year. I judge substantially fewer rounds than I used to and have fewer conversations with friends about the direction of the topic. You should assume I'm familiar with debate arguments but you should not assume I'm super up to date on the latest Arms Control acronyms or fanciness. This means a little explanation on what the NSDOQPC* is will probably be necessary if you'd like me to understand your aff/da/etc.

*(The NSDOQPC, to the best of my knowledge, is not a real thing. It's merely an example of the type of insane acronyms/topic specific jargon that gets routinely bantered about on most topics)

Additionally, while I haven't had a chance to test this yet, I'm reasonably certain my tolerance for the truly inane has lowered substantially. I now spend my days working on debate in a more education focused environment that is centered on building many strong programs rather than the TOC arms race. I also spend a bunch of my spare time working in politics and on policy and advocacy campaigns that have real world implications. I'm not entirely sure what the implication of this are for you, but if it's the pre-round and you have two strategies to choose from, one of which is asinine and one of which is more substantive, I'd bet that the more substantive one is going to work out a lot better for you.

Finally, it's been a few months since I've flowed a top speed round. I'm pretty sure I'm still fine there, but if you could keep that in mind, and ease into your top speed in speeches, it would be appreciated.

If you have a question I haven't answered here, feel free to ask.

Good luck. :)

LD Specific Business


Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of how I evaluate substance, impacts, etc. However, since I have judged more LD rounds recently it was time for me to clear some of this stuff up.

I spent most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I did teach 2 LD classes a year for 7 years and judge a large number of practice debates in class. I tried to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: The way theory is debated in LD makes my head hurt. A Lot. It is rarely impacted, often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win (teeny area of the topic, frameworks and definitions that cross the border from strategic to definitionally impossible to debate, etc) it is NOT every single round. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I am not fine with paragraph after paragraph of a prioris/theory/continental philosophy read at a top speed with zero regard for clarity whatsoever. I will say clear if you are engaging in the practice above, and I will stop flowing if you don't alter your delivery to a rate I can understand after that. I will only vote on what is on my flow. I may call for evidence after the round, however, I will not call for your theory blocks because I didn't understand them. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate on that stuff for the love of all that is holy, or you will have very little chance of winning my ballot. Also see the clarity note at the top of this post. It will apply to LD as well.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Prep Time: 2 Notes. First, I like Cross-Examination. A Lot. I pay attention to it and think it is strategically valuable. You should use CX time. If you would like to ask more questions beyond CX in prep, that's cool. But please make use of CX. Second, Prep time is the time you use to prep, that includes actions like giving your opponent your case or whatnot if you haven't done this in a timely manner. There are no alternate time outs or whatever. If you are reading a case off a laptop, you need to make that case available to your opponent before you start speaking OR immediately thereafter. There will not be a non-prep-time time out while you all figure this out. That time will come from one of your prep times. In other words, if the culprit is the aff, who has not made a computerized case available to their opponent in a timely manner, then the AFF loses prep time while they get it ready for the neg, and vice versa.


Good luck, and have fun.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/26/2018 LD DLM Greenhill SK Newark Science BA Aff Aff on a 5-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/26/2018 PEL R6 St. Mark's School of Texas RV Niles North WI Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/26/2018 PEL R4 Jesuit CP GT Alpharetta HS BM Aff
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/15/2017 CX Quarte Greenhill AK Stuyvesant SD Aff Neg on a 2-1
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/15/2017 CX Octafi Walter Payton WP Greenhill AK Aff Neg on a 2-1
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/15/2017 CX R7 Greenhill EG Walter Payton WP Aff
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/15/2017 CX R6 Okemos RR Greenhill TZ Neg
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/15/2017 PFRR R5 Ardrey Kell HB Edgemont KS Neg Aff on a 2-1
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School 12/15/2017 CX R5 Eagan PQ New Trier PM Aff
Glenbrooks Round Robin 11/21/2017 PF RR R3 Blake GM PolPre SS Aff
Glenbrooks Round Robin 11/21/2017 CX RR R2 MonBel BJ S.Eug LS Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VCX R6 Notre Dame UK College Prep CM Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VCX R2 Albuquerque AW Northwood LL Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VCX R1 Niles North LL Eagan SL Aff
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 7 Houston JG Kentucky BR Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 6 Michigan State CL Wayne State AD Aff
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 5 Harvard MS Texas SK Aff
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 3 Wake Forest CR Georgetown KL Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 2 Kansas DR Baylor SW Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/27/2017 PEL ADW Westminster HB Montgomery Bell BH Neg Neg on a 2-1
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/27/2017 PEL R6 Grapevine MP Pine Crest Preparatory PR Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/27/2017 PEL R5 Greenhill KM Westminster RM Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/27/2017 PEL R4 Montgomery Bell BH Jesuit Prep LV Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/27/2017 LD R3 Stuyvesant PY Cape Fear MA Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/27/2017 PEL R1 College Prep HR Newark Science MM Aff
John Edie Holiday Debates hosted by Blake 12/16/2016 CX Final Peninsula TW McDonogh JN Neg Neg on a 3-0
John Edie Holiday Debates hosted by Blake 12/16/2016 CX Double Niles West GB Greenhill SK Neg Neg on a 3-0
John Edie Holiday Debates hosted by Blake 12/16/2016 CX R6 McDonogh JN Rowland Hall-St. Mark's SY Aff
2016 Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/19/2016 VCX Semis College Prep KM Montgomery Bell KR Neg Neg on a 2-1
2016 Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/19/2016 VCX Octos College Prep KM Greenhill GE Aff Aff on a 2-1
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29/2016 LD MD Newark Science AK Harvard-Westlake NS Aff Neg on a 3-2
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29/2016 PEL ADW Notre Dame CP Westminster Schools DH Neg Neg on a 3-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29/2016 PEL R6 Maine East H.S. PS McDonogh JN Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29/2016 PEL R5 Edgemont Jr./Sr. JM Alpharetta KK Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29/2016 PEL R4 Montgomery Bell GJ Pine Crest Preparatory PR Aff
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29/2016 PEL R3 Mountain Brook WS Westminster Schools DH Neg
Northwestern Debate Institute 8/4/2015 CX Quarte FLA CC FLA DS Aff Aff on a 2-1
Northwestern Debate Institute 8/4/2015 CX Octos FLA HK 4WJr WM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Northwestern Debate Institute 8/4/2015 CX R4 4WSo CG ALGG GS Neg
Northwestern Debate Institute 8/4/2015 CX R2 ALGG BS FLA KM Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 CX Final Baltimore City College GM Westminster Schools FG Neg Neg on a 3-0
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 CX Semi Centennial KP Baltimore City College GM Neg Neg on a 2-1
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 LD Qtr Newark Science CQ Greenhill VA Neg Aff on a 3-2
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 CX R3 Centennial KP Pace LS Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 CX R1 Westminster Schools CD Notre Dame AP Neg
2015 Golden Desert Debates 1/31/2015 VCX Octas Harker RM St Francis RS Neg Neg on a 3-0
2015 Golden Desert Debates 1/31/2015 VCX Double College Prep PY Meadows CN Neg Neg on a 3-0
2015 Golden Desert Debates 1/31/2015 VCX R5 Notre Dame SF College Prep PY Neg
2015 Golden Desert Debates 1/31/2015 VCX R4 Alpharetta KK Harker KJ Neg
2015 Golden Desert Debates 1/31/2015 VCX R3 Foothill BH St Francis RS Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/23/2015 CX PFB Oc Newark Science FS St. Mark's School of Texas PA Aff Aff on a 3-0
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/23/2015 CX ADW Db Rowland Hall-St. Mark's WR Newark Science FS Neg Neg on a 2-1
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/23/2015 CX R5 New Trier LB Rowland Hall-St. Mark's WR Neg
Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/23/2015 CX R3 West Des Moines Valley DS New Trier KB Neg
John Edie Holiday Tournament at Blake 12/19/2014 CX Octofi McDonogh ER Iowa City ZW Aff Aff on a 3-0
John Edie Holiday Tournament at Blake 12/19/2014 CX Double Niles North OW Westminster Schools CK Aff Aff on a 2-1
John Edie Holiday Tournament at Blake 12/19/2014 CX R6 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart CD Maine East HS Aff
John Edie Holiday Tournament at Blake 12/19/2014 CX R4 Edina LW Maine East AP Neg
University of Michigan HS Tournament 11/5/2014 VCX Double Glenbrook North HR Westminster Schools CK Aff Aff on a 2-1
University of Michigan HS Tournament 11/5/2014 VCX R7 Chattahoochee DM New Trier BL Neg
University of Michigan HS Tournament 11/5/2014 VCX R6 Niles West BG Edgemont MJ Aff
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Semis Pace MM Glenbrook North JM Neg Aff on a 2-1
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Quarte Hendrickson SS Liberal Arts and Science Academy - LBJ MS Neg Neg on a 3-0
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Round Berkeley Preparatory KN Juan Diego Catholic DS Neg
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Round New Trier SW Grapevine BP Neg
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Round Kapaun Mount Carmel EH Westminster Schools BB Neg
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Round Montgomery Bell CK Highland Park (Dallas) CK Aff Aff on a 2-0
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Round Liberal Arts and Science Academy - LBJ MS Notre Dame RP Neg
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Round Marist VA Meadows BN Neg Neg on a 2-0
The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks 10/18/2014 HD Round Greenhill KS Pace MM Aff Aff on a 2-0
New Trier Season Opener 10/10/2014 Open Octas Kinkaid BR St. Mark's School of Texas GP Aff Aff on a 2-1
New Trier Season Opener 10/10/2014 Open Dbls Niles West BG Kinkaid RR Neg Neg on a 3-0
New Trier Season Opener 10/10/2014 Open Rd 6 Kinkaid BR Lakeland District Debate RA Aff
New Trier Season Opener 10/10/2014 Open Rd 5 Kinkaid RR Northside CP JS Aff
Niles Township Invitational 9/12/2014 POL Finals Iowa City West ST Northside CP DR Neg Neg on a 2-1
Niles Township Invitational 9/12/2014 POL Octas Iowa City WK Glenbrook North JM Neg Neg on a 2-1
Niles Township Invitational 9/12/2014 POL R5 Maine East PP WDM Valley HP Neg
Niles Township Invitational 9/12/2014 POL R4 Maine East KE New Trier GD Neg
Niles Township Invitational 9/12/2014 POL R1 Whitney M. Young RM Lane Tech College Prep H.S. MB Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/5/2014 POL Quarte HybST Stekl & Toomey GRAMS Roth & Bleiweiss Aff Aff on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institute 8/5/2014 POL Dubs BEFJR Charous & Smith GRAMS Park & Ramanan Neg Neg on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institute 8/5/2014 POL Round LitRoc Williams & Sutter HybPD Pismarov & Dille Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/5/2014 POL Round HybAP Aaronson & Powell BEFJR Garg & Mehta Aff
Michigan Summer Institute 8/5/2014 POL Round CFJP Ian & Kenji BEFJR Kreiner & Zhu Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/5/2014 POL Round RT Sofi Do & Lauren HJPV Sirois & Maiale Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/5/2014 POL Round GHJPP Curtiss & Crick RT Chaney & Clara Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/5/2014 POL Round GHJPP Emerson & Zhang CFJP Wendell & Ryan Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 CX Sem Glenbrook North DK Centennial KK Neg Neg on a 3-0
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 CX R5 Juan Diego Catholic FW Blake SW Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 CX R4 Glenbrook North MS Bronx Science DM Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 LD R1 Travis AS Harvard Westlake SH Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 LD R1 Clements RG Christ Episcopal MK Aff
Westchester Classic Lakeland 2/28/2014 VPol R4 Stuyvesant XC Edgemont RM Neg
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 VPD Semifi Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart GR Bishop Guertin ID Neg Neg on a 2-1
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 VPD Quarte Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart GR Glenbrook South CM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 VPD Octafi Bishop Guertin ZS Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart GR Neg Neg on a 2-1
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 VPD Double Glenbrook South CM Westminster Schools HK Aff Aff on a 2-1
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 VPD R7 Bishop Guertin ZS Westminster Schools LS Neg
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 RRCX R4 Stratford OS GBS CK Aff
Harvard Invitational 2/13/2014 RRCX R3 GBN CH Bishop Guertin DI Neg
The Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2014 PD Richar Glenbrook North MT Stratford OS Neg Neg on a 2-1
The Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2014 PD Phylli Stratford OS Notre Dame BA Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2014 PD Anne D Pace HP Notre Dame BA Neg Neg on a 2-1
The Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2014 PD R6 Bronx Science GL Montgomery Bell BR Neg
The Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/24/2014 PD R4 Chattahoochee AS Bronx Science Mo Aff
Electric City Invitational 12/5/2013 NCX Finals Baltimore City College Kudek & Yeargin Head Royce Ho & Lin Neg Neg on a 2-1
Harvard Debate Tournament 10/26/2013 Open R8 Michigan State BS Northwestern HS Neg
Harvard Debate Tournament 10/26/2013 Open R7 Dartmouth College MM Binghamton GF Aff
Harvard Debate Tournament 10/26/2013 Open R6 Arizona State RV United States Militar BS Neg
Georgetown Debate Tournament 9/28/2013 VCX 4 Westminster Schools DH Glenbrook North MS Aff
Georgetown Debate Tournament 9/28/2013 VCX 2 Carrollton School of OH Bronx Science GL Neg
Georgetown Debate Tournament 9/28/2013 VCX 1 Westminster Schools MO Bronx Science KS Aff
Michigan Summer Institute 8/7/2013 Open Quarte AtcCHM Hensel & Pucci AtcCHM Moser & Yan Neg Neg on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institute 8/7/2013 Open Double Hybrid 22 Hampton & Sundaresan GreenJP Spector & Young Neg Aff on a 2-1
Michigan Summer Institute 8/7/2013 Open Round AtcCHM Gustavson & Jain GreenJP Roman & Swoap Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/7/2013 Open Round CFJPV Advait & Zhu Heidt-Pappas-Jo Jaramillo & Gupta Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/7/2013 Open Round BricFJR Balla & Frederick Hybrid 24 Berger & Aaronson Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/7/2013 Open Round AtcCHM Kahn & Hill CroTopp Odermatt & Wright Aff
Michigan Summer Institute 8/7/2013 Open Round DW Yoon & Ratner Hybrid 4 Brand & Rawls Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/7/2013 Open Round AtcCHM Matlin & Tashma BricFJR Gamlen & Hoffman Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/27/2013 LD Semi PV Peninsula DT Greenhill RK Neg Neg on a 3-0
Tournament of Champions 4/27/2013 CX Octo Bronx Science BK Glenbrook North KS Neg Neg on a 3-0
Tournament of Champions 4/27/2013 CX Round Pace ES Glenbrook South WS Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/27/2013 LD R1 Northland Christian ML Harrison DD Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/1/2012 Open Double BJR MR BHKPP HA Neg Neg on a 3-0
Michigan Summer Institute 8/1/2012 Open Round BHKPP CR AFHM SA Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/1/2012 Open Round AFHM BN AFHM SC Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/1/2012 Open Round BT LT CFJP CH Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/1/2012 Open Round CFJP JA AFHM KA Neg
Michigan Summer Institute 8/1/2012 Open Round AFHM BM CFJP NN Aff
Michigan Summer Institute 8/1/2012 Open Round BHKPP EA CDT CS Aff