Tabroom.com

Fall San Diego Middle School and Novice Invitational

2018 — San Diego, CA/US

Misc. Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Warren Chang Pacific Trails Middle School 3 rounds

Shreya Choksi Canyon Crest Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 21, 2018 at 3:54 PM PDT

If you bring me food i will be v happy and proclaim you a living angel on the face of this earth :) :) :)

A foreword:

1) Do NOT try any lay judge bs on me- I will see through shitty arguments (been there, done that) and will probably laugh at you (jk I’m a nice person).

2) Do not try to spread if you don’t know how to, you’ll just look like a dying fish and i will actually laugh at you. That being said, if you do know how to spread, I will be VERY impressed and you’ll gain speaker points. So speed is not a problem, go however ‘fast’ you want, but remember to be clear.

Algunas Cosas

- Tech > Truth

- I like to see a dominant cross ex, though not to the point of being rude. I will probably award speaker points if you ask good questions/answer questions in a good way (even if you have to spin bs). But don’t be too sketchy [ I’m very good at detecting sketchiness ]

Speaker Points

- Speak loudly [ but not to the point of yelling aggressively ] and speak clearly. Obviously if you are spreading you don’t have to go too loud but I’m not a fan of the whole murmur-mosquito buzzing- spread.

- I like to think I give higher speaker points, but don’t do stupid things LIKE:

1) Reading racism/sexism good

2) Having absolutely no clash [ come on, this is debate, not two ships firing cannons at each other and missing ]

3) Consistently reading refutations like ‘their card is from 2016 while mine is from 2018’ [ unless timeframe ACTUALLY makes a big difference ]

Framework

- If you read consequentialism/social contract/ ANY VALUE CRITERION as your value, expect -3 speaks. If you lose to consequentialism/social contract/ ANY VALUE CRITERION as a value , I will facepalm and also that’s just sad.

- If you try to have a value debate for morality vs justice, -5 speaks.

- I generally lean towards morality as a value if the resolution has an ‘ought’ so if you’re running something else, justify it well

- KNOW YOUR FRAMEWORK. If you don’t know how to justify it, it will be pretty obvious to me and so there’s no use trying to cover it up.

- I want to see clash on framework; don’t keep justifying yours, refute theirs and give me a reason to prefer your framework OVER their framework.

Más Cosas

- I like good quality counterplans and disads [ do not be that kid who tries to read a pic on the aff ]

- Ks, theory, T are fine [ not going to go into this a lot rn since I’m guessing all of these rounds are lay ]

- expect minimal judge intervention from me; I’m lazy

- if you show me good quality memes during ur opponent’s prep I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

- Do not shake my hand because there are some things that are just too lay

Madison Geering Bonita Vista Middle School 3 rounds

Albert Hwang Torrey Pines HS 2 rounds None

Brooke Jiang Canyon Crest Academy 4 rounds

Jasmine Jin Pacific Trails Middle School 4 rounds

Andrea Liu Canyon Crest Academy 2 rounds

Justin Liu Canyon Crest Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 4, 2022 at 5:42 AM PDT

updated for la costa 2020:

I'VE BEEN OUT OF DEBATE FOR MANY MONTHS. i used to judge practice rounds pretty often but i haven't in a while, so apologies if i'm not flowing everything very fast or i take a while for my decision.

--------------------------------------

canyon crest '20, georgetown '24

justinliu92130@gmail.com or jyl79@georgetown.edu

There is no "o" in "Public" so if you call it "PoFo" within earshot of me then I am calling the police.

I'll shake your hand unless you're sick or a GW/AU commit.

I submit my ballot after giving my RFD, so my Venmo is @liujustin1 if you're unhappy with my RFD. Don't post-round, just handle it like someone over the age of six would.

About myself:

I have four years of PF experience at Canyon Crest Academy/Carmel Valley (SoCal) with three years on the circuit. Please don't pander to me outside or inside of round, don't be racist, don't be sexist, don't be classist, but flaming your opponent is fine as long as it doesn't get personal. I'll probably boost your speaks if you do.

I was president of the team in my senior year, so please tell me if CCA/Carmel Valley has made anybody uncomfortable or been rude so I can complain to the new team leadership like a boomer. The speech and debate community was very close to a second home for me in high school and I want to keep it healthy.

I got a silver bid once. Don't ask me how STOC went - you'll just ruin my day.

MY LD/POLICY/PARLI/CONGRESS PARADIGM:

hehe

MY PF PARADIGM:

Short version:

tech > truth

please signpost

no new offense after first summary

no theory/k, i know real abuse when i see it

if you want something evaluated, have it in summary and also final

i am the rare judge who doesn't actually care too much about weighing

i am very big about accessing impacts, so make sure you extend accurately and signpost clearly

Long version:

General guidelines:

i judge how i want to be judged.

tech > truth.

no crazy theory/k. i know abuse when i see it. if i can't see it, it's probably not bad enough for you to sacrifice round content to read a long shell about something.

no plans or cp's either.

i think that pf debate is about what you say and not who you are, and any identity-based self-activism that isn't topical but that you want to affect the ballot is probably better for the ld or policy spheres. but if there's microaggressions or something egregious, i'll be more than happy to drop your opponent for it, especially if they're rude or dismissive about it.

coin flip while i'm present. the flip tension is the most exciting part of pf.

i'll only allow new evidence in summary if it's for a frontline or a frontline's frontline (so A2A2 or A2A2A2 for some people). no new evidence in final.

if it isn't in summary, it doesn't exist. continuing off of this, if it isn't in final, it doesn't exist either. if your partner only extends warrant 1 in summary but you only extend warrant 2 in final, you don't get either warrant.

if you don't terminalize your impacts, i will do it myself (probably to your detriment, since every debate impact is over exaggerated).

debate should be fun, so i will happily evaluate meme cases/weird args unless sensitive topics are emphasized in round.

please signpost.

if both teams have exactly no offense at the end, i default to the first speaking team. this will probably never happen.

no card-checking during crossfire (unless you give it to your partner - the non cross participant - to read). if you're wondering "what about during grand cross, when all four debaters participate?" then you're calling for a card after summary. please don't call for a card after summary.

call for a card, but read it during your own prep if you won't give it to your partner during cross. wi-fi is fine to pull up cards that you have linked.

i'll time your speeches (5-10 second grace periods after each speech), but not your prep. that's your opponent's job.

speak as fast as you want to, but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. "turn their impact" makes more sense than "aslkdjflkjaslejjfiowjejflkdfj".

if you spread, email me and your opps a speech doc. if you're going to speak faster than your opponents can comprehend - even if you aren't spreading - please give them a doc or slow down so they can understand you. inclusivity is priority #1 for debate. i will not allow you extra time to type up a doc, even if for accessibility purposes.

Round tactics:

Please extend cards as name (date only necessary if there's multiple cards with the same name) and some substance (in context of the flow is fine if you're accurate and clear. ex: "the second carded response on their second warrant that says xyz"). I will still extend cards if they are only named, although it won't help you if things get muddled and I get confused.

Any ink still left on your flow gets evaluated at the end.

If you extend an argument, summarize how you access it and its impacts (with numbers, preferably). Don't extend a contention without frontlining or at least acknowledging all critical links. I will notice if you drop your opponents' responses.

If you decide to kick out of an argument, tell me. I'll know when stuff is dropped, but it fares better for your speaks and my feedback when I know whether a drop was done purposefully or on accident. The easiest way to do this is to explicitly concede a delink.

Both summaries should frontline. Because of the new PF speech times introduced in 2019, first summary now has to extend defense to access it.

I will evaluate analytical (cardless) rebuttals, but only with solid warranting. This is where truth could come in over tech. Depends on how accurate you are and also what I know.

I "like" crossfire whether it goes "well" or "poorly." I like a good cross but I probably won't be paying attention, because a good cross to me is one I don't have to worry about. I won't evaluate anything said in cross, but every time you destroy your opponent based epic style with facts and logic in cross, I boost your speaks. If you're cringe, you lose speaks. Grand crossfire works one of two ways for me: 1) It isn't a yelling match and it gives me a general idea of who is winning what voter. 2) It becomes a yelling match and it's stressful for you but very funny for me.

Evaluation:

I default to lives > econ. Convince me otherwise.

I will evaluate policy-type big impact turns like "nuke war good" or "death good" if you warrant sufficiently, but I'm not inclined to agree with them. I won't evaluate "nazi good" or things like that because it's just racist and stupid. Please don't turn racism/sexism/etc.

I study politics, international relations, and warfare/military history and strategy. Please don't say something dumb like "China has more soldiers than America so they will win in a war" or "deficit spending causes recessions." Actually warrant stuff like this. Again, tech > truth overall, but I'll be less likely to buy this kind of stuff when things get muddled.

I won't intervene unless someone asks me to call a sus card or there's a medical issue.

I will try to clarify facts or topic knowledge to the best of my ability after round for your own educational benefit if I'm familiar with the topic (and so you don't get screwed in later rounds by someone who may know more about something), but mistakes or unknowns that aren't capitalized on by your opponents won't be weighed on my ballot.

I would appreciate if you weighed for me, but I will weigh arguments myself if you do not. I prioritize probability, which is followed closely by magnitude. If you want to use some less-known weighing mechanisms like reversibility, tell me in your speech why it is more important than probability.

If you run a non-CBA (cost-benefit analysis) framework, spend ample time on why it is the better framework. I think frameworks like "The resolution says 'United States' so we should only weigh impacts on Americans" are stupid and you should not run them. You would need to do a lot of warranting and explaining to even remotely justify these types of frameworks to me and it would be hard without sounding like an ultranationalist.

Narratives are cool.

Deception:

If you go up and say "unresponded to," "unrefuted," or "never responded to," but your opponents did respond adequately, I'll be less inclined to vote for you if the round is close. I won't vote you down for "lying," but I will not frame the round the way you want me to because you're demonstrating that you're snaky and deceptive. Please DO NOT be that team that only speaks well and can't debate. Spend your energy on argumentation - you won't have to worry about coercing my ballot with speaking unless I literally cannot understand you.

If you bring up new evidence or arguments in final focus, I will be very sad.

If you powertag intentionally or if you clip evidence in a significant way, I will be very sad and report you to your coach and tab.

Speaks:

If you're one of those teams, you might find yourself asking me "What's the easiest way to get a 30?"

Unless you go 6-0 regularly and want to get first seed or something, don't worry about your speaks. You'll win the round if you beat your opponent on the flow.

The easiest way to get a 30: Don't fumble your strategy or words and display solid partner synergy. Make it seem like you and your partner have debated this round a million times prior to now.

30: You're alright.

29.5: oh yeah yeah

29: oh yeah

28.5: yeah

28: nice

27.5: ok

27: hmm

26.5: hmmmm

26: yash gupta

25.5: yash gupta

25: yash gupta

0: just stop doing debate man

Pratik Rungta Pacific Trails Middle School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 5, 2021 at 9:23 AM PDT

!!! IF THE SECOND-SPEAKING SIDE CALLS FOR EVIDENCE OR TAKES PREP TIME BEFORE BOTH CASES ARE READ, THEY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DROPPED ON MY BALLOT. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Hi, I'm Pratik. I'm a former PF debater from Canyon Crest, now studying at UC Berkeley. (class of '23)

TLDR: Read the bold (but you should read everything if you have time). Also, these announcements:

*2020-2021 SEASON: Most presentational stuff in my paradigm won't apply because of remote debates so ignore those. BUT, the remote nature means you will have to speak more clearly than in an in-person debate.

How I judge:

- I consider myself a really basic, no-frills debater and judge, which means I would prefer the typical definitions/framework/contentions debate. I won't understand any policy/LD mumbo jumbo, and will never accept copies of your case/speech doc/etc.

- 80% flow, 20% speaking/presentation. As a general rule, better debaters tend to be better speakers. I have a big soft spot for 'flay' teams and rounds so if going fast isn't your thing, don't sweat it! It'll also boost your speaks for prelims. In elims, I tend to be more flow- and argumentation-heavy.

- I don't flow crossfire, or factor it in my decision. Use crossfire to trap your opponents and expose gaps in their arguments. Elaborate on your team's crossfire discoveries in the following speech.

- I will disclose unless it is too close to call on the flow. I will also give a (mostly) oral RFD after round unless we are running late. If either case occurs, expect a lengthy written RFD. You are always free to talk to me or ask for my email after round.

Other rules:

- I prefer speaking speed to be <200 words/min but can probably handle up to 225. Above 225, I won't be able to flow effectively, and 300+ is considered spreading. If I can't flow something you said because you were too fast, and end up dropping it or voting against it, that's on you, not me.

- No calling for evidence/running prep until both cases are read. Also, please don't slow down the flow of the debate by calling for evidence all the dang time.

- No using prep time before cross.

- Don't abuse offtime roadmaps. Keep roadmaps to 5 seconds if you want to use them offtime. However, ONTIME road maps/signposting are greatly encouraged and highly recommended (see "How to win").

- 5% grace period on speeches to wrap things up. If your opponents are being abusive with time, let me know.

- After the round, I may ask for cards. Keep them ready!

How to win:

- The 4 Cs: Be clear, concise, convincing, and confident. That's it. Everything else I say here falls under one of those.

- SIGNPOST! Please make my flow organized. Use roadmaps before/at the start of your speech and number your topics. (Ex. "My opponent's first contention was ___. I have three responses. First...")

- CLEAR, RELEVANT VOTER ISSUES IN FINAL FOCUS. If the debate is super messy, then I may just only factor your Final Focus speeches in my decision.

- Have good posture and delivery. Don't hunch over your paper/laptop in your delivery; look at me as much as you can while giving your speech. Remember, your speaks DO matter to me more than the average circuit judge.

How to lose:

- I will instantly give your team a loss and tank your speaks if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise egregiously exclusionary.

- Be rude to me, your opponents, or anyone else participating in or managing the tournament.

- Slur/mumble/speak in a way that I cannot understand and flow what you're saying. Spreading (talking in excess of 300 words/min for me) will be an instant loss and 25 speaks.

- Bring up new evidence in Final Focus. Only concepts expressed in Summary Speech can be expressed in Final Focus. The only exception is if your opponents dropped rebuttal defense in their Summary Speech.

- Fidget/fumble on or off the podium.

- Break tournament rules.

If you think your opponents are breaking the rules:

- Stop the round IMMEDIATELY (not after the round ends) and notify me. I will take appropriate action. I would prefer to have both sides present during a conflict, but if it is something you NEED to speak to me in private about (without your opponents around), please request not to disclose after round.

- The longer you wait until after the round to notify me of any wrongdoing, the less I can do about it. I will NEVER accept claims of a violation without evidence unless I noticed it too.

Speaking/presentation scale (updated 11/17/20):

NOTE: This score has NOTHING to do with the quality of your arguments.

25 or less: Rule violation, discrimination, spreading, etc.

26: Rudeness, I didn't understand anything you were saying, frequent pauses, monotony, distracting fidgeting, etc.

27: No droppable offenses, but below average.

28: Average.

29: You're VERY good, and only had a few errors that only minorly impacted your delivery.

30: Basically impossible to achieve from me.

Thanks for reading this really long paradigm! Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts.

PSA: Spreading, common in circuit LD and policy, is contrary to the purpose of debate because debate's main objective should be to stimulate discourse in forums all over the US and abroad. Spreading hinders any further discourse by strategically and unfairly stuffing arguments and winning off technicalities, making it inaccessible to a larger audience and lowering any chances of real discourse happening.

Annaclare Splettstoeszer The Cambridge School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 8, 2021 at 1:43 PM PDT

Speech TL;DR

- in Impromptu: be original and interesting! I love unusual takes on the various prompts. Be sure to have an interpretation of the prompt!

- in Extemp: prioritize content (i.e. decent number of sources and one or two well thought out arguments) and clarity (i.e. don't cram in a bunch of sources to support one point and neglect a point explaining the background of a complicated topic)

- in platforms (OA, OO, Inform, Expository): y'all know what you're doing I trust :) I love platforms! I mainly compete in these in college.

- in Interp: TBH, I only ever did OI while in high school, but I love judging these events! My one request: be careful to have a trigger warning if your speech has heavy like a graphic suicide scene. I think that it's just the courteous thing to do for your competitors as we can't ever know where others are coming from. That being said, I'm not asking for a TW for something like a person being killed when part of your piece relies on that shock value that comes from that. Just be sure you're saying something important via your performance and making some kind of significant point, not just including graphic or violent content since those things are dramatic.

Public Forum TL;DR

-treat me like I'm lay [truth > tech]. I did PF for three years and I have always thought that the expectation for all PF rounds should be to treat your judge like any ordinary citizen off the street that you called in to listen to you talk.

-for the love all of debate PLEASE don't spread in PF

-evidence in PF is important, but it isn't everything. use it wisely to support your argument without making it your argument. do work with it- use it to link stuff out, but warrant independently of the card (if you don't warrant, i won't even consider the "argument" you present in the card)

-WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH IN FINAL FOCUS

-pet peeves: saying your opponents dropped something when they didn't, being overly aggressive in cross, abusing the ever living hell out of the fact that somebody's card wasn't perfect, and speaking at 100% volume for the entirety of your speech

-if you are a jerk to your opponents, your speaks will suffer. heavily. I don't care how good of a debater you are; you can be convincing without being rude

-try your hardest to have fun

_______________________________________________________________________________

Long Paradigm:

Hiya! I'm Annaclare and I love love love speech and debate! This sport gave me a place to cultivate public speaking, learn better communication, and meet some of the coolest people in the world.

That being said, please don't be the reason I leave the tournament sad at the state of debate.

I have had lots of experience with Public Forum debate, and I have some very specific beliefs about it:

#1: Spreading

If you begin to spread at any point in a PF round, or even to talk much faster than what the average human can understand, I will say "speed" or "clear" once, and that will be your only warning. At that point, your speaks will suffer very, very heavily. Public Forum is a style of debate meant to be just that: a public forum. If you are speaking at a such a speed that the average U.S. citizen could not follow what you are saying, your speaks drop below a 27 instantly. I think that there are other forms of debate that you can participate in if you want to spread, and I will give you one grace pass when it comes to speed. However, I will start docking speaks from speakers spreading in any PF round.

That being said- if the res is too broad thanks to a bad call by the folks at the NSDA in charge of the wording, check with me before the round and I will consider letting you speak faster.

#2: Counterplans:

don't.

#3: Framework:

I assume Util/Net Benefit unless you argue differently. if you choose to argue a different framework, do not make the entire round about it. spend about 30 seconds in each speech (and maybe some crossfires) but focus on the arguments

#4: K's

If you think I can understand it (I never ran Ks when I did debate), I might allow it if you argue its pertinence to the round. But you have to go all in on it.

#5: Fiat

The resolution allows the AFF to assume implementation of the resolution. I'm open to "implementation of this resolution causes this other thing 'X'" if it's argued well, but what frustrated me a lot when I did PF was when I would be AFF and the other team would get up in Rebuttal Cross and go "Well, but who's to say that Trump would allow this??" *thud* [that's my head hitting the desk in frustration] and then we waste an entire 3 minutes arguing about Fiat and whether or not the NEG was allowed to say that Trump would immediately overturn the res.

#6: Theory

Idk. I've never seen it run in PF... so probably not? I guess if you're gonna do it, persuade me

#7: THE MOST IMPORTANT THING

I believe that the true value of debate comes from its ability to educate students and build community. Competition is fun, and we all love winning, but what excites me at tournaments far more than winning is having a good round (just ask my coach).

If you're a very accomplished NatCircuit team, don't "destroy" your opponents with every fiber of your vigorous, extremely talented debater being; be kind and charitable to those less experienced than you, treating them with dignity and not disdain.

And for all: be respectful. be kind. Recognize the privilege that you have to hang out with other people who love to nerd out about politics and economics just as much as you and get psyched about delivering passionate speeches. Or, alternatively, applaud and encourage those who enter into debate as a means to improve confidence, research, etc.

Lastly,

#8: Speaks

if you're a jerk to your opponents, your speaks will be poor. I don't care how good of a debater you are if you can't show decency and respect to your opponent(s)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Now go have fun and give me a great round :DDD

Alex Tahan Canyon Crest Academy 3 rounds

JasonðŸ‘Œ ðŸ‘Œ YangðŸ‘Œ Canyon Crest Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 10, 2023 at 4:37 AM PDT

**UPDATE: I have not judged debate since Cal 2022. If you want to win, please start at 60% of your top speed and during rebuttals and please slow down on arguments you want me to actually evaluate. I swear nobody actually reads this so if you do read this, please tell me you read this before round and i will give u +0.5 speaker points.

*****

the most important thing of all: i am annoyed by how often i get postrounded by debaters who expected me to vote on an argument that was very unclearly articulated / basically not explained at all. if you want to win with argument x, please invest some time in your speech to explain argument x.

in the absence of arguments claiming otherwise, i will default to these:

neg presumption

tech > truth

comparative worlds

competing interps, rvis bad, drop the debater

fairness is most definitely a voter, education may or may not be

debate is probably a good activity (i am very neutral towards this and can easily be convinced otherwise)

******

background: canyon crest 20, duke 24

canyoncrestjy@gmail.com

please dont shake my hand

I debated 4 years of LD at Canyon Crest. I've done it all/tried everything out at one point or another -- policy, theory/tricks, nontopical, identity, high theory, etc. Thus, I care less about what you read and more about how you execute it.

Personally, I hated judge paradigms that said "i dont like x" or "i wont evaluate y" -- i believe this is your debate space, not mine.

i like fast debate -- slow debate is truly insufferable. this, however, is a double edged sword -- if you do fast debate terribly you will be punished for it.

there is a difference between being assertive and being an ass in cx

if you justify racism/genocide/bigotry good, you'll lose with the lowest speaks possible. if you lose to racism/genocide/bigotry good, please go home and reconsider if debate is for you.

things i like:

being a chiller, weighing your arguments, objectively winning the debate/doing anything that makes my job easier

things i dislike:

thanking me for being here, the phrase "off-time roadmap", the phrases " i stand in firm affirmation/negation", the phrase "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now", a messy debate (this is different from a very close debate), 0 clash, vague/lack of signposting, using unnecessary strategies against novices/those obviously less skilled than you (this is your fastest ticket to the 25-26 speaker pt range)

Login to Tabroom

Fall San Diego Middle School and Novice Invitational

2018 — San Diego, CA/US

Misc. Judges Paradigm List

Judges