GGSA State Quals Debate
2019
—
Union City, CA,
CA/US
PF Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Amit Ahluwalia
Monte Vista
None
Jamal Ahsan
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:47 AM PDT
Very stock parent judge. Believe that speaking is as important as debating, thus strong speaking skills will be rewarded with good speaker points. I try my best to take notes but I’m no expert at flowing. My son does debate and I try to listen in on the arguments he talks about. Truth > Tech.
Cross Ex is a really easy way to win my ballot. If you can poke holes in your opponents arguments whilst clearly and strategically explaining your own arguments I will appreciate it and it makes my job easier. I pay attention to all of the cross exes.
Please don’t spread or even speak too fast. It is important that you know how to speak in a organized but also realistic manner. Spreading means I can’t understand and thus I can’t take note of your arguments.
Impact calculus probably makes judging easier. Even if you’re losing an argument but you can prove why the ones you are winning are more important I will vote for you. These usually sound like “Even if you buy their arguments on economic policy, our climate change argument is more important because.......”
Kendricks Anderson
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed October 9, 2019 at 2:00 AM MST
I currently teach Theater Arts, African American / Latinx American Literature, and English I at Pinole Valley High School. I am looking into teaching Speech and Debate and appreciate the invaluable experience I gain when judging competitions. I tend to defer to the competitors in regard to the pace of the debate and I do not appreciate coaches coaching during the actual debate. Other than that, I think that I am an unbiased, open-minded judge that allows for students to shine by demonstrating their knowledge on the topics being debated.
samta bansal
The Quarry Lane School
Last changed on
Tue September 1, 2020 at 8:15 AM PDT
I am a lay parent judge! Please speak clearly, explain your arguments, and be kind.
Any type of racism, sexism, or other discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated.
Scott Barmmer
Miramonte High School
Last changed on
Mon April 13, 2020 at 8:49 AM PDT
About me: I am an executive in high technology who often presents to large audiences. I am very keen on the speaker skills of the participants. I am a parent judge experienced in PF. I will flow the debate to the best of my abilities.
Speed: Please do not spread. If you speak too fast, I won't understand you and will not be able to credit you with the point being made.
What is important to me:
Support your arguments with evidence and be clear with your reasoning.
Emphasize your most important points and impacts in summary and final focus. This will be the largest factor in my decision.
I prefer clear signposting.
If something important is discovered in cross x make sure you say it in your next speech and I will add it to my flow
Explain your responses and how they refute your opponent’s arguments.
I will be tracking that arguments in final focus were in the summary speech.
Please weigh your impacts so I don't have to do it for you.
Most importantly, please show respect to your fellow competitors and all judges.
Piyush Bhargava
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sun November 11, 2018 at 12:21 AM PDT
Dougherty Valley high school
occupation: management (software engineering)
years of judging: 3 years, mainly public forum
How will you award speaker points to the debaters?
=> Cogent Clear arguments and cross examinations
What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?
=> who presented and rebutted the arguments effectively wins
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? Yes
Rank each using the following rubric:
1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily
Clothing/Appearance: 1
Use of Evidence: 6
Real World Impacts: 8
Cross Examination: 8
Debate skill over truthful arguments: 6
Chandni Bhide
James Logan HS
None
Chance Boreczky
James Logan HS
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:21 AM PDT
C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu
Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.
Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.
Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.
Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.
I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.
Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.
My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.
Sarah Bradley
Piedmont High School
None
DOUGLAS CARLSON
Miramonte High School
None
Michael Devlin
Miramonte High School
None
Josue Flores
James Logan HS
8 rounds
None
Tracy Genesen
Miramonte High School
None
Andy Gill
Miramonte High School
None
Sarah Goulart
James Logan HS
None
Narendra Gupta
Irvington HS
Last changed on
Fri October 9, 2020 at 7:40 PM EDT
This is my fourth year judging parliamentary debate. I'm a flay judge, and I'm tab so I'll probably vote on anything if it's explained well enough. I've been judging for a hot minute so I know my way around structure. Slow down (especially during online tournaments) and let me write the arguments down on my flow, and don't use debate jargon that a regular person wouldn't know. It's your job to explain things to me, so if I don't catch something that's on you. Please give me background about topics and explain your link chain arguments. I will evaluate t shells but I don't know the jargon/structure so please explain fairness arguments well. Do not run kritiks, I do not know what they are and I am not familiar with the philosophy, so you will probably lose if you run them. Perms are fine, I think everything's fine just explain everything. Make my job easy as a judge, don't be rude, and have a fun debate!
Stephen Hlebasko
Redwood High School
None
Casey Hoffman
John Swett HS
None
Jane Holden
Miramonte High School
None
Chad Kapadia
James Logan HS
None
Kishore K Kaparaboyna
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri October 5, 2018 at 12:42 AM PDT
Occupation: Software Engineer
School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School
Years of Judging/Event Types: 2 years, Public Forum
Speaker Points: I award speaker points for clarity, confidence, and the ability to cite evidence (date is preferable if possible). Grand cross can greatly impact your points as it is the last point of direct interaction between the two teams (a.k.a. make sure to participate, do not let your partner do everything)
How to win: Speak clearly and at a comfortable pace so that I can understand your arguments and evaluate them. Take advantage of crossfire. Make sure to prove to me why exactly you are winning the round, especially in the later speeches. Cite all sources used for evidence.
Notes: I try my best to take notes, but I may not write everything down, especially if you go too fast. If something is extremely important (and you want to ensure that I write it down or remember it), make it very clear.
How much I consider certain aspects of the debate (1 is not at all, 5 is somewhat, 10 is considered heavily):
Clothing/Appearance: 1
Use of Evidence: 9
Real world impacts: 5
Cross Examination: 9
Debate skill over truthful arguments: 8
I mainly care about how you are able to prove your points in a certain round, not which arguments they are (I vote based on debater skill). With that being said, the arguments you read should be corroborated with evidence.
Aileen Kazmierowski
Miramonte High School
None
Chuck Kennedy
James Logan HS
None
Junaid Khan
Miramonte High School
Last changed on
Sat November 10, 2018 at 11:57 AM PDT
Occupation: Heart Surgeon
I debated in High School and College and MUN
Have Judged for 8 years, including at Nationals.
For Pufo: I do flow. If you speak too fast and I can not understand you, I can not credit you with the point being made.
I want you to have fun.
I expect you to be respectful to each other.
Subhash Kodnad
The Quarry Lane School
Last changed on
Sat September 19, 2020 at 4:13 PM PDT
Please speak clearly and do not go too fast. I am a parent judge, but I do understand content well as long as it is explained well in all of your speeches.
Please specify your contentions and impacts very clearly in your constructives and make sure to explain the entire argument that you are going for in summary/final focus.
Please do not go for all of your arguments in later speeches. Also, do not make claims without giving a reason as to why it may be true.
Do not make any responses to your opponents’ case if it is not explained properly.
Do not misconstrue your evidence or your speaker points will be deducted.
Have a good round!
Raj Kotadia
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Wed November 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM PDT
I am a sales director for microchips. I am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged public forum and parli for 3 years, however it was mostly novice. Speaking ability is a big factor in my voting. The winning team will almost always have better speaking ability and higher speaker points than the losing team. I flow arguments based on how much I can understand them, meaning I do not flow arguments that are spread.
Clothing and appearance: 6/10. I appreciate debaters looking prepared.
Use of evidence: 7/10. Cards are an important part of any debate. I prefer honest research and not blatantly biased sources.
Real World Impacts: 9/10 I will vote on any argument with some truth to it if it is explained to me logically. Impacts that are blown way out of proportion will not sway me.
Crossfire:9/10 I like crossfire as a method of measuring how much a case truly stands.
Truth/Tech: 10/10 Truth>Tech in every round. If the argument is untrue, the opponent not responding to it does not mean I will weigh the argument on your side.
Sunita Kotapati
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat September 29, 2018 at 1:04 AM PDT
I am a parent judge affiliated with Dougherty Valley High School, and I have about 1 year of judging experience in LD. I will award speaker points in the round based on your speed, clarity, and politeness. I will try to make fair decisions based on my flow taken from the round. Here's how I'll weigh the round (on a scale of 1-10).
- I don't really care about your appearance, but any inappropriate clothing will be reflected in your speaker points. (1)
- As for arguments, I prefer traditional arguments over progressive ones; try to restrict yourselves to advantages on aff and disads and counterplans on neg. I do not prefer theory or kritiks. (10)
- I value carded evidence over any analytics made in round. (9)
- Application of impacts are very important, the round will be weighed heavily on your ability to do impact calculus against your opponents. (10)
- Cross examination is an important part of the round, and performance in it as well as any references or concessions made in it will affect my decision. (7)
- I prefer your skill in debate over the truthful arguments that you may make. Although the truth in your contentions will play a role in determining the outcome of the debate, you should strike a balance in the two areas. (5)
Lastly, I will go over speaker points. I prefer slow to moderate speed in speaking, enunciation of your case, and politeness to the other speaker. Remember that although debate may be a highly competitive activity, it is an educational environment and it should be treated in that manner.
Wellen Lau
Monte Vista
None
Shu Li
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Tue January 22, 2019 at 12:27 PM PDT
Hello All,
Background
I am a software engineer at Ellie Mae. I judge for Dougherty Valley, this is my first year judging so Public Forum, as well as all other speech and debate events, are very new. As a heads-up, "flowing" is a foreign concept for me so if I do take notes throughout the debate it may not be in the format you are used to seeing.
Speaker Points
I will most likely give you 27-29 if you:
a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments as you go.
b) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks.
c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I have no background in debate nor in the topic so make sure that you put things in terms that I can understand. This means if you use debate terminology you will probably need to explain what it means for me to actually consider it.
Decisions
I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can. I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me. Additionally, because I'm not familiar with the topic, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.
Other
Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this will also be weighted heavily. If your impacts do not show me why a normal person like me should care, then I will probably be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.
Remember to have fun, good luck!
Tanya Litvinova
Monte Vista
None
Hanbin Liu
Miramonte High School
None
Senthil kumar Madasamy
Amador Valley High School
None
Vinita Malik
Amador Valley High School
None
Latika Malkani
Miramonte High School
Last changed on
Sat March 6, 2021 at 4:56 AM PDT
Parent judge. Fifth year judging; Fourth year judging PuFo. I take judging seriously and try to include detailed notes in my ballots and to issue RFD based on what I'm able to flow. I do not consider anything not raised in the debate. I appreciate a roadmap & solid organization. Typical PuFo speed of speech is fine, but if you talk too fast, then I may be unable to follow your arguments--please no spreading or very fast speech. Thank you!
Anup Mehta
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 11:07 PM PDT
Congress: I'm looking for a deep understanding of the topic, regardless of the event and its understanding "requirement." I appreciate well-structured arguments which tie into the debate and topic well. Uniqueness of claim(s) is important, rehash is looked down upon. Being able to articulate/defend the claim is just as important as the evidence itself. There should be a strong willingness to refute/provide substantial arguments in opposition of the other side.
PF: I’m a parent judge so if you could speak slow, I’d appreciate it. Really break down the topic for me, don’t depend on debate jargon to win my ballot. I need to be able to understand your arguments
Jaya Mitra
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Ron Niland
Monte Vista
None
Ethan O'Rafferty
Bishop O'Dowd High School
Last changed on
Fri March 6, 2020 at 3:51 AM PDT
I've been a lay judge for 5 years, so by now understand many concepts of flow and take many notes, but I don't keep track of every argument and counterargument nearly as closely and skillfully as what you'd consider a true flow judge. Nonetheless, I don't mind if you speak quickly.
I appreciate aggressive argument but don't appreciate disrespect of the other team, such as snickering at or mocking them under your breath while they are speaking.
Pushpa Pamidimukkala
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Wed November 14, 2018 at 1:06 PM PDT
Occupation: Computer Engineer
School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School
Years of Judging/Event Types: I do not consider myself an experienced judge, but I have judge Public Forum, Parli, and Policy at a few tournaments over the past two years.
Speaker Points: I understand things only when spoken clearly and at an understandable speed. I will award speaker points based on how well I understand what you are saying,
Voters: I will vote off of things that you clearly depict to me that you have won in your last few speeches. Make everything as clear as possible please!
Flowing: I try my best to note down what I can. I cannot promise an organized flow, but I do take notes.
Clothing/Appearance: Just dress appropriately!
Real World Impacts: I will often weigh impacts based on what I think has a bigger magnitude, but please don't run things that are out of proportion as I will view them as having close to no probability of occurring.
Cross Examination: Be respectful! I do not like when people don't let others finish talking or talk over them.
Sam Roberson
Pinole Valley HS
None
Tapashi Roy
Monte Vista
None
Ramei Sani-Grosso
Miramonte High School
None
Animikh Sen
The Quarry Lane School
Last changed on
Sat February 16, 2019 at 5:01 AM EDT
I am a lay judge but I am not dumb. Speak slowly and clearly and please do not introduce new arguments or evidence in Final Focus.
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!
Faraz Siddiqui
James Logan HS
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2020 at 1:38 PM PDT
Be respectful not just the way you speak to opposition, but also in your facial expressions and body language i.e. avoid cutting off. Be clear and concise when speaking. Rather see the depth of your argument than the quantity of your arguments.
Patrick Sutherland
Monte Vista
None
Jon Thorpe
Bishop O'Dowd High School
None
Rajan Wadhwa
Monte Vista
None
William Windsor
Irvington HS
Last changed on
Sun November 11, 2018 at 6:21 AM PDT
I debated Policy Debate for two years at Maine Township High School South in the metropolitan Chicago area. In my senior year, my partner and I won Third Place in the state of Illinois, in the NFL Policy Debate State Championship Tournament that year. I work in the electronics industry, and I assist in debate coaching at Irvington High School in Fremont, CA. This is my fifth year judging Policy, Parliamentary, and Lincoln-Douglas debates.
I am a flow judge; I definitely prioritize depth of analysis over spread.
I prioritize four key debate criteria:
(1) Clarity.
Clarity of presentation, clarity of logic applied to the debate. Clear articulation and enunciation are paramount for intelligibility and comprehensibility.
(2) Depth of Analysis.
Analyze the logical foundation of the arguments: strengthen the foundations of your team's arguments, challenge the foundations and assumptions of your opponents' arguments. In Policy debate: argue harm, significance, inherency, and advantages/disadvantages.
(3) Show Impact.
Show why your arguments are the most important for the debate resolution, and why your arguments are more important than your opponents' arguments. Show why your evidence and references are more logically substantiated and thorough than your opponents'. Prioritize your arguments, and rank your arguments in order of importance. In rebuttals, rank the most important arguments in the debate as a whole; show why your arguments are more important and impactful.
(4) Clash.
Directly address the opposing team's arguments. Show why your arguments are superior to your opponents' arguments.
Additional Notes -- other debate strategies and methodologies are fine: frameworks, counterplans, topicality, etc. Make sure that these arguments are important and impactful to the resolution, with strong analytical reasoning, and with evidential support where applicable. I think frameworks are good and map to real-world professional decision-making.
Kritiks that directly relate to the resolution are fine: for example, philosophy of law applied to the resolution, philosophy of reason applied to the resolution. But please note: I am highly suspect of Case Ks, having judged some Case Ks where it seemed the students were just yelling about stuff.
Guifan Zhang
Monte Vista
None
Jinsong Zhang
Monte Vista
None
Ray Zhu
Irvington HS
None