SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitatonal
2018
—
Santa Clara,
CA/US
Novice Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Rohit Gulati
Irvington HS
None
Yusuf Abdulghani
Athens
None
Ayah Abushama
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Sun January 13, 2019 at 3:36 AM PDT
I try not to intervene on the flow. I won't fact check unless requested. Cool with off time roadmaps and tag teaming. Call as many PoOs as you want but don't be mean.
If you're rude, mean or disorganized you will lose speaker points. If you're oppressive (ableist, racist, homophobic, etc) you will lose the round.
Uichong Adint
Young Genius
Last changed on
Sun September 29, 2019 at 2:53 PM CDT
FAQ and Pet Peeves:
You can call me Judge or Ms. Adint.
I have about 2 years of judging experience thanks to my child having been into speech and debate just like you.
Please don’t shake my hand. "Hello, judge", will do to greet me.
On the big question of framework, I vote either way often.
All arguments are winnable, just provide me ample evidences with logical countering.
politeness is a plus.
Speed is good.
Overview:
I value reliable evidences and authenticity of each debater’s argument. I am open to any kind of strategy that will help you win, but round voice will not change my vote. Countering is the beauty of debate, so please counter your opponent with evidences and critical thinking skills. I will end the debate in favor of one proposition resolved only by the argument in the round. I want debaters speak their mind the way they see fit.
Rajeev Agarwal
The Golden State Academy
None
Anuj Aggarwal
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:39 AM PDT
Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.
DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.
FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.
OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.
HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)
Ali Ahmed
Lawson Middle School
None
Last changed on
Wed November 11, 2015 at 10:14 AM +13
I debated parli for 2.5 years at Irvine Valley and had intermittent experience in BP and IPDA during that time.
As of this semester I coach Campolindo HS's parli team and am a member of UC Berkeley's parli team, although my schedule rarely allows me to compete for Cal.
I have judged policy, parli, ld, public forum, congress, BP, and a plethora of IE's, and privately tutored speech students.
Overall:
I will not protect against new arguments in the rebuttals unless it is clear--after a few pts of order--that the speaker is trying to be sneaky. I expect that if your opponent asks for a text of the plan/cp/alt/perm(s), it will be provided. I can flow speed to a reasonable extent, but will dock speaks/not be able to evaluate your arguments if you are so fast that you're unclear. Please answer at least one question per speech if asked. Tag-teaming is fine.
Case debate:
AFF--Please make warranted and impacted arguments. I don't like voting on any remotely slippery scenarios and very much enjoy interrogative link debate. I am not keen on intrinsic permutations, otherwise perms are fine as tests of competition. I am also fine with unconventional affs so long as I am given a clear way to evaluate your performance and the other team is given a clear way to engage the aff/compete for the ballot. I will not vote on an RVI.
NEG--I believe theory precedes all other arguments in the round and will vote on it with a proven violation. I do not need articualated abuse to vote on theory. I am fine with DAs and CPs (including PICs). I do not like politics DAs because the links are usually awful.
Trichot:
Please always debate policy.
K:
I am fine with k affs and neg k's. I am not a k debater myself but will vote on one. However, I have a very high threshold for buying the efficacy of the alternative, and I view k debates as a comparison between the alternative and the plan. Please try to include specific links
Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round! Best of luck!
Last changed on
Thu November 18, 2021 at 2:40 PM PDT
I'm a parent judge and have judged LD debates.
If I understand your arguments, I will be able to judge more effectively so appreciate clarity.
Thank you for being a courteous participant.
Subba Annapureddy
Evergreen Valley
None
Lisa Aronovitz
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Tue January 19, 2021 at 3:49 AM PDT
I am a lay judge, and have been judging for over three years. Although I am aware and cognizant of the framework debate, the technicalities of it are not as important to me as the clarity of your argument and speaking. Please make sure to be polite to your opponent (being rude or abusive does affect your speaker points), signpost clearly, and speak at a reasonable pace (NO spreading or circuit debate please!).
Nikhil Bagri
Milpitas HS
None
Kannan Balakrishnan
The Golden State Academy
None
Mushtaq Bapoo
Lawson Middle School
Last changed on
Thu January 21, 2021 at 2:19 PM PDT
I have been judging LD debate for the past 3 years. I am a lay judge who does flow, but please make sure to be clear with your arguments to make sure I get everything you say (no spreading!).
The main things I take into consideration when judging are your clarity in speaking, confidence in your persuasion, and ability to prove why your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Please make sure you weigh both sides to make it clear to me why you believe the world you are asking for is better. Also, I will not understand any circuit arguments and I will likely vote against you.
Furthermore, it is very important that you are respectful to your opponent. Failure to do so will likely result in a loss.
Happy Debating!
Rajesh Bhima
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 6:58 AM PDT
I am parent/lay judge with a couple of years of experience. I believe in the values aspect of LD and will look to your V + VC and how you tie back your contentions to the values.
I pay special attention to cross ex as that provides a good insight into your knowledge and understanding of the topic. It also provides a way for you to expose or set traps for the opponent or emphasize your position.
LD is a debate between you and your opponent. If your opponent states a fallacy or is illogical in their approach, I expect you to attack them and point them out for me. I will not make the connection or use my own bias for determining the winner of the round. Please make sure that you have the evidence to back up your claims - this is important for me.
Speaking: Please do not rush through your speech - a fast conversational pace is OK. Spreading is not OK with me - I cannot offer my opinion if I do not understand you.I don't like when debaters are rude to one another and will take speaker points off so please keep the rounds civil and courteous.
Note taking: I write down key contentions and notes during the round - usually on my laptop or tablet.
Voting issues: Not entirely necessary but helpful where you can provide.
Nandita Bose
Leland High School
None
Neil Brumberger
Athens
None
Lester Chan
The Golden State Academy
None
Gautam Chattoraj
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Wed January 29, 2020 at 2:33 PM PDT
I am a lay parent judge.
I prefer debaters who speak clearly and are confident in their arguments.
Avoid speaking too fast.
Be courteous to your opponent.
Please try not to run theory, Ks, Phil, or any other circuit arguments. I will not be able to understand them.
Raj Desikavinayagompillai
Leland High School
None
Winnie Dong
Evergreen Valley
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon September 21, 2020 at 3:24 PM EDT
Speed
I'm not a very fast writer but feel free to talk however fast you need to and I'll call slow/clear as necessary. If I notice you spreading out your opponents, I will tank your speaks and be very inclined to vote on spreading bad theory, regardless of how well it's read.
Case
Please terminalize your impacts and weigh them in the context of the round. I probably won't believe you if you try to tell me that your opponents have no impacts left standing so it's very important for you to tell me the order I should evaluate them in. If you don't do any weighing, I default to probability > magnitude > timeframe. However, please don't make me rely on those defaults because I'll probably be slightly biased towards preferring the impacts that I think matter more. Policy rounds are much easier and more enjoyable for me to judge so feel free to read a plan with any resolution.
Theory
I'm not a fan of frivolous theory but I'll still vote on it if it's read well (you probably won't like the speaks that I give you though). Because of this, I default to reasonability. Please give me a brightline if you don't want me arbitrarily decide what I think is reasonable and feel free to still argue for competing interps. I'm open to theory out of the PMR if your opponents are abusive in the MO, but you should go all in and be really clear as to why I should drop them.
Kritiks
I mostly only ran cap and orientalism so I'm not familiar with most literature. Feel free to read Ks that I'm not familiar with, just please make sure to explain your thesis clearly and provide specific links. If you go for a generic "reject the aff" alt, please have analysis as to why rejecting this ideology again adds more solvency compared to all the other times the K was successfully read in the past. Also, I don't think I'm qualified to evaluate K affs, performance-based Ks, or other more techy Ks so while I'll definitely try my best, please read them at your own risk.
Misc.
I'll do my best to protect against new arguments, but please still call POOs, especially for iffy cases (I promise I won't get annoyed)
I'll consider shadow extensions but will give them much less weight when evaluating
Tag-teaming is fine in moderation but I'll only flow what the speaker says
Please read important things like interps/alts twice and be prepared to pass texts if asked (not sure how this works online but maybe message it in the chat)
Please take at least 1 POI per speech if your opponent has any, open to theory if that doesn't happen
Please provide any applicable content warnings before you start your speech
Please do not intentionally use any oppressive or violent rhetoric, I will be very easily persuaded into dropping you if your opponents argue for it and give you the lowest speaks possible
Please do not make up any evidence and feel free to call your opponents out if you think they are! I strongly prefer logical reasoning over dubious facts. There is no advantage in having arguments that are only backed by oddly convenient stats and no analysis.
Feel free to ask me any questions that you have about my paradigm before the round starts! :)
Taisia Dubinina
Young Genius
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 5:24 AM PDT
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
Last changed on
Sat October 12, 2019 at 5:04 AM PDT
kuhukg@gmail.com
I debated LD for four years at Newark Memorial and I went to the TOC my senior year.
I will evaluate any argument you choose to run as best I can. Some warnings:
I am a terrible, terrible flower. That means it is probably best that you go a little slower than you normally would just to make sure I flow that 10-second blip in the 1AR that will become a key piece of offense in the 2.
I ran a lot of K's in high school so I'm at least somewhat familiar with the lit. However, I still feel that debaters have an obligation to clearly explain their positions to their opponents during CX and speeches. If the position is seriously poorly explained and your explanations demonstrate a lack of understanding of your case, I may consider just not evaluating the position, and at the very least, I will seriously dock your speaks. On the other hand, I really enjoy good substantive K debate and I tend to inflate speaks when I'm happy.
My threshold for RVI's is probably as high as my threshold for theory. Which is to say, it's probably lower than most judges'. But don't take this to mean that I'll just vote for you if you run the RVI. Just as many things have to fall into place for me to vote for the RVI as for me to vote on theory or any other argument. I default competing interps.
I won't evaluate presumption unless there is some VERY clear argument made as to why there is NO offense in round. But in general, I think that this is almost never true and think that any argument linked to a framework (perhaps even a theory standard weighed by fairness/education) is probably a better reason to vote than presumption.
Make sure you have fun! I know debate is a super competitive and difficult activity but make sure you're not taking yourself too seriously in round - it is just a game. I also feel that if a debater is having fun, they're more confident and the round will be overall more fun to watch, which will be reflected in your speaks.
That's all that I can think of right now, but if you have any other questions, just ask me before the round. Good luck!
vikash goyal
American High
8 rounds
None
Archana Gulati
Irvington HS
None
Ernest Ho
Leland High School
None
Stella Huang
Los Altos High School
None
Tripthi Kamath
Athens
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!!
Last changed on
Wed September 4, 2019 at 11:35 AM PDT
i am a parent judge
I have been judging for one year
Preference
Please go slowly
Please avoid debate jargon
Last changed on
Mon October 7, 2019 at 2:24 PM PDT
I'd vote for students who are knowledgeable and have researched well and speak in relevance to the discussion, instead of simply reading out from a paper. Please try to ensure that I understand what you are saying.
Please speak at a moderate pace. Please say your speeches as though you are explaining something to me about a topic that I am not much aware of. Honestly, I have very little experience on the topic and I have not researched on the topic like a debater. So, please explain to me with evidence and name it clearly. If I cannot understand you then it will be difficult for me to vote you.
For speaker points, strong assertive voice, clarity of speech are important. All the best,
Joyce Lee
Young Genius
None
Sameer Mehdiratta
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Nikunj Mehta
Young Genius
None
Sailendra Mishra
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Fri September 25, 2020 at 2:41 PM EDT
I am a lay judge. Pretend I don't know anything. I would prefer no counterplans, theory, or kritiks. Add me on the email chain sritamayush@gmail.com
Shanmuga priya Natarajan
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Tue February 4, 2020 at 12:10 PM PDT
"I am a parent judge for an independent freshman debater. I do not have any familiarity with technical debate or the topic you are debating. Please refrain from spreading and from deep jargon related to debate or the topic. I appreciate a nice, well-thought out debate where both debaters are kind to each other and kind to me as a judge."
Latalya Parrish
JBDI
None
Priya Patankar
American High
None
Charitha Posam
The Golden State Academy
None
mohan posam
The Golden State Academy
None
Debashis Pradhan
Lynbrook HS
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu February 13, 2020 at 7:34 AM PDT
I prefer clear speeches, though they don't have to be super slow. I welcome great professional cross-examination that doesn't need one to be rude to others.
Vatsala Rajashekaraiah
Lawson Middle School
None
Oliver Ready
Lawson Middle School
None
Chandra Rentachintala
Athens
Last changed on
Sat February 6, 2021 at 8:53 AM EDT
I listen with attention to detail, but I prefer to vote off of a stronger analysis of multiple points than just one card.
I'm open and appreciate well articulated philosophical positions in the backdrop of good debating skills, presentation skills and respectful arguments.
Having done judging LD in multiple tournaments, I appreciate great presentations skills and not introducing new arguments in the last round of Aff. Good presentation skills mostly affect speaker points, not the outcome of the round.
Lastly on the subject of speed, I really encourage both debaters to weigh arguments as opposed to trying to out-spread each other. Thoughtful analysis of core issues and good debate is more important. Stay core to the topic and appreciate good debating is my philosophy.
Virgie Sanchez
Milpitas HS
None
paresh Shah
The Golden State Academy
None
paresh Shah
The Golden State Academy
None
PRASHANT SHAH
The Golden State Academy
None
Murali Shankar
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun December 1, 2019 at 12:22 PM PDT
I am a parent/'lay' judge. Please weigh your arguments and explain them. I would prefer if you spoke in fast conversational speed. I will flow all arguments. Please maintain respect throughout the round.
Sanjay Sharma
Lawson Middle School
None
Sweta Sharma
The Golden State Academy
None
Amit Singh
Hopkins Debate
None
Puja Singhal
Lawson Middle School
Last changed on
Fri February 18, 2022 at 11:48 AM PDT
-Parent judge. Both of my children did LD debate so I have over 4 years of experience in judging LD
-I love interesting and unique arguments and philosophy
-Clearly articulated arguments without spreading or rushing through are preferred
-I love literature as I am an author myself
-I don't really understand circuit but if you explain your argument properly I can follow along
-Strong speakers usually win my ballot over others
-Please don't be rude or aggressive to your opponents
-I try my best to flow speeches
-Passion for the topic goes a long way. Do debate because you enjoy it don't seem forced :/
-I'm not strict I will go along with what you say but just please be mature and kind towards your opponents and please don't interrupt especially in cx.
Happy Debating !
-
Adhi Sivathanu
Stratagem Learning
Last changed on
Sat April 17, 2021 at 6:14 AM EDT
I will judge based on argumentation, use of evidence, and logic. I am not a big fan of spreading either, so please talk clearly.
Also, it would be great if you could send a speech document after the constructive speech as my Wifi is not very good and I would not want you to lose because of that.
Elizabeth Stephens
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Sun February 10, 2019 at 4:41 AM PDT
Do's:
Speak at a moderate pace. Use a tight, strategic case delivered with elocution.
Listen carefully to your opponent.
Be very mindful of impact, including cost v. benefit.
Offer a framework that is narrow enough to be defensible, broad enough to have impact.
Use contentions that connect your philosophical framework to real examples and statistics.
Don'ts:
Don't sneer or shake your head at your opponent--stay poised and professional.
Don't make logical leaps, especially ones that distort your opponent's case or lead to ridiculous outcomes.
Don't debate "circuit" style: my opinion is that a firehose of words is both unnecessary and clutters up most cases.
Do NOT use the strawman technique, or misquote your opponent to present a distorted or weakened version of their case.
Don't spend too much time on weak or overly vague frameworks, such as "justice" or "morality." Whose justice? Whose morality?
Joanna Strober
Athens
None
Uma Subbiah
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Sun February 10, 2019 at 3:05 AM PDT
My vote is guided by the ballot rules.
Maintain good decorum, always.
Don't forget to have fun!!
Shin Takeshima
Milpitas HS
None
Camilo Tan
The Golden State Academy
None
Bharathi Udupi
Athens
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 10:33 AM EDT
I am a lay judge who has judged at a few tournaments this year.
Most importantly, before all else, be kind and respectful to your opponents. Though this is a stressful activity, do your best to maintain a kind attitude towards your opponent.
As I am a lay judge, please simplify the round for me. Make it clear why you should win the round and present it to me consistently.
Please no spreading, kritiks, counterplans, plans, etc.
Speak slow and steady, do not rush yourself.
Most importantly do not stress yourself out, and try to enjoy the round
Ravi Veerasingam
Leland High School
None
Dylan Wan
Granite Bay HS
None
McGregor Watson
The Golden State Academy
None
Last changed on
Wed February 17, 2021 at 4:25 AM PDT
EXPERIENCE
- Judged for PF one year and ongoing LD judge for 4 years
- Yes, I flow and yes, I'm okay with speed but not so much spreading
PERFORMANCE
- Signpost for rebuttals otherwise I won't track it on my flow
- Substantiate your claims with logic and reasoning, not just throw a card at me with no explanation or analysis
- Do not spread or attempt to talk really fast if you cannot because I will flow what I hear, not what I think I hear
- Have clear links to impact and uniqueness is good
NOTES
- All feedback will go into the RFD not given after round unless elims
- Don't be rude or condescending to your opponents
Dharmendra Yadav
Milpitas HS
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 7:42 AM PDT
I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at a moderate pace and be clear. I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. Please do not just throw statistics out, explain how they matter. That being said, do also ensure you have evidence based arguments. Have structured speeches. Warrant and weight your arguments.
Keep track of your own timings. Enjoy the round!!
Last changed on
Thu February 13, 2020 at 12:04 PM PDT
Hi, I’m a lay parent judge.
Please explain yourself clearly and I won’t consider anything that I cannot understand.
Please be nice to each other for higher speaks and don’t speak too quickly (refer to above).
Benglee Yeap
Milpitas HS
None
guozhong (George) zhou
Young Genius
None