33rd Annual Stanford Invitational
2019
—
Stanford,
CA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Stephanie Aaron
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Sun November 25, 2018 at 2:30 AM PDT
I am a brand, new judge. I have not judged a tournament before, but will likely judge IE. Delivery will be my main judging criterion.
Ahmed Abbas
Monta Vista High School
None
Anuj Aggarwal
Infinite 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 ;)
Nupur Agrawal
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat February 9, 2019 at 11:26 PM PDT
I’ve been judging speech and debate events for 4 years now. I prefer speakers who speak clearly and slowly. Your presentation should also be calm and controlled. I also vote based on your emotion or vocal variation. If any point in your speech is not clear, I will mark it down, so be sure to stretch out your impacts so they’re clear.
Shireen Alazzawi
Notre Dame HS
None
Pamela Alster-Jahrmarkt
Valley International Prep
None
Leah Ammon
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:21 PM PDT
I competed for four years in speech and debate (Congress) in high school and two years in Parliamentary debate in college.
I am a flow judge - I make my decisions based not only on who is best able to answer the opponent's points but also who is able to effectively weigh arguments. I can handle speed, but I believe spreading outside of Policy is not a good tactic. It is more important to me that you effectively crystalize arguments and address the big picture rather than getting lost in the weeds.
I really enjoy theory, but not for its own sake. You'll need to convince me it's relevant to the discussion.
Civility is extremely important to me - rudeness profoundly goes against the spirit of debate, so please be respectful to each other.
Other than that, have fun, and may the best debater win!
Vijay Anisetti
Mission San Jose HS
None
Ahmad Ansari
Leland High School
None
Indira Anupindi
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Kavitha Appakayala
Presentation HS
None
Geeti Arora
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sat December 26, 2020 at 6:04 PM EDT
School Affiliations: DVHS
I’ve been judging various different Speech and Debate events for about 4 years.
“What you say” is as important as “how you say it”. I award points based on arguments you make to support your points, logical flow and clarity of your speech, as well as how you deliver it.
What influences my decision making at the end of the debate is: Logical reasoning, clarity of speech, effective delivery, overall being civil and not being rude.
I take notes for each speaker/team, keeping track of the main arguments and more importantly what I liked in the speech vs areas of improvement. I don’t look for random facts here and there. Rather, I look for strong evidence that supports your arguments and adds to your points.
Effective cross examination for me means bringing out valid points to challenge the other team and not being rude or overly aggressive.
Make sure your arguments and evidence is true, but use your debate skills to put those points across in a way that can influence the audience/judge.
Lynbrook-Mandeep Baines
Lynbrook HS
None
Priya Balachandran
Leland High School
None
Savita Banerjee
Mission San Jose HS
None
Shelton Basham
Fullerton Union High School
None
Murali Bashyam
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Teja Bedi
Presentation HS
None
Sonu Bedwa
California High School
8 rounds
None
Ellen Beeton
Claremont
None
Elizabeth Beken
Presentation HS
Last changed on
Mon October 15, 2018 at 11:48 AM PDT
I am a new parent judge.
Renata Belash
Sonoma Academy
None
Melissa Bell
Kennedy
None
John Bellamy
Rocky Mountain HS
None
Taylor Belmonte
University Laboratory School
None
Juan Benitez
Almaden Country Day School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 10:59 PM PDT
Hello! I am a parent judge supporting my oldest son's speech aspirations. Now in my 7th year as a speech parent, judge, and sorta coach I have judged 100+ rounds and hundreds of presentations across middle school and high school competitions - primarily in OO, HI, DI, Duo and more. I judged the NSDA nationals DI finals in 2022 which was an incredible round and experience. I also judged the middle school NSDA final round for storytelling in 2019 along with plenty of state and nat quals through the years. Across various events, here are my thoughts as applicable for your event...
I hope to be persuaded by your thesis or argument
I want to be engaged and moved by your presentation
Your characters should be fully developed and come through clearly and distinctly
Use sources responsibly to complement your work without overwhelming with stats and figures
Show creativity and something novel relative to other competitors
Most of all, own your work, have fun, and know that you are a winner just by competing. Thank you!
Linda Berger-Bean
Valley International Prep
None
Payal Bhagat
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Rajesh Bhatia
Monta Vista High School
None
Sanjay Bhatia
Mission San Jose HS
None
Gautam Bhattacharyya
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Aart Bik
Saratoga HS
None
James Blastos
Almaden Country Day School
None
Tina Bonilla
Jesuit High School
Last changed on
Thu November 16, 2017 at 12:23 PM PDT
Hello everyone! I'm a relatively new judge so please bear with me. :)
Parli Debate:
Please refrain from the use of speed/spreading (I can handle a faster paced speech but not too fast)
Please do not present K-theories
It would be preferred if you kept your voices to a medium/low tone (don't shout)
Avoided to many POIs (I don't mind the use of them, but don't abuse them)
If you can, please use a source or two (although you don't have to)
Organization is key! (I judge primary on flow)
Impromptu:
No canned speeches!
Bijoy Bora
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Michelle Boyers
Sonoma Academy
None
Judson Brandeis
Monte Vista
None
Fariha Bukhari
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Kishan Bulusu
Oakwood
None
Amy Burks
Lindale HS
None
Anthony Campolo
ModernBrain
None
Robbie Cantrell
Gresham-Barlow HS
None
Bin Cao
IvyMax Academy
None
Luis Cardenas
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Carol Carter
Avant School of Debate
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 2:35 PM PDT
I've judged many different speech competitions. The key is to connect to your audience. Imagine me at the other end of that wee camera. I want you to succeed. I want to enjoy your speech. I want to understand your ideas. I learn best in times of enjoyment so connect with me, have fun, relate, take me on a journey.
You've worked hard! Pat yourself on the back, then get out of head, into your heart. Bring everything you have into that room. Don't hold back. You'll be glad you did.
Adriana Chan
Velasquez Academy
None
Ravikumar Chandrasekaran
Lynbrook HS
None
Karen Chang
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Lingcong Chen
Saratoga HS
None
Naveen Chhangani
Mission San Jose HS
None
Geetha Chidambaram
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Naghma Chishti
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri February 12, 2021 at 2:42 AM PDT
Occupation: I work full time as Product Manager in Technology
School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School
Years of Judging/Event Types: 4 Years Judging Experience mainly with Policy, Public Forum
How will you award speaker points to the debaters? I am not a strong believer in spreading. Better contentions, better evidence goes well with me. I have no issues describing theories but slow down for me to make a note of it.
What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Confidence, clarity of arguments, good contentions and arguments, posture and the respect for the opposing team
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I take lots of notes during the debate which I use later to make a decision.
Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily
Clothing/Appearance: 5
Use of Evidence: 10
Real World Impacts: 7
Cross Examination: 9
Debate skill over truthful arguments: 10
Detail Paradigm::
About me: I have a sophomore who debates in "Policy/Public Forum". I am no stranger to arguments of all kinds within competition and outside of it. I mostly end up judging Policy as that is my daughter main paradigm. I've been judging middle school and high school speech and debate for four years now.
Judging style (Team): I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.
There is nothing I love more than well-structured debate. Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. If you lose a judge because I can't understand you, that's on you. Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc.)
Judging style (Individual Speaker): You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech to a level and if I miss something I will ask. Tell me why exactly your impacts are the most important thing in the round, make me understand why I care more about your arguments than your opponents.
I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.
I have zero tolerance for any level of disrespect towards opponents. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. you will be marked down to the lowest. There is a distinct difference between being passionate and confident in your arguments or questioning their logic, and being downright disrespectful.
vaishali chokshi
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Wed January 27, 2021 at 1:08 PM PDT
I am a judge reasonably experienced at judging tournaments. I have 2 kids and both are in debate and speech each.
Here are few insights on how I judge:
-
Speak at whatever pace you feel most comfortable. I can keep up with your pace.
-
I do take notes. Let me know where you are in your arguments. I appreciate the source citation. I like clear, clean lines of logical thinking.
-
Engage with the round, have refutations and ask questions
-
Be respectful to everyone and have fun
Monica Chopra
Stratagem Learning
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:44 AM PDT
I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.
I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.
Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.
Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:
1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.
2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)
3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.
4. Do not be rude in cross.
Once again, do not spread.
Have fun!
Eunice Chu
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sun December 20, 2020 at 7:24 AM PDT
DVHS
Shalini Chugh
Clovis North High School
None
Jiyoun Chun
Notre Dame HS
None
David Chung
Gunn Sr HS
None
Issac Chung
South Torrance
None
Joan Chung
Saratoga HS
None
Colleen Clark
Sacramento Waldorf HS
None
Lea Clark
Citrus Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri March 15, 2024 at 5:18 AM PDT
she/her/hers
tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. I was a pufo debater and it shows :')
Judging preferences - Summary
Always signpost. pls. always. signpost. Always.
Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.
My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum/LD debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.
In-Depth Prefs:
Please - Always signpost.
Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread, become a policy debater. A couple of my best friends in High School made it to Parli finals at the state championship without spreading, so there's no need to do it.
Flow Style is typically on an Excel sheet, so if you're speaking so fast that I can't type it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.
Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.
Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.
Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)
Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, but they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.
Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much.
About me:
Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
State Runner-up in Informative 2017
Stanford 2018 Informative Champion
Frequently hungry in round
Hannah Coleman
The Harker School
None
Julio Contreras
College Prep
Last changed on
Sat November 30, 2019 at 10:29 PM CST
Email me at julio.acg98@gmail.com
Libby Cortez
Jesuit High School
None
Steve Cortez
Jesuit High School
None
Emmanuel Cruz
Democracy Prep Endurance
None
MAVELYN CRUZ
Democracy Prep Harlem Prep High
8 rounds
None
Alisa Currier
Claremont
None
Susan D'Angelo
Leland High School
None
Huixiong Dai
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat March 6, 2021 at 8:50 AM PDT
I prefer slow and clear speaking in debate -- If I can't understand what you're saying, I might miss a key point in your argument, so please enunciate and emphasize the points you want me to take away! I believe that all of the techniques related to speech (vocal inflection, facial expression, and emotion) are a fundamental part of debate and should be utilized. Be assertive but still respectful of your opponents! And have fun!
anu dalmia
Presentation HS
Last changed on
Sat November 10, 2018 at 1:24 AM PDT
Please be concise and clear, stay on time and manage your pace so it is not too slow or too fast. If I don't understand it, I can't judge it. Thanks
arunesh das
Amador Valley High School
None
Manoj Das
Monta Vista High School
None
Peal Das Gupta
Cupertino HS
None
Sutapa Dasgupta
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 10:58 AM PDT
Speak at a pace that people can understand. In order to cover too many thing in your time limit don't speak so fast that i cannot understand anything .
Be authoritative in what you say. if you are not convinced what you are saying, i am not convinced either.
Enjoy speech and debate!!!!
Joandra Datz
Ashland HS
None
Rakhi Dave
University Prep Academy (MS)
None
Lynbrook-Amy Deng
Lynbrook HS
None
Shuang Deng
Mission San Jose HS
None
Prashant Deo
Cupertino HS
None
Nayan Desai
Saratoga HS
None
Dharminder Dewan
Mission San Jose HS
None
Marcus Doemling
Saratoga HS
None
Liang Dong
The Golden State Academy
None
Olivia Dutcher
Valley International Prep
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sun September 20, 2020 at 9:08 AM PDT
BACKGROUND
- I competed in CHSSA and NSDA all throughout high school with Valley International Prep High School. As far as debate goes, I competed in parli (7th at CHSSA State Championship, 2018), World Schools Debate, and Congress. With that being said, I'm familiar with all CHSSA and NSDA debate events. I also competed in many individual events.
- I also competed in high school Mock Trial for two years with VIPHS. In our first ever year as a program, we took 3rd in LA County. In our second year, we won the LA County Championship.
- Currently, I study rhetoric and economics at UC Berkeley, and I coach speech and debate online.
DEBATE PHILOSOPHY
- I see debate as a great platform to have interesting, educational discourse. I'm a big fan of cases that tell a story as to why this is important and why I should care. Using good word economy (I study rhetoric so I know the weight of diction and syntax well), strategy, and passion all help to create a good debater, and in turn, a good debate.
JUDGING PREFERENCES
- When flowing, I shouldn't have to do any decoding work for you. Signpost, let me know where you're going, and make it clear! I'll flow where you tell me to.
- I REALLY enjoy (and TEND to prefer) on case argumentation. I think it really shows your ability to adapt in round which shows your strength as debaters.
- I understand most (if not all) debate jargon but do not use debate terminology just because you can/want to. If you're going to use jargon, use it right and be ready/willing to define said terminology if another competitor, judge, or I don't understand.
- Like I said, I really like case debate, however, run theory arguments/kritiks if you want (IF you know how to use and frame them properly and be ready to explain if necessary). In short, don't run theory or Ks for no reason.
- It's great if you frame and define properly. That doesn't mean spend a lot of time framing/make the round into a framework debate, just use framework as a strategy to make the debate as clean as possible.
- I'm okay with speed (but I don't like spreading). However, talk fast/spread at your own risk. I am far more likely to drop a contention or response and/or give you lower speaker points if you're going too fast. I'll call clear once if I need to. If you don't slow down, I'll keep doing my best to flow, if I miss something, that's on you. Also, if your opponent calls clear, I'll expect you to slow down, too.
- Please, please, please have clear impacts and use impact calculus to tell me why it's important to vote for you. In other words, PLEASE WEIGH. I default to probability>magnitude>reversibility>time-frame, unless you tell me why I should be weighing differently in the round.
- Do turn when you can! I really like turns and often find myself voting on turns in close rounds.
- Don't just tell me your opponent/their argument is wrong, tell me why they're wrong.
- PLEASE do not outwardly lie in your cases! I hate judge intervention, but if you say something egregiously wrong in part of your case, I can't justify voting for it. With that being said, I'll vote tech over truth WITHIN REASON!
- FOR PARLI: I'm very flow-oriented and will keep up with tech arguments (of course, assuming you're clear and frame well)
- FOR PF, LD, & POLICY: While I'll flow and vote based on the flow, some lay appeal will do very well with me as I'm less familiar with norms.
Good luck and please have fun!
Arup Dutta
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Catie Easter
Gresham-Barlow HS
Last changed on
Sat November 7, 2020 at 1:28 AM PDT
Background
I have been coaching speech and debate for five years, focusing primarily on speech events. However, please do not assume that means I can't follow your complicated and technical debate styles as I have been judging for years and I use more complicated arguments daily at my job (I'm an attorney).
Paradigms
I am a logic-driven thinker and want well-thought-out arguments without any gaps in your links. GIVE ME VOTERS IN YOUR REBUTTAL SPEECHES! Please give me clash above anything. Know which debate event you're in; don't be arrogant in LD or too reserved in CX.
What Makes Me Smile
Turns and Perms are two of my favorite techniques and impress me greatly. I love humor when you can give it to me, but don't sacrifice logic for jokes. One of my favorite debate rounds ended up running a Kanye 2020 position in a debate on executive orders and it thrilled me to no end.
Speed
If I can't flow it because you're going to fast, I will drop my pen or cross my arms.
K's and T's
I do not like Kritiks. I will listen to them and weigh them against other arguments on the flow, but overall am not a big fan. If you run a K, please make it 100% logical. I find most T's to be annoying and whiney. Please do not run a T unless you know you can do it really well.
FlashTime and Off-Time Roadmaps
I don't count flash time as prep time, unless it becomes ridiculous. Fine with them but don't give me too much detail or I'll start your time.
Rajesh Edamula
Saratoga HS
None
Last changed on
Sat April 28, 2018 at 3:53 AM CDT
Public Speaking Professor. I’m neither progressive or traditional as a rule. I’m fine with spreading. However, if you speak so quickly that I can’t understand you, then I can’t judge you effectively.
Allison Evans
Claremont
None
Kasie Evans
ModernBrain
None
Tawab Fakhri
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 12:18 PM PDT
- I am speech couch that's been debate adjacent
- I vote on the cleanest argument that makes sense, has evidence, links reasonably to an impact
- If nothing makes any sense or proven true, I default to negative
Zahra Fattah
Monte Vista
None
Monique Feig
Valley International Prep
None
Dominic Fernandes
Monta Vista High School
None
Jessica Finnsson
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
Carolyn Day Flowers
El Cerrito
None
Sutton Fong
Jesuit High School
None
TJ Forman
Valley International Prep
None
Lauren Fu
Fullerton Union High School
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:22 AM CST
CX Debate
I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.
Speech
In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.
In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.
Neeru Gandhi
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Last changed on
Sat September 26, 2020 at 12:31 PM PDT
I have been judging various Speech events for the last 4+ years and familiar with most formats of speech. Enjoy speech & debate very much and happy to be a judge. I want this to be an enjoyable activity for all involved so expect the participants to be courteous to the judges, organizers and to each other.
I judge on:
1. Content organization: cutting, easy to follow story line, structure, Attention Grabbing Intro/closing that connect the story together. Memorization of your speech is table stakes !!
2. Delivery Style: Your overall energy, blocking voice modulation, use of space , conveying the emotion of your piece. Try to speak at a pace that someone who is going to listen to your speech only once can still follow along and understand.
Wish you the very best of S&D Experience !!
Betsy Garner
Sonoma Academy
None
Dulce Gastelum
Leland High School
None
Ted Girdner
Monte Vista
None
Sridhar Gollapudi
Mission San Jose HS
None
Ajay Gopalkrishna
Evergreen Valley
None
Racy Grant-Kane
Prosper HS
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:02 AM CDT
I coached and judged all speech and debate events for 16 years before becoming an administrator. I coached several state champions and students successful in UIL, TFA and NSDA. As an admin, I have remained active judging and running local, regional and state tournaments.
I believe that this is an educational activity. I am accustomed to spreading though my ear isn't especially adept to it not having judged debate much recently. Watch for NV cues that you are going too fast. I will not call out at you. Since leaving coaching I have mostly judged IEs. I Adm a policymaker policy judge. For LD I prefer more LD traditional value/ criteria style debate though ultimately the round direction is up to the debates. I DO NOT like to intervene in round because the debate is messy.
I coach beginning CX at summer camps in Texas and serve as an advisor for new coaches to the activity.
I work at the UIL Region 3-5A Director and the Judge Coordinator at the CX and Academic State Tournaments as well as running several invitationals and district meets.
Most importantly.... BE NICE! BE PROFESSIONAL! Your life will not be negatively impacted because of the outcome of a round so don't let emotions push you to behave inappropriately That won't bode well for you.
Mishika Grewal
The Golden State Academy
None
Liangyi Gu
Velasquez Academy
None
Peter Guastaferro
Presentation HS
None
Radhika Gudavalli
Pleasanton Independent
None
Srinvas Gudimella
Saratoga HS
None
Dianbo Guo
The Golden State Academy
None
Amit Gupta
Mission San Jose HS
None
Lakshmi Gupta
Saratoga HS
None
Madhu Gupta
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Sandhya Gupta
Hopkins Junior High
None
Shivani Gupta
Independent Gupta
None
Sonia Gupta
Independent Goyal
None
Lewis Gurgis
Democracy Prep Charter High
None
Lewis Gurgis
Democracy Prep Endurance
None
Madhusudan Gururajachar
Cupertino HS
Last changed on
Thu March 4, 2021 at 1:05 PM PDT
Paradigm for Speech Events:
I value the following aspects during judging:
- In terms of content of the speech, a clear line of sight from [ the central theme to supporting arguments to reasoning and evidence] would help me follow the speech.
- Creativity and uniqueness of arguments
- In terms of style : Reasonable pace with thoughtfully inserted pauses.
I do take notes, as detailed as possible.
Paradigm for Debate Events:
This will be my 4th year judging PF. Parent judge, so nothing crazy/too tech. I do take copious notes, and I'm probably tech>truth to some extent. Anything outright false/offensive will not be considered.
Procedural fairness is quite important to me, so don't steal prep, go over time, miscut evidence, or bring up new things in later speeches.
A few things:
- Please extend warrants in back half speeches (if your link chain is conceded and fully extended in the back half it's GGs)
- Don't be rude in CX, but don't be boring either (stay professional)
- Warrant your evidence, contextualize everything to your arg
- Don't run trivial args, run something that actually matters or just introduce your weighing early on (case/rebuttal)
As always, ask me any questions you have before round. (my kid wrote this so clarify if needed)
Karthik Guruswamy
Leland High School
8 rounds
None
Faisal Habib
Monte Vista
None
Nathan Hagan
Los Altos High School
None
Jenna Haiwen
Leland High School
None
Santosh Hambir
Cupertino HS
None
Thippeswamy Hariyaplar
Lynbrook HS
None
Laura Harvey
Jesuit High School
Last changed on
Sat December 15, 2018 at 12:50 PM PDT
Laura Harvey, Jesuit High School
Background: Four year Policy debater in high school, four year Parli debater in college, 20 years coaching debate and IEs. Ten years as head coach at Jesuit High School in Carmichael, CA. I've judged final Policy, Parli, LD and PF rounds at invitationals and national tournaments.
PARLI PARADIGM:
With a policy topic, I am largely a policy maker with stock issue leanings. I want the arguments to be topical, the reason for the plan to be clear (significancy), whatever is keeping the status quo from working to be resolved (inherency), the plan to actually solve the problem (solvency), and for advantages to outweigh disadvantages. In essence, consider me a member of Congress hearing arguments for a plan of action. In my eyes, all debates start from the same basic place: there is a problem. It's a big problem. The status quo is not addressing the problem. This is how we fix it.
Topicality: Both teams need to define and adhere to an interpretation that (1) remains true to the basic intent of the resolution--if the topic is about conserving the oceans, I don't want to hear about space aliens, and (2) gives both sides grounds to debate. I will vote on topicality violations, but only if the given definitions leave the opposing team little room to debate, and/or clearly do not remain true to the perceived intent of the resolution. If you choose to run a topicality resolution, argue why it's a violation (e.g. it skews ground), and present a more fair alternative.
K Arguments: I'm not a fan. They're rarely run well. I've voted for them, but they MUST be specific to the debate at hand. ONLY use K if the resolution, plan, or CP presumes a blatantly abhorant ideology; otherwise, Ks usually come across as elitist arguments designed to confuse and exclude, which doesn't make for a good debate. Run K if you must, but don't rely on it.
CP: I love CPs.
PERMS: I'm not a fan unless they're properly done. Usually, they waste the opposing team's prep time and first 1NC. That said, the NEG should have made their CP mutually exclusive before running it, having heard the 1AC.
PICs: I really don't like plan-inclusive-counterplans. If AFF argues strategy skew, I'm going to be symathetic.
SPEED: In Parli, DON'T. Seriously. This isn't primarily an evidence based debate. I don't need 18 cards piled up under one argument to vote for you, which was the driving motive behind spreading in the first place. If you wouldn't use this speaking style anywhere except in a high-level debate round, it's likely to annoy me. As an educator, I'm looking for ways that you'll use this experience in the wider world. Spreading would not help you convince a jury in closing arguments or brief your member of Congress before a vote. I understand it's common; that doesn't mean I'm going to perpetuate it. If I have to call "clear," I will take a baseball bat to your speaker points.
Flow: I will flow, cross-apply, and extend arguments. I allow off-time road-maps. Use them well.
Impacts: Please, don't forget these. Tell me why things ultimately matter. (That said, there are a few impacts you will have great difficulty running convincingly, like nuclear war and extinction. I've heard these for twenty years. I just don't buy it.)
Warrants: Don't forget these, either. Seriously. Don't.
NON-POLICY TOPICS: Most of the above applies, but in particular:
Value topics: Make sure your value criterion upholds your value. I will vote for the team that convinces me that their value should take precedence, and upholds it best.
Tag-teaming and Feeding: I'm not a fan outside of Public Forum.
New arguments: I don't protect the flow in varsity rounds (I do in JV rounds). Also, I will be sympathetic to AFF responses to brand new arguments made in the 2NC.
Ramdas Hegde
Prospect High School
None
Dontae Hill
Immaculate Heart High School
Here are the things that matter:
I did not debate as a student.
I have judged and coached PF and LD for 8 years.
I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.
My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’
Danny Hirsch
De Toledo High School
None
Samantha Hirst
Leland High School
None
Mayuri Hituvalli
The Golden State Academy
None
Henry Ho
Cajon High School
None
Kaelyn Holguin
Gig Harbor
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:11 AM PDT
My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years.
I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.
Other aspects to keep in mind:
I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.
I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.
Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.
I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.
I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.
Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.
Kun Hu
Mira Loma High School
Last changed on
Mon December 31, 2018 at 12:41 PM EDT
I am a parent of an LD debater. This is my third year judging LD debate. I judged varsity LD on several invitational tournaments and NCFL/NSDA nationals.
If you're a progressive LD debate, I will be better for me if you can run you case in traditional LD way.
I consider myself a tabula rasa judge, and will vote on anything if given a proper rationale and justification. However, please do not make sexist, racist, or ablest arguments I will drop you.
I take judging seriously and most time showing a poker face so don’t try to get feedback from me during the round. You can expect that I will have a solid understanding of the subject(s) being debated.
What I won't have is a pre-determined way of thinking based on my individual beliefs on any topic.
Preferences:
Speed: It is ok to go faster than normal, but please no spreading. If you aren't clear, then I can't understand your arguments. And if I can't understand your arguments, I can't vote for you. Vary speed, tone, volume, or something else to differentiate between tags and cards. Emphasize transitions, present important analysis, signposts, etc.
Plans: I am ok with plans, just have solvency.
Counterplans: I am ok with counterplans, but please don't run abusive counterplans, I won't vote on them. Pics are okay, but not word pics.
Kritiks: I will not vote off a Kritik.
Philosophy: I like value/value criterion debates.
Theory: No theory.
Topicality: Only argue about topicality if your opponent is being blatantly non-topical.
Decorum: Please be polite and respectful towards your opponent. Do not be overly aggressive.
Qingyang Hu
Leland High School
Last changed on
Mon September 24, 2018 at 2:17 AM PDT
I am an amateur parent judger with a few years of occasional judging experience. I usually make a decision based on who addressed all the points sufficiently, either by logic or fact. A good speaker will win points but not necessarily the debate itself. I don't like spreading because I can't catch all the points if you speak too fast.
Edith Huang
Los Altos High School
None
TIMOTHY HUANG
Monte Vista
None
Anand Iyer
Cupertino HS
None
Shripriya Iyer
Mission San Jose HS
None
Syed Jafri
Monte Vista
None
Anurag Jain
Mission San Jose HS
None
Shruti Jain
Notre Dame HS
8 rounds
None
Vanita Jain
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Devi Priya Janakiraman
Northwood HS Independent
None
Last changed on
Sat September 11, 2021 at 7:06 AM PDT
I have debated for 3 years and judged in multiple middle and high school tournaments, so I am very well-versed with both LD and Congress. I vote for the debater who can defend their case in the more compelling manner, as well as clearly articulate why they have won their round. I prefer debaters who speak clearly, demonstrate strong presentation skills, and use an evidence-based approach with sound logic and reasoning.
Lim Jing Yi
ModernBrain
None
aparna joneja
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri February 12, 2021 at 2:55 AM PDT
About me:
I am a mom of a student competing in Impromptu from Dougherty Valley High School.
I usually judge speech events and am more familiar with speech itself.
I have been judging since my older daughter was part of the program. This was back in 2013, and have been judging since.
I award speaker points based off of how articulate the speech is, how relevant it is to the topic, how organized their thoughts are and if they speak with confidence.
I look back at my notes and see which speech I felt was most articulate, relevant, organized, and confident to make my final decision.
I take lots of notes because it helps me get down my thoughts during the speech.
I prefer civility in the room, and I think it is important to be respectful and kind to everyone.
Hailey Joo
Monte Vista
None
Nikhil Joshi
Monta Vista High School
None
Ravi Joshi
Leland High School
None
neela kaliamoorthy
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Susan Kamberos
Mountain Vista HS
None
Shanthi Karunakaran
Presentation HS
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 7:15 AM PDT
Just speak clearly, maintain good eye contact, and we will be good.
Mukesh Kataria
Irvington HS
None
Kismat Kathrani
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri September 18, 2020 at 1:07 PM PDT
I run a software consulting firm here in Bay area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past 2 years at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Speech, and Congress as well.
Things I would be judging will be based on the following criteria
- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
- Topic grounded strategies/demonstration of research and topic knowledge are good for speaks.
- I am the numbers guy and like to hear solid numbers or quantitative data for your arguments.
- Quality always trumps quantity.
- Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.
- Clarity over speed
- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate
- I have researched the topic to some extent but do not understand very nuanced arguments.
- I like when two teams have clash on their cases, but don't be overly aggressive or rude when pointing it out.
- Insults, rudeness, and swearing are not good and will be looked down upon .
- Respect your competitors, partner and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.
- I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place. That is my very Important criteria for judging of debate rounds
Finally make the debate fun. Being nice is good. Smile and have fun. Winning and losing is a part of life so have fun and enjoy and do your best.
KRISHNA KATTUMADAM
Saratoga HS
Last changed on
Sat January 16, 2021 at 10:59 AM PDT
Been judging both debate (mainly Parli) and speeches (mainly IE) since 2013.
I look for clarity and choice of words. Try to speak slowly with pauses, I know you trying to convey a lot of information in a short amount of time.
I'm not big on fact-checking, I trust that you have done your research well.
Ravi Kavuri
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Tue February 5, 2019 at 11:09 AM PDT
Hi Everyone
I have judged various speech events in the past.
I prefer that you speak slowly and clearly with a consistent tone and maintain eye contact throughout your speech.
I base my judgement how convincing of an argument you make rather than my own belief or an opinion on the subject.
Don’t be nervous, relax and enjoy the event.
Radhika Khanna
Monte Vista
None
Jaya Khera
Presentation HS
None
Kiska Kosakowski
Sonoma Academy
None
Venkataraghavan Krishnan
Cupertino HS
None
Renuka Krishnaswamy
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 9:52 PM PDT
I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 1 year. Definitely a lay judge.
I will be judging based on the abilty to convince me. The round will automatically be won based on substance. (debate).
I'm tech>truth.
I like clash and people explaining why they deserve my ballot.
Impact calc is very important. The link has to be crystal clear, no shakey links.
Framework debates are good, because then I know what to vote for.
I'lll buy any arg that makes sense.
I want to see unique args that set you apart.
I'm not gonna understand theory or k's so dont run them.
*Speaks*
Impress me by looking confident and speaking clearly in a way that is understandable.
27.5 speaks is default
29 is a good round
30 is outstanding.
Despite that good luck, I look forward to judging you.
Here is some more info about how you win my ballot. here
Leslie Kuang
The Golden State Academy
None
Omar Kudsi
SF Waldorf HS
None
Amol Kulkarni
Presentation HS
None
Vinaya Kulkarni
Saratoga HS
None
Atul Kumar
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:12 AM PDT
I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.
I am based out of East Bay, California.
I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).
Manish Kumar
Monta Vista High School
None
Namit Kumar
Cupertino HS
None
Last changed on
Wed January 13, 2021 at 3:08 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and I prefer competitors keeping a slow pace while speaking. I also prefer well-articulated arguments where candidates are getting across their point. The complexity of the arguments is not an issue, as I have a daughter that debates as well. However, I would prefer if they are easier to understand.
I end up weighing the rounds largely based upon the refutations. To get my ballot, refutations should be logical, well-reasoned, and well-presented.
Candidates should also be nice to each other. Not respecting your opponent is a big no-no for me.
Overall, just have fun when you debate!
James Kyle
Nova 42 Academy
None
Alexis Lake
Valley International Prep
None
David Lake
Valley International Prep
None
Iain Lampert
Valley International Prep
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:10 AM CDT
1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.
2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.
3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.
3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.
4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.
5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.
6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.
7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."
Jane Lau
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Lee LaVanway
Valley International Prep
None
Robert Lebeda
De Toledo High School
Last changed on
Tue January 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM PDT
Hello y'all!
It's everyone's favorite time, to read the philosophy of the judge so they can bs their way to winning rounds.
Background:
My background is pretty baller. I did speech for 4 years of high school and was ranked in the state. I did debate for 2 years, mid lay level LD and parli. After I graduated, I started coaching at Chaminade College Prep. To my dismay, they were mostly a policy school. I cried for weeks about this.
I've been the assist head coach there for 2 and half years and now the head coach for the past year. Surprisingly, no one has died. I've now judged rounds of all debate events in California, at almost all levels, except Varsity Policy, because I'm not too masochistic.
Here are some general things, then you can look at event specific things below:
I try my best to not put my beliefs onto the flow. I don't mind any critical arguments, just realize most of you run them wrong/weak links. Don't do that. Be clear and articulate, explain to me how it impacts the round. Don't just say "Dumb judge, I win because of (fancy jargon word)" Explain why you win. If you're going to cross apply, explain how it cross applies. "Cross apply this to all of my contentions because in reality, I have no answers, but want to seem like I didn't drop everything on the flow"
Don't run K's with no clear link. If I feel you've run this K against every aff you've hit, not matter the topic, I won't be happy. Make the link very clear. This comes off as lazy to me.
Speed: I'm alright with speed. Usually by the rebuttal level, I'm fine. I'd say in policy try to go 70% your fastest. LD you can go 80% your fastest. I have yet to have an issue with speed in PF and parli, so don't worry. You'll want to go slower with me, mostly because I tend not to give any indication if I can't understand what you're saying because I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying.
Also, when spreading, there is this thing called enunciating. Do that. I like that.
And in spreading, I know that tends to turn into yelling, try not to do that. As a speech a coach, I feel horrible for your vocal cords that your abusing and misusing. Also, no one likes to be yelled at for an hour.
There's no reason to be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk. Be passionate by all means, but making your opponent cry, or just being a "meanie face" will not make me like you. I will still give you the win in the round, if you won the round, but you can say bye bye speaker award, because your speaks are destroyed. Moral of this story: Win, but let your arguments win, being a jerk doesn't gain you ground on your arguments and it hurts your speaks for me. Being a meanie poo (I'm avoiding curse words, for if some reason my school I work at finds this) isn't educational and won't help you in the real world.
I generally enjoy rounds where the topic and cases are engaged. I'm more of a straight policy/LD person. However, trust me when I say, I'm totally fine with any arguments you want to run, just please make it follow a clear train of logic.
I'm cool with flex prep, if everyone agrees. In the prepared debate events, especially LD and policy, if your opponent is misrepresenting evidence, and you call that out, I love that.
LD:
Yo, LD, I like that event.Since it's LD, I'm a big fan of the values debate. Otherwise just go into policy.
Policy:
If I'm judging a policy round, I'm already crying inside. Don't make those tears turn into a full out sob. Meaning, clearly explain everything, go slow on your tag lines. I won't time "flash" time towards prep, but don't go super slow.
Parli:
I love parli. As a judge, I realize that you've only had 20 minutes of prep. For this reason, unless you cite where you are getting your information, I'll probably assume you're lying.
I'm definitely fine with any critical arguments you want to run. However, I'm not a huge fan of parli in which the topic is ignored entirely. If it's a poorly written topic, call that out, but don't refuse to debate it because you think it's poorly written. If we're getting a resolution on if we need to send aid to the Sahel region, I don't want the aff to come in an talk about how we need to stop oppression in America or an entirely different case for a resolution (unless there is a very clear link to the resolution) Again, if you feel the topic is horribly skewed, explain that in round, but I don't like when the aff comes in with a new topic, It just comes off as lazy and not willing to engage the debate and topic.
Public Forum:
I've never had any issues with speed or anything in Public Forum. Basically, if you're in Public Forum, do you boo. PF you understand me and I love you for that public forum.
Also, because I'm fat, I'm receptive to receiving donuts, cheesecake and fettuccine Alfredo. It won't give you the win, but I'll give me something to cry into during the policy rounds.
David Lee
Desert Vista HS
None
Donald Lee
Monte Vista
None
Sharon Su Yen Lee
ModernBrain
None
Esther Lehr
Yucaipa HS
None
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2020 at 8:44 AM PDT
Parent Judge.
Bin Li
Monta Vista High School
None
Carlo Lim
Monta Vista High School
None
Bing liu
San Marino HS
None
Julia Liu
Monta Vista High School
None
Yong Liu
Monta Vista High School
None
Last changed on
Mon January 27, 2020 at 11:33 AM PDT
Criteria I will use to judge will be how well the contestants are able to present their ideas and if their presentation tie back to their main ideas/points. Although it is a tournament and things get stressful or frustrating at time, I encourage all contestants to try their best and have fun!
Shengyong Lu
Foothill High School
Last changed on
Wed November 17, 2021 at 10:40 AM PDT
I do not have any competitive speaking experience, and I am a parent judge. For IE, I look mostly at delivery and presentation. Please speak clearly especially since this will be online and audio cuts may occur. You've prepared for this for a long time, so please be confident and good luck!
jenna lute
El Dorado HS
None
Trinya Lynn
ModernBrain
None
Lan Ma
Leland High School
None
Yaowu Ma
West Ranch HS
None
Raja Malladi
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Ann Marie Manca
Sacramento Waldorf HS
None
Pushpa Manickam
Cupertino HS
None
Anandhi Manikantan
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri September 10, 2021 at 2:03 AM PDT
Hi, I'm a parent judge and I prefer debaters who speak slowly and clearly. You can run either traditional arguments or progressive such as kritiks. The most important thing that I look for in the debate round is the framework and the impact debate. Most importantly, be respectful and have fun!
Steven Maranowski
Almaden Country Day School
8 rounds
None
Ariane Marie-mitchell
Claremont
Last changed on
Sat September 21, 2019 at 1:19 AM PDT
I am a parent judge who has experience since 2017. For speaker evaluations, I pay attention to basic skills like enunciation, intonation, volume, pacing, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures. For debate, I keep track of arguments and logic presented by each side, as well as whether counter-arguments were persuasive. If appropriate to the debate form, I also consider the strength of the evidence presented by each side. The winner of the debate is the side with the most clearly communicated and defended arguments. I strongly dislike spreading.
Emily Markussen Sorsher
Fullerton Union High School
None
Michelle Martin
Yucaipa HS
None
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:28 PM EDT
Congressional Debate Paradigm:
While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.
Individual Events Paradigm:
I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.
Leilani McHugh
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:42 AM PDT
My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.
I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.
I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.
Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?
Jerusha McRoberts
El Dorado HS
None
Whitney Mecham
The Harker School
None
Nupur Mehrotra
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Wed April 12, 2023 at 5:53 AM PDT
About me:
I mostly end up judging PuFo, so my paradigm is for that.
Judging style: Team
I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.
You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech, if I miss something, I do ask for cards mentioned.
Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. Otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I have a daughter who does policy and LD and she has explained me what it is and how to evaluate it. Feel free to run it with me.
I give a lot of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that.
Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc)
I do take notes so don't try to pull fast ones, chances are I will catch it (Not all the time though)
I like off time roadmap. Helps me be organized.
Judging style: Individual Speaker:
I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down to the lowest.
Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.
General:
Do not try to shake hands.
If you need any clarity on paradigms, more than welcome to ask me before debate on a 1-1 basis or anyways.
Donald Meisenheimer
Davis Independent
None
Alex Mikler
TAF@Saghalie
None
Alwyn Miranda
Presentation HS
None
Jennifer Miranti
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
None
Ashutosh Mishra
Evergreen Valley
None
Meykia Mittag
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
Khaja Moizuddin
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Thu January 31, 2019 at 6:13 AM PDT
Prefer that spreading is avoided in debate round, have a clear topic analysis and structured arguments. Speak clearly.
Bodhi Molinary-Kopelman
Valley International Prep
Last changed on
Fri September 23, 2022 at 10:47 AM PDT
About Me
Hey, my name is Gift (he/him). I competed in high school for three years at Valley International Prep/iLead Noho. During that time, I did both debate and speech. For debate I went to a couple LD, PF, and CX tournaments but mostly did Parli. I also did a bunch of congress. As a speech kid I mostly did OO and DI. Since high school, I've judged here and there and taught both speech and debate. I graduated college with a degree in Geography so bonus points if you appeal to the geography nerd in me.
Debate (General)
- Make sure to explain your framework AND why I should prefer yours over your opponent's.
- Structure is very important for me, please signpost. The easier you make it for me to flow your case, the better I can judge you.
- Please impact out and weigh your arguments.
- It'll likely be better for you if you explain the clash to me rather than letting me try to figure it out during the 5-10 minutes I'm walking to the judge's room and getting yelled at to finish my ballot.
- I'm okay with a little speed, not great with spreading. If you go faster, please make sure you have very clear structure and signposting or you risk me missing your favorite arguments
- I like a concise off-time roadmap
- I think theory can be fun and compelling if it is well explained and justified. If you want it to be a voter, you better have a really good explanation for why it should be.
- I don't flow cross ex
- I won't tolerate any bigotry
- Please be friendly and polite to your opponents.
Madhvi Moona
Monta Vista High School
None
Bob Moore
Valley International Prep
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2018 at 4:13 PM PDT
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.
Belinda Mountjoy
Fullerton Union High School
None
Sateesh Mucharla
Monta Vista High School
None
Raviprasad Mummidi
Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy
None
Rankarajan Nair
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Reggie Nair
Notre Dame HS
None
Saji Nair
Presentation HS
None
Meera Natesan
Monta Vista High School
None
Swarmistha Nath
Monta Vista High School
None
Fernando Neal
Oak Ridge High School
Last changed on
Thu February 7, 2019 at 4:20 AM PDT
Stanford 2019
Finance Leader, MBA, Mechanical Engineer; 1 year debate judge experience and 1st year judging speech.
I will listen for context and watch for delivery. It will be your job to capture the audience and judges interest in your topic using the full range of speech skill sets. I look forward to listening to the various speeches and topics.
geetha neelakandan
Lynbrook HS
None
Brett Nelson
El Dorado HS
None
Emmanuel Nevarez
ModernBrain
None
Kayla Nguyen
ModernBrain
None
Thomas Nguyen
Los Osos HS
Last changed on
Sun October 20, 2019 at 1:39 AM PDT
I am a lay judge. I judged both speech and debate for a couple of years. Make sure to present your cases clearly and at a normal speaking rate. If I don’t understand your logic and evidence links then I can’t vote for you. Have a great debate.
Harneet Nibber
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Wed January 20, 2021 at 1:14 PM PDT
I hope to hear clear speaking and captivating speeches. I also pay attention to eye contact and speaker volume. I have been judging for 3 years.
Deborah Nicholls
El Dorado HS
8 rounds
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:20 AM PDT
I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.
Debate:
In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.
I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.
I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.
If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.
I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.
I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!
Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.
IEs:
These events are my jam. :)
Danielle Nidome
Almaden Country Day School
None
Kieran O'Connor
ModernBrain
None
Tracey O'Rourke
Leland High School
None
Uday Oak
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat September 29, 2018 at 12:20 AM PDT
Judge - Uday
Occupation - Management
School Affiliation - DVHS, San Ramon CA
Years of Judging - Three (events - Expos, Extemp, Oratory)
How will you award speaker points to debates - did not judge debate
What sort of things help you make a decision at end of debate - N/A
Do you take notes for debate - N/A
Rank each using rubric - N/A (did not judge debates)
Lynbrook-Brian Ogata
Lynbrook HS
8 rounds
None
Ertugrul Oner
Leland High School
None
Diane Ortiz
Clovis North High School
None
Shoba Panchatsharam
Kennedy Independent
None
Senthilkumar Pandian
The Golden State Academy
None
Uma Panidapu
The Golden State Academy
None
Jung Park
Nova 42 Academy
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:37 AM PDT
I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.
What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.
Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.
Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.
Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!
Isaiah Parker
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
LaTalya Parrish
American Indian Model School
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 5:24 PM EDT
Novice judge, 1 year of experience in LD, PF, policy on the beginner level.
Not a fan of spreading.
Raquel Pasaylon
Cupertino HS
None
Patience Patchet
Sonoma Academy
None
Praveena Patchipulusu
Mission San Jose HS
None
Aditi Patel
Saratoga HS
None
Falguni Patel
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sat February 6, 2021 at 9:41 AM PDT
This is my 3rd year as a parent debate judge.
I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.
I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line by line, some humor if you're actually funny) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too.
Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.sesss Dddt
Anand Patil
Monta Vista High School
None
Twinkle Patnaik
Presentation HS
None
Abhijit Patra
Saratoga HS
None
Jessica Patterson
Valley International Prep
Last changed on
Thu June 18, 2020 at 6:37 AM PDT
Been judging speech and debate competitions for about 7 years. I'm a theatre teacher, so I tend to gravitate towards IEs. I'm pretty lay when it comes to debate. I've judged enough over the years so that I can follow along with fast speaking, but not with spreading. I really really love it when arguments are clear, contentions are loudly numbered, and definitions are offered to me if the topic has to do with international relations or foreign policies. Be nice to each other.
Ezmy Perez
Columbia HS
None
Lena Petrovic
Picket Fence Academy
8 rounds
None
Giorgi Pilpani
Monta Vista High School
None
Doug Pocrass
Valencia High School
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 11:43 PM PDT
I do not tolerate rudeness. At all.
Frank Javier Polanco
ModernBrain
Last changed on
Wed February 5, 2020 at 2:53 AM PDT
To whom it may concern,
My model is based on a serious of evaluations. As a current college student in communication studies courses, I will use the basic principles of speech learned from the textbook and from professors. Being very observant I will use a grading scale that will be equally used for scoring factors from how the presenter persuades their case to the level of voice for the room. In my own speeches, I've learned that self-control can help keep the contestants focused and find strategies during the thrilling questioning. Please know that I am not an expert but have had the opportunity to judge in a handful of different settings and topics. Most importantly I love judging among all cultures and do not let race or ethnicity be a factor for my winner. I appreciate the opportunity to judge!
Las Positas College Student Government Senator 2019-2020
ICC Representative for the Honor Program Club (Fall 2019/Spring 2020)
Vice President of Camera Club (Spring 2020)
Scholar Member AGS Honor Society (Fall 2019)
AGS Club Member (Spring 2020)
Psychology club member (2019/2020)
-Frank Javier Polanco
Christopher Poole
Sherman Oaks CES
None
Hoi Poon
Cupertino HS
None
Aparna Pophali
Cupertino HS
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 1:19 PM PDT
I don't want you to judge me, so no paradigm. Sorry! :)
Nagendra Prahalad
Presentation HS
None
Satish Premanathan
Monta Vista High School
None
Kerry Radcliffe
El Cerrito
None
Siva Raja
Monte Vista
8 rounds
None
Prasad Rallabandi
The Golden State Academy
None
Hariharan Ramamurthy
The Quarry Lane School
None
Sudhakar Raman
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Ananthakrishna Ramesh
Cupertino HS
None
Leslie Reckler
El Cerrito
None
Sanjeev Redkar
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Wed February 8, 2017 at 3:27 PM PDT
First, I do not believe in spreading. Please do not spread in a round with me. If you want to have better contentions, please choose better evidence, not pack more evidence in.
I am fine with topicality/theory, but do slow down for the interpretation and standards for me to have sufficient time to write it down.
I understand basic kritiks, but please nothing with too high theory. Keep it simple though and make sure to slow down for role of the ballot args and the alt.
The best arguments are the regular plan/CP args. I would prefer these, but feel free to use whatever you want.
If I do not understand the argument or if it is not extended, I will not vote for it. Explain everything thoroughly and focus on content, not amount.
Scott Reimert
Presentation HS
None
Celeste Riley-Norman
Valley International Prep
None
Rizina Rizina
Hawken
None
Eric Roberts
Leland High School
None
Mark Rodocker
Irvington HS
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:56 PM PDT
I have been judging speech events since 2017 and have coached students who focus in Original Oratory, Informative, and Impromptu. Prior to my U.S. high school speech judging experiences, I was professionally trained in pubic speaking in my native language; my career involves a high amount of marketing content development, corporate/executive communications, and public relations.
In speech writing, I look for a clear roadmap, strong arguments backed by research (I don't need to agree with your statistical findings or your conclusion, but your findings should fully support your viewpoints), and pragmatic solutions for issues you identified.
For interpretation events, especially those that compose of multiple literature works, I hope to not feel that the selections are pieced together. In other words, the structure should be logical, cohesive, and seamless.
For speech delivery, I look for genuine emotions that help me relate to the urgency of your topic: why is it important now and why your viewpoints, research, and life experiences are the right ones to help your audience understand it holistically. I also appreciate speakers who are able to present with their unique styles, even if there are parts where further polishing is needed.
Over the years I've heard a good number of strong speakers who sound just like Haris Hosseini or JJ Kapur in one of their NSDA speeches. While I admire these students' technical excellence, I also feel that their speeches inevitably become less personal and less distinctive in my ears. It's a fine balancing act between finding inspiration from great speakers/speeches and developing your unique voice.
Tapashi Roy
Monte Vista
None
Lisa Rozario
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Tue February 2, 2021 at 12:26 PM PDT
I am a lay judge. I will flow your arguments, but please do not go fast as I will not be able to keep track of everything. I will not evaluate progressive arguments. If your opponents are being unfair just tell me why that's the case. Please weigh clearly and present warranting that makes sense. Have fun!
Neeraj Sahejpal
The Golden State Academy
None
Rebel Saint Lilith
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 6:39 AM PDT
I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 2:06 PM PDT
Looking for speakers with exemplary public speaking skills and good vocal variances.
Gina Sanchez
East Mountain HS
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 12:12 PM PDT
Completely fine with spreading and I will keep a detailed flow. No impact calculus or weighing = more difficult for me to vote for you. Don't overcomplicate your arguments especially in the framework debate. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will make me deduct speaker points.
Bijoy Sarkar
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Tyler Sasabuchi
ModernBrain
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 3:45 PM PDT
Hey all,
(non-debaters, see bottom)
I'm a collegiate debater, been doing it for a while. I enjoy debate as a medium to have interesting conversations and pose interesting ideas. That being said, clash is vital. I don't have an issue with anything you want to run, be it a T or a K, just make sure it's clean and well thought out and does have ground.
I also think that debate should be at least moderately tolerable and fun, so wit and humor is good and will help to boost speaker points, but does not mean you don't have to speak well. Most importantly, be polite and respectful, nothing ruins a good debate faster than being overly cocky or disrespectful. In round ya'll try to destroy each other, out of round debate is a dysfunctional family of sorts.
Tl;Dr
+ Ks, Ts, Etc. ok (make 'em good and clean)
+ Clash! Please clash!
+ Be respectful/polite
+ Have fun
+ Wit and humor are great
+ If you manage to run a case that is off the wall crazy but has ground, you'll make my day. (Kritique on case using articles exclusively from The Onion about the amount of false information used by opposing team)
For you individual eventers, not sure if you even need to read this, but why not. In I.E.s I mostly favor clean performances, especially ones focusing on relevant or intriguing topics. I'm open to pretty much anything, just take a deep breath and shoot.
Amy Schelling
El Cerrito
None
William Scott
El Cerrito
None
ron seto
Leland High School
None
Fatima Shabbir
Monte Vista
Last changed on
Sat March 7, 2020 at 12:10 AM PDT
I’ve been judging for a while. My decisions are based of persuasive arguments backed up by evidence. Please, speak slowly and clearly. Good luck!
Homayoon Shahinfar
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Mon May 7, 2018 at 5:33 AM PDT
Background:
I have been competing in debate for six years. I competed in Policy Debate in highschool and then competed in Parli debate in college. I currently compete with Concordia University Irvine. I have been coaching policy, parli, and LD at the middle and highschool level for two years now.
Policy:
I am arguably most comfortable with a policy style of debate, since I’ve done so much of it in both policy and parli. That being said, if you’re not introducing a plan, doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy the debate just as much. If you are introducing a plan, I really wanna make sure you have specific solvency for the plan; don’t just say you’re going to do x thing and then not tell me exactly what that thing does. If you’re passing a bill, give me a summary of what the bill does. As far as counterplans go, I'm fine with any of them. I like PICs. I think that the negative always has the right to introduce a counterplan, as long as it's competitive.
Values:
I really enjoy value debates. But if you’re going to defend a value, you better know REALLY well what that value means. I don’t want to hear you defend deontology and then not know how deontology functions through your contentions and what it means in the framing of the round.
Kritiks:
The tl;dr: I’m good with the K but give me a bit of background on the author you’re reading.
I don’t enjoy the kritik when I’m competing, but I enjoy judging them. I have a lot of experience in kiritical debate and I’ve read a lot of authors and seen a lot of Ks, so I’d like to think I’m pretty well versed. Authors I’ve read that I’d say I’m very comfortable with: Foucault, Baudrillard, hooks, Marx, and Tickner. I’ve read a lot of feminist lit so I’m pretty comfortable with any sort of fem K, and I’ve read a handful of other miscellaneous books as well. That being said, if you’re defending a certain author, be sure to know that author backwards and forwards and be able to explain it to me if I look confused. Approach me like a judge that is good on the K and I’ll keep up, but my non-verbals will tell you if I’m lost. If I’m shaking my head, my head is cocked to the side, or I look confused, please clarify what your thesis is – I haven’t read every book ever and for a lot of Ks I’ll need at least a bit of background. Also, please explain how the alt solves – I don’t care if your alt is political or not, just give me clear solvency for whatever it is.
Theory:
The tl;dr: I love theory and will vote on it if you give me a good reason to.
I was always a theory debater. I think it can be the fastest and best way to win the round for both sides. I will definitely take into consideration any theory coming out of any speech as long as there’s a substantiated reason for it. But if you’re going to run theory, make sure you have a clear interp and competitive standards. I’ve seen and run pretty much every type of theory imaginable so I understand when there’s a reason for it and will have a pretty low threshold if you defend it well – I’ve run theory in the last speech of the round based on what someone did in the speech before me, so I’m willing to vote on something like that – but if you’re gonna go for it, go for it. Collapse to theory or I won’t buy it. I have run RVIs before and I don’t see them as abusive as long as you give a good defense for why this is a situation when I should vote on an RVI. Don’t just tell me “they ran theory so they should lose,” explain how that situation specifically is an abusive use of theory and why that warrants me dropping them. I love condo debates but I don’t necessarily think that condo is good or bad; I vote for the team that makes the better argument on that. As far as speed procedurals go, run them if you think it’s warranted but if you’re gonna run a speed procedural, you better have called clear at least 3 times and the other team has not slowed down. Basically, as long as you give me substantiated abuse on theory I’ll vote on it but if you give me a reasonable explanation of why you’re not being abusive I’m just as likely to vote for you.
IF YOU RUN A K OR PROCEDURAL ABOUT ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, ie TRIGGER WARNINGS BEING ABUSED, I WILL STOP THE ROUND TO MAKE SURE ALL THE DEBATERS FEEL SAFE AND ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE. I don’t want to make anyone feel like they are unsafe when they are debating, so PLEASE bring that to my attention and I will do what I can to make you feel safe.
Things I want to see:
The tl;dr: Clash, impacts, and good impact analysis.
If someone argues something and you drop it; it’s unrefuted offense for the other team and I will consider that in my decision. But I won’t always catch every dropped argument so if you see it, call it out. But make sure you’re directly clashing with your opponents’ points. I like seeing good clash in the round and I’d rather see ya’ll collapse to one argument that has good clash on both sides then to see you stick to your blocks and have the round be like two ships passing in the night.
I also realllllllly want to see good impacts. Explain to me why your arguments matter. If you don’t give me a way to evaluate your arguments against what the other team is saying then that leaves me with a ton of responsibility at the end of the round and I’ll pick the argument I like better. I don’t care how big or small your impact is, just tell me why it matters.
I also really want to see impact analysis at the end of the round. Weigh your impacts on probability, timeframe, magnitude, and probability. I need you to compare your impacts to the other side’s a tell me why I should vote for you (and I much prefer to see that then voting issues since the impacts are what matters).
Miscellaneous stuff:
Be nice. People call me a point fairy and I typically am but I have no problem dropping your speaks if you’re rude in round. I have no tolerance for abusive behavior in round and if you’re a total jerk I’ll drop you.
Speed is fine; I can keep up as long as the other team can, and if I can’t I’ll call clear. And if you're a debater and someone is going too fast for you, please call clear or slow - I won't evaluate an argument about speed unless you attempt to get the other team to slow down first.
If you’re reading an argument about sexual assault, violence, or anything similar, please give a content warning at the beginning of the round so everyone is prepared.
I think debate is a game and I vote for the team that does the best debating, so I try not to have hard and fast opinions on debate. The round is what you make it and I’ll adapt to that unless extenuating circumstances force me to otherwise. Good luck!
Nina Silimon
The Harker School
None
Christine Silva
ModernBrain
None
Manveer Singh
ModernBrain
None
Saloni Sinha
Mira Loma High School
None
Trey Smith
East Mountain HS
None
Sophia Sohn
Velasquez Academy
None
Mookyung Son
Cupertino HS
None
Jose Soto
The Harker School
None
Mauro Sousa
Presentation HS
None
Brandon Spars
Sonoma Academy
8 rounds
None
Shelley Spiegel
Valley International Prep
None
Sudhir Srinivas
Mission San Jose HS
None
Ulaganathan Sriramulu
Presentation HS
None
Mathew Stanley
Milpitas HS
None
Kevin Steeper
Sonoma Academy
Last changed on
Fri November 4, 2016 at 12:15 AM PDT
Most Important Criteria
I'm a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn't respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I'll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won't do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I'm also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you'll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts).
Predispositions
The only thing I'm predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you've been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I'll still vote on it even though I won't want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it's warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative's case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I'd rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren't, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations.
Speed/Jargon/Technical
I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I'm not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don't speed the other team out of the room. If they call "clear" or "slow", slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed.
NOTE: I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It's your debate, it's up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn't a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say.
NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES: Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.
Brandon Stewart
Mission San Jose HS
Last changed on
Sun January 8, 2023 at 3:17 AM PDT
I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.
Debate
1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.
1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.
2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.
2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).
2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.
3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.
3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\
3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.
4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.
4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.
5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.
6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.
Joanne Stowitts
Cajon High School
None
Mark Stowitts
Cajon High School
Last changed on
Thu January 25, 2024 at 1:23 AM PDT
Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA
I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.
LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.
Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.
Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.
In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.
Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.
Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.
Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.
Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.
Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.
Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.
Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.
Priya Sudharsan
Picket Fence Academy
8 rounds
None
Jialing Sun
Amador Valley High School
None
Nadathur Sundar
Monta Vista High School
None
Shashi Suravarapu
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Thu January 7, 2021 at 9:33 AM PDT
I have judged few speech events over the course of last 2-3 years. I am more of the lay judge w/o formal experience as a coach.
I am looking for well thought out and structured, persuasive, convincing, and passionate performances. I am not as much the nit-picker type.
I use a rubric of my own that I use for the various events which I try and grade right through the performance - which I use to arrive at an overall score to make it fair - so that all aspects are individually weighted and accounted for.
Anjana Suresh
Monta Vista High School
None
Dennis Tabofunda
Cupertino HS
None
Last changed on
Sat January 14, 2023 at 3:04 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. Please be sure to make logical arguments and extensions as well as make clear impacts and voters. (I take extremely detailed notes). Also, speaking ability/lay appeal is a very important factor in my decision.
Things that I dislike:
-Poor enunciation and/or a monotone voice
-Any form of discriminatory or hurtful language/argument/action
-Debaters who speak too quietly or spread too quickly
-Any form of circuit debate arguments
Speaker Points:
25 or lower: (Reserved for bad or unprofessional conduct)
26: Below Average
27: Average
28: Above Average
29: Great
30: WOW(not many given)
NOTE: Please smile and have fun! Debate is a fun activity, so please treat it as such.
Rashmi Thirumalachar
Washington High School
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 6:20 AM EDT
I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.
Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.
Jomo Thompson
Aragon High School
None
Jatinder Thukral
Cupertino HS
None
Kevin Thurber
Los Altos High School
None
Julia Timmerman
Rancho Bernardo High School
None
Ajay Tiwari
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Thu October 26, 2023 at 9:06 AM PDT
DVHS Parent for Speech
David Toth
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
None
Grace Towner
Crescenta Valley HS
Last changed on
Sat February 2, 2019 at 12:56 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. This is the first tournament I will be judging.
Gwen Tran
Leland High School
None
hiten trivedi
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Moira Turner
The Harker School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 11:09 PM PDT
I competed in LD and extemp for a few years. I am familiar with both traditional and progressive styles of debate and am not inclined to automatically favor either approach, though I appreciate a good critical argument. I can follow spreading.
I appreciate elaboration on why particular impacts/values are relevant; i.e., if a certain policy would decrease crime, or boost the economy, I want to know why I should care about those things. If aff is more efficient, but neg is more egalitarian, I want to see a weighing mechanism at play; otherwise we are just two ships passing in the night.
If enormous impacts are introduced (i.e., 7 billion people will be plunged into poverty) this is fine, I just need compelling evidence for that claim.
That being said, I am very open to creative arguments and I am more than willing to listen to your unique approaches to the resolution!! I appreciate good framework debate.
The only unwavering expectation I hold is that you engage in good faith. I will never vote for an argument that sexism/racism/abuse is somehow a good thing. Do not attempt to distort your opponent's argument. Abuse is not tolerated.
Be respectful, engage in good faith, and do not let arguments go unanswered. Have fun!
Anant Uttarwar
Evergreen Valley
None
Jessica Uy
Claremont
None
Nicole Vandever
Jesuit High School
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 11:30 PM PDT
I was told there would be chocolate. That's what I'm here for.
Arun Varshney
Cupertino HS
None
Leonardo Vazquez
Milpitas HS
None
Sudheer Vemula
Cupertino HS
None
Vijay Vemuri
Cupertino HS
None
Shashi Vitthal
Saratoga HS
None
Theresa Vu
Evergreen Valley
None
Frances Vuong
San Jose High
None
Bin Wan
The Golden State Academy
None
Jijie Wang
Monta Vista High School
None
Liming Wang
Leland High School
None
Walter Wang
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT
2022 Update
Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!
2021 Update
You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.
2/4/2020
Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!
4/4/2015
I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.
My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.
I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.
Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.
I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.
I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.
Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.
Alex Weingarten
Valley International Prep
None
Galen Wesson
Democracy Prep Harlem Prep High
None
Galen Wesson
Democracy Prep Harlem
None
Terry-Lynn Whitfield
Claremont
None
Rachel Wilczewski
Gresham-Barlow HS
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT
Background
I was a high school and college policy debater in the 1980's. I have taught policy debate for 21 years both in California and Oregon. I have coached several policy teams to nationals. I love this form of debate.
Paradigm
I am a real world policy maker judge, who is somewhat traditional. I look to see who advocates for most viable and beneficial policy. I am a recovering stock issues judge.
What Makes Me Smile
I like to see an organized flow, with lots of analysis connecting evidence to claims. I also like to see a fun spirited debate, where debaters are polite to one another and are in this activity to learn, not just to win.
Speed
I can flow a fast debate, but prefer communication over speed. I find that most policy debaters who spew, can't really handle the speed they are attempting and therefore lose their judge and opponents, ultimately rendering this communication event moot. However, if you must race through your arguments, at least be slow and clear on the tags.
K's
I do not like Kritiks. I will listen to them and weigh them against other arguments on the flow, but overall am not a big fan. If you run a K, make sure to fully explain your philosophical position and don't run positions that will bite your K.
T
I will vote on T if not used as a time suck. "If you run it, go for it, don't kick out of 4 T's in your last rebuttal."
Tag Team CX
I don't mind tag team cx; however, I award speaker points based on your ability to ask and answer questions, so if one partner is "tooling" another, then one of you will suffer point wise. I like to see that both partners are knowledgable about the topic and debate theory and get disgruntled when one partner will not allow the other partner a chance to answer any questions.
Flex Prep
What? Really? No!
Flashtime
I don't count flash time as prep time, unless it becomes ridiculous.
Cheryl Willet
Sonoma Academy
None
Robin Willscheidt
Casady School
None
Hannah Wilson
The Harker School
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 1:31 AM PDT
Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org
It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.
My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.
Policy & LD:
-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.
-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.
-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.
-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.
-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.
-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.
-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.
-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.
Public Forum:
-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.
-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.
Congress:
Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.
Sawyer Wisniewski
El Dorado HS
None
jenn wu
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sun February 7, 2021 at 3:35 PM EDT
Email: jenndwu@gmail.com
I am a parent judge. My child debates in Policy.
Krishna Wudaru
Mission San Jose HS
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 11:20 AM PDT
Hello, I am a parent judge.
Last changed on
Thu October 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM PDT
I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.
Nanlan Xu
Monte Vista
None
Ramesh Yakkali
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Limin Yang
Leland High School
None
Sai Yerraguntla
Monta Vista High School
None
Jun Zhang
Saratoga HS
None
Lu Zhang
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Xiaoming (Misty) Zhang
Mission San Jose HS
None
Li Zheng
Leland High School
None
Qigong Zheng
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Thu February 11, 2021 at 3:42 AM PDT
School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School
About me: Hi, my name is Roy Zheng, and I'm a parent judge who has judged for almost 6 years for my 2 daughters. One competed in Expository Speech all throughout high school, and the other is actively competing in Policy/LD Debate in high school right now.
Judging/Event Types: Policy, PuFo, LD, Speech Events
Speaker points: You can get good speaker points by being confident and having smart, concise arguments that are well-warranted and explained well. Please make sure you respect your opponents as well!
At the end of the debate, I like to look at arguments again and review which side made the best claims and had the best evidence for comparison. Impact weighing during your rebuttal speeches helps me a lot with my decisions too, so please make sure you don't forget to talk about your impacts! I will evaluate any type of impact, as long as you explain it well.
I take notes/flow the entire debate and listen to cross examination.
Feel free to ask me before the round starts if you have any questions. Please be kind and confident, as debate is supposed to be fun and we're all here to learn :-)