Tabroom.com

James Logan Martin Luther King Jr Invitational

2021 — Online, CA/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Raffaela Baker Woodcreek High School 4 rounds

Vinod Balakrishnan Cupertino High School 2 rounds

Lakshmi Balusu Archbishop Mitty

Mushtaq Bapoo Cupertino High School 3 rounds

Chase Bezonsky Saint Francis High School 2 rounds

Laxminarayan Bhat Cupertino High School 5 rounds

Seema Bhat Cupertino High School 5 rounds

Rajesh Bhima Mission San Jose High School 3 rounds

Dayanand Bhojak Monta Vista High School 5 rounds

Prashant Billore Archbishop Mitty 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 17, 2021 at 10:19 AM PDT

Lincoln Douglas/Parli/Policy: My judging style is mainly technical e.g. clear refutation of opponents' arguments in NR and AR is very important. And explicit extension of your own arguments (if they survive) in AR and 2NR. I do not look into factual accuracy or the credibility of the evidence provided. It is the opponent's job to point out factual inaccuracy and/or weakness or lack of evidence. For example, if a debater says that the earth is flat and their opponent do not refute it then it stands. Similarly, if a debater provides evidence for plants which can walk and their opponent does not find a weakness in that evidence then it stands.

The debate is between the two players and I am a bystander.

Also, I am okay with fast or slow pace. Finally, I try hard to avoid taking speaking ability and poise into consideration. Implicitly sometimes they may bias me though.

Impromptu:

Here are the aspects I used for my judging

* Relevance to the topic and depth of understanding of the topic - In some cases I notice that participants use prepared content and force fit into the topic. I suggest taking some time and thinking about the connection deeply so that you can make it believable.

* Drawing attention through a story - Showing some vulnerability in the story helps to make a connection

* Facial expressions - I would love to see more of that. A smile or a sense of joy or other emotions when displayed in a natural way (not forced or dramatic) can go a long way in improving your rankings. Be yourself and let your face to speak it.

* Hand gestures and use of stage - Sometimes they come off as robotic or forced. If you feel the topic and allow your body to express the topic, the hand gestures and stage usage will look natural naturally :)

* Being natural and speaking from the heart as opposed to dramatizing and trying to act (e.g. like a news reporter persona) - I am a big fan of authenticity. Speak from the heart, even if you make a mistake or stumble will make a strong impression. Often speakers follow a persona to stay focused on the topic. I suggest experimenting away from that strategy

* Strong finish - Speech is not done until it is done. Many times speakers think of the ending as an epilogue or summary. Ending is important as that's when the judges are taking one more look at your ranking. Save something amazing or inspiring or interesting for the end. Keep the summary of the entire speech as ending as a plan B (it works) but try to do something better than that.

Lisa Botwinik Woodcreek High School 2 rounds

Natasha Calilung Hired Judge 6 rounds

Omar Celestial Angelo Rodriquez High School 6 rounds None

Chelsea Chen Notre Dame San Jose 2 rounds

Christen Cioffi James Logan High School 4 rounds

Zach Crawford James Logan High School 4 rounds

Maribelle Cruz Notre Dame San Jose 6 rounds

Huixiong Dai Leland High School 3 rounds

Sandeep Dalmia Bellarmine College Preparatory

Bethany Davis Archbishop Mitty 4 rounds

Sudhin Domala Mountain House High School 2 rounds None

Amulya Donthi James Logan High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 3, 2022 at 2:02 AM PDT

Hello!

I’m very excited to be judging you today. I competed for 4+ years in a variety of events, but mainly PF, Congress, and speech events like OI, Expos, and Extemp. In college, I competed for 3 years on the collegiate Model UN circuit. As for my judging history, I’ve judged regularly ever since I graduated high school and have had the opportunity to judge most events. Here are a couple things that I look for:

Debaters: I like off-time roadmaps, it helps with signposting and keeps my flow clean. I do flow and keep track of arguments and evidence but that doesn’t mean you can disregard speaking style, eloquence, etc. The winner of a round should be the better speaker AND have the best arguments. Make sure you’re impacting your arguments and carry these impacts throughout the round. It makes my job a lot easier and then I won’t consider them as dropped. If you have a standard or value criterion, make sure to tie back your arguments to it (it should act as a thesis to your arguments). If you do not have a standard/VC and your opponent does, I will be forced to weigh the round on their standard unless you give me promising reasons why I shouldn’t. When I was debating, I used to be able to keep up with full speed spreading. I can no longer do this so please do not spread. You may speak quickly but if I’m not able to keep up on the flow, I’m going to miss your arguments and it will only hurt you. I don’t understand theory shells, Ks, or any other obscure parts of debate. Do not include them in your speeches because I will disregard them. Be kind and respectful during CX. I really hate when people consistently talk over others or end up yelling in rounds. You can have the same debate respectfully and calmly.

Speech: Make sure you’re staying in time and do not overly dramatize parts of your speech. For extempers, try your best to dedicate equal amounts of time to each of your points and be clear with your transitions.

Above all, please just be mature, respectful, and have fun!

Gokul Donthi James Logan High School 2 rounds

Xiaogang Du Monta Vista High School 5 rounds

ANANT DURGUDE Monte Vista 3 rounds

Ram Dwivedula Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Ingrid Eliasson Mountain House High School 2 rounds

Madyson Frank Hired Judge 6 rounds

Buvana Ganesh Notre Dame San Jose 4 rounds

Georgie George Monta Vista High School 5 rounds

Sara Gewirtz Amador Valley High School 4 rounds

Kelsey Glenn James Logan High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 15, 2021 at 5:14 PM PDT

Former LD/PF coach @ James Logan (2018-2020)

Update 1/16/21 for MLK: No longer actively involved in debate, haven't judged since NSDA 2020. Paradigm below was written in late 2019. Likely that not much has changed but my pen and ears are rusty and I haven't followed current topics or meta developments, so do with that information what you will.

~~~~~

My experience: Debated on the LD circuit from 2008-2012, returned to debate as a coach in 2018. Debate has changed a lot in the years I've been gone, and I rarely get the chance to judge progressive rounds, so I may have a higher than average expectation of explanation for common positions/interpretations.

As a debater I generally ran stock, wholerez arguments and tended towards simple FW/case debate. I ran my fair share of off-case positions as well, but I've never been especially well-read so don't expect me to know your lit.

Most of my experience was from a meta shifting from truth-testing to comparative worlds paradigms. While I'm fine adopting another paradigm (e.g. LARPing) if you want me to, I may not handle some nuanced situations perfectly and may be a bit out of touch on current conventions.

Generally tech > truth. I'll vote on pretty much anything if you tell me how I'm supposed to. I see the role and function of my ballot as open to debate. In the absence of an explicit statement or obvious agreement (e.g. everyone's LARPing, competing K's with implied precedence, etc.), I will default to a comparative worlds paradigm.

Some miscellaneous things:

- Most speed is fine, but I don't judge fast rounds often anymore so clear signposting is very important to me. If your speed is elite you may need to cut back a bit. I will only call "clear" 1-2 times.

- I'm particularly bad at flowing theory, so definitely slow down a bit and make your interp and standards clear.

- I base speaks primarily on strategy and clarity. Issue selection, efficiency, weighing and crystallization = 28.5+

- I may not accept extensions without re-articulation of warrants, even on drops.

- I expect PF summary speakers to extend both case and refutations. I won't extend arguments into FF that weren't in summary.

Saran Gopalakrishnan Amador Valley High School 2 rounds None

Kyler Groner Saint Francis High School 6 rounds

Hugh Holbrook Palo Alto High School 4 rounds

Pichang Hsu Archbishop Mitty 2 rounds None

Brian Hui James Logan High School 4 rounds

Curtis Jefferson Hired Judge 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 1:15 AM PDT

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

Jenny Jin Monta Vista High School 5 rounds

Magnus Johansson Monte Vista 3 rounds

Prajakta Joshi Palo Alto High School 4 rounds None

MICHAEL Kang Monte Vista 3 rounds None

Roxanna Keyani Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Kylee Kim Archbishop Mitty

Tanay Krishna Palo Alto High School 4 rounds None

Tanish Kumar Archbishop Mitty 6 rounds

Varun Kumar Monte Vista 3 rounds

Brian Kuwahara Monte Vista 1 rounds None

Stephanie Lee Palo Alto High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 12:17 PM PDT

Mainly did interps (DI DUO OPP) and some debate (LD) in high school (Palo Alto, 2018). Qualified to a few things. APDA in college (Johns Hopkins, 2022) for a semester, left team due to time constraints. Now I coach interps for Paly. Add me to the email chain: stephaniekaelee@gmail.com. Pronouns: She/her/hers.

Debate:

General:

- Signpost please. If you don't I'll assume you're going off/on case and doing line by line.

- I flow on paper. If my pen is down/if I'm staring at you, I'm not writing anything down — whatever you say will not be evaluated.

- I'm pretty non-interventional. Walk me through your arguments, voters, and weigh (plz). I vote on voters and crystallization. However, I'm a sucker for warranting and clash and may vote on line by lines over voters if it's well done.

- Don't use your evidence as a crutch - tbh well-warranted & impacted args are king and I'll probably vote on that over evidence with okay warranting & impact.

- Speed is fine as long as it's not spreading. If you spread I will k word your speaks.

- Don't expect me to take existential impacts seriously, unless your links are very strong and it's topical.

LD-Specific:

- Treat me like a lay judge because I haven't done high school debate in over six years and APDA isn't super techy compared to circuit LD.

- Kind of goes without saying but I don't tolerate dumping/other abuse (especially 2A).

- I'm okay with CPs. Read them if you want — they won't affect speaks.

- Values debate is cool, but it's annoying when your values are justice/equality/morality/etc etc. If they're all pretty similar, save everyone some time and skip it. Unless it's a key voter and you and your opp have very different V/VC, I don't care.

Speech:

- Trigger warn the whole room - this is a good practice to do in general.

- Ask for signals if you need them.

- Don't stonewall, that's not fun and it's toxic. Audience reactions are independent of my rankings, but I will note if you are a bad audience member.

Finally, be respectful and decent. If you are sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic etc., I will not hesitate to destroy your speaks.

On another note, if you make a TikTok reference in one of your speeches I'd probably feel genuine happiness for the first time since March.

Ashley Li Amador Valley High School 4 rounds

Jie Liu Palo Alto High School 2 rounds None

denise Lloyd Notre Dame San Jose 2 rounds

Revatha Loghashankar Cupertino High School 3 rounds

Wesley Loofbourrow Hired Judge 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Ashok Mathew American High 6 rounds

Brianna McGee Hired Judge 6 rounds

William McGregor Mission Vista High School 4 rounds

Sreekanth Menon Palo Alto High School 2 rounds

Jayanto Minocha Saratoga HS 4 rounds

Sekhar Narayanaswami Palo Alto High School

Ashley Nguyen Brentwood School 4 rounds

Denis Nishihara Woodcreek High School 4 rounds None

Ash Olakangil Bellarmine College Preparatory 2 rounds None

Richard Oyen James Logan High School 6 rounds None

Shrina Pandey Granite Bay High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 14, 2021 at 9:55 AM PDT

I'm currently attending UC Berkeley but I competed in PF throughout high school while occasionally dabbling in LD, Parli, Extemp Debate, World Schools, and Congress. My speech experience involves Duo, Impromptu, IX, POI, OPP, & NX although the latter 3 were my main focus along with PF. I assure you I am capable and genuinely excited to judge you all regardless of the event. Speech and debate will always have a special place in my heart.

Recognizing that this isn't meant to be my life story let's get straight to the point.

1. Please be respectful. This cannot be emphasized enough.

2. I do not discriminate based on your speaking style. Some people are more effective when they speak faster and cover larger ground while others chose a rhetorical, big picture approach. Over time you may find a style that works better, but I would warn you that adapting to your circumstances is still key and will likely influence most judges including myself.

3. I don't mind if you spread but let me be clear; your opponents must consent to this, and I would like for you to flash your case so that I don't miss important details (this will likely work in your favor because my flow may be imperfect otherwise)

4. Organization is important. This includes verbal organization such as tag lining and signposting (especially in the last few speeches).

5. Weigh the arguments yourself. I find myself unsatisfied when debaters provide great argumentation in their constructive and rebuttal speeches but then fail to do the most important part- analysis, warranting, and weighing. I will not make any conclusions for you as I expect this to be your job as a debater, especially in your final speech.

6. You can assume I will be a tabula rasa. If I hear the occasional quizzical argument I may or may not be sympathetic based on your opponents' responses. There are just some arguments that are flat-out higgledy-piggledy, and even then I will always say that I remain open to listening to your warranting. Fair warning: you will certainly have to do extra work to vindicate any such argument for me to vote on it. Similarly, running a K or T-shell is fair but you will have to clearly reason every part.

7. Extend your arguments. It feels weird to vote off something that missed half the debate and reappeared in the last speech.

8. State card names clearly. When extending cards, give at least a small explanation for why it applies.

9. If you're in LD having a framework is consequential to every debate, although it is also helpful in PF and Parli to clarify your lense (especially when weighing arguments in later speeches)

10. I will be fair and standardized when I assign speaker points.

11. At the end of the day, I always remind debaters to take each round and every tournament as a learning opportunity and I assure you the experience will be far more enjoyable. I look forward to meeting you in the round.

Nithiyakumar Parameswaran Monte Vista 3 rounds

Ann Philip Monta Vista High School 5 rounds

Anitha Rajesh Los Altos High School 4 rounds

Anupriya Ramraj Granite Bay High School 3 rounds

Deepak Rangarao Amador Valley High School 4 rounds None

Patricia Reynolds Bellarmine College Preparatory 4 rounds

Ruchi Sahgal Monte Vista None

Veronica Samaniego Hired Judge 6 rounds

Meenu Sharma Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Sanjay Sharma Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Puja Singhal Cupertino High School 2 rounds

Bob Sinha Monte Vista 1 rounds None

Dr. Nicky Smith James Logan High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:07 AM PDT

I keep meeting fellow folks in the debate community with my same conditions (migraines, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, chronic spinal pain, neurodivergent and on). I created this doc with stuff that's helped https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYS4o8JEqE0N1BO-HsaDUEzNz_Ck-gFt4P5jK2WzPT4/edit

& a podcast for my fellow migraineur/chronic pain/chronic illness debaters https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Tk0Pr7MM61JNWFH7RTVtZ?si=DoOOrI8FQr2nrTh3JHW9Sw

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

Please email me the speech docs before your first speech & any evidence read after each rebuttal (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.com if you sent it we’re good, no need to ask a bunch if I got it (internets slow at tourneys but it eventually works:)

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. Nicky is fine:). If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

Anand Sridharan Mission San Jose High School 3 rounds

Venkatraman Srinivasan Prospect High School 4 rounds

Jialing Sun Amador Valley High School 2 rounds None

Jeffrey-David Swift Holy Cross School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 7:35 AM CDT

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

Nuveria Tajammul Hired Judge 6 rounds

James Tak Monte Vista 3 rounds

Jianyong Tang Monta Vista High School 6 rounds

Danica Tanquilut James Logan High School 6 rounds

Kate Totz Brentwood School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 5:15 AM CDT

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Alexander Tran Woodcreek High School 3 rounds

Mariah Turner James Logan High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 12, 2021 at 7:07 PM CDT

Former Public Forum debater and TOC competitor. I will be flowing the round and giving a verbal RFD after the round so long as both teams agree.

My personal preferences Value Criterion:

1) A fully formed argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. At the end of the round, only the impacts of complete arguments will be assessed. If your opponent points out logical flaws in your argument structure or presents a strong counter-warrant to your claim, you will need to disprove or counter their logic if you want access to the argument at the end of the debate. You cannot extend an argument if you have not responded to your opponent’s counterarguments

2) Logic and tangible impacts are more important than cards. You can present 100 cards worth of evidence but if your cards don’t link to an impact then they won’t really matter at the end of the debate. Impacts are tangible to the extent that they can be reasonably quantified (e.g. number of lives saved, dollars saved, etc.) See Peet Peeves #1 for additional commentary

3) At the end of the day, you need to convince me that your side is worth voting for, not just that your opponents are wrong. The debate is not about arguing with your opponents, it’s about persuading me as the judge. If you succeed in doing this, the RFD should write itself and I should have to think very little about which side won the debate. If I have to invoke my own logic and weighting mechanisms to decide a winner, then neither team successfully convinced me to vote for them

Things I’m okay with:

1) Speed to a reasonable degree

2) Arguments of any type so long as they aren’t inherently or implicitly racist, sexist, or discriminatory

Pet peeves / things to avoid:

1) A card is not an argument. If there are no/poor links between your cards and your impacts, I will give the quality of the card very little weight regardless of how strong it is on a standalone basis. Only cards that can link to articulated impacts will matter

2) This is a civil event so there is no need to bully or be rude to your opponents even if you think that you’re a better team than they are. If I find your tone or behavior to be condensing in any way I will dock down your speaker points without hesitation

3) On a similar note, there’s no need to shout over or interrupt your opponents when they are speaking during CX. If, however, you believe that they are using CX time to give an addendum to their speech or are avoiding answering your questions, politely remind them to wrap it up

4) My RFD is not up for debate. I’m okay with being asked to elaborate on my RFD and how I weighed arguments, but I’m not going to go back and forth with anyone about my decision

5) When in-person competition resumes, I prefer not to shake hands with competitors. Shaking my hand will not earn you higher speaker points or my ballot

Jake Van Leerdam Woodcreek High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 9, 2021 at 3:09 PM PDT

Hi!

For background, I've competed in three years of high school debate (PF/Parli and minimal LD/Congress, no Policy experience). In debate, I consider both the arguments and their delivery, ultimately voting based upon which side more amply persuaded me of their argument.

I look specifically for clash and the weight of each side's impacts. I expect that value debaters will uphold their value and value-criterion by connecting their contentions to them, and by refuting their opponents' contentions and/or framework. I will not accept counterplans outside of policy debate if they do not abide by the rules of the debate style (though I know that general solutions are allowed!)

It is safe to assume that I know nothing about your topic which may require you to further explain more intricate arguments and refutations, and, in a similar vein, I encourage you to be explicit within most areas of the debate; voting issues, refutations, etc. When explaining your arguments, it's fair to treat me like a lay judge- I won't get offended! This is especially true if you are running a K because I have little experience with them, though I warn you that no matter what, overly generic K's (as well as ones that essentially boil down to "debate bad") are difficult for me to get behind.

While I often place more emphasis on argumentation than delivery when voting, it does play a part in the decision. Please be courteous to one another (I'm okay with aggression in debate, but value courtesy) and ensure that I can understand your rate of speaking. If you're speaking too fast, I will let you know!

As a disclaimer, I will not vote for teams whose argument is that oppression/discrimination (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) or death is actually good. I also don't mind if you don't define things like ought or should if they won't add to your case/the debate.

TLDR: I judge based on both arguments and presentation, I do know debate lingo but ask competitors to speak slower and explain any intricate points. Have fun, everyone! Drink water! :]

Isha Vashishtha Monta Vista High School 5 rounds

Venkat Vasudevan Granite Bay High School 4 rounds None

Vamsi Velidandla Leland High School 3 rounds

Roberto Villagomez Hired Judge 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 17, 2021 at 1:22 PM PDT

I am a Varsity Policy Debater for Southwestern College. I am currently a Psychology Major going to SDSU (No I don't compete for them, I like policy more than Parley :/ )

However, please do not change your style of debate to make it more policy debate friendly, DO YOUR THING! I will do my best to keep up!

So, with that said, I can flow pretty well. You are more than welcome to run any single argument you would like in whatever performative method you find best! Trust that I will be able to keep up and give good feedback!

I have judged for many high school tournaments. I have judged speech, impromptu, parley, policy, LD, PF, and Congress.

Below I am going to give my opinion on several argument types, however, while I may like some argument types more than others, I will always remain unbiased during rounds. So as much as I love K debate, you can still lose to framework or T.

T- I find T debates FASCINATING. They reveal the nuances behind the debate give debaters a chance to really show their intellectual capacity in being able to debate abstract concepts and articulate them in their own manner. I do however find T to be a little lazy. especially when against a K aff, because they are more often than not untopical, but a good T debate on a policy aff is always exciting to see, a good impact calculus on fairness can definitely win my ballot. Also,TVA's are one of my favorite arguments (I never run it, I just find them hilarious), so if you can manage to win why being topical is good, what it prevents, and how a TVA solves any of the 1AC's impacts + does not link to T impacts, you get my ballot.

DA- No strong opinions on DA's. I run them very often because turning a DA into a K creates a debate around the alt and whether or not it solves the impact and sidesteps the discussion of the link and the impact, which is pretty boring. Nonetheless, love a good DA with strong links and clear and succinct impact calculus.

CP- I LOVE a good counter-plan debate, its essentially an affirmative vs affirmative debate, except the neg team has more offense on the aff team, but suffers a lack of case solvency and defense. It showcases whether the affirmative can articulate its solvency whilst also creating offense on the spot in the debate, whilst also highlighting the negs ability to not only make good presump arguments, but also the 3rd option for me to prefer which, albeit, makes my job harder is much more enjoyable to watch.

Framework- My feelings to framework are similar to T, I find FW debates against K affs lazy, but sometimes I understand that is what some debaters are comfortable with and genuinely believe and are passionate about. I don't auto-vote framework and do not auto-vote on K's, I won't fill in any blanks for you on framework arguments so make sure you are CLEAR and ARTICULATE about what your interpretation of debate should be, why I should prefer it, why it's best for debate, what the other team did to violate it, and (in my opinion, the most important aspect of FW argument.) WHY I SHOULD CARE. Give me a clear argument as to why I as a judge matter, what my ballot signifies, and what happens if I don't vote for you. Framework is a particularly difficult argument to run, it takes a very skilled and well-rounded debater, but if you fit the above criteria then I will more than likely vote for you.

K- My absolute favorite argument style in the te. K's are incredibly informative about the way society functions in one-dimensional ways and how the assumptions we make about everyday activities should constantly be under strict scrutiny. K's are incredibly difficult (especially for a high schooler), they require a vast knowledge of the literature, well-articulated link arguments, clear impacts, and an alternative that is viable, solves, and does not link to aff offense. I love running K's and going against K's but that does not mean I will give you any leeway. I don't auto-vote K's much like I do not auto-vote FW or T.

Policy Affs- Not much to say here, good policy debaters have won NDT. Trust your case, extend it, show me why I should vote for you, and make sure to answer line by line so that nothing is conceded that may implicate the aff plan.

K affs- I run a K Affirmative as a policy debater, so I already know you are more than capable of answering T and FW, however,you can still lose to them so make sure you answer every aspect of the argument not just why their interpretation is bad. K affs are always very engaging (and if performative, all the more enjoyable to watch and learn). Trust your case, explain to me how you solve itnd why my ballot is important, especially when having FW, T, CP's, and TVA's thrown at you. You need to tell me why my ballot means something and how that translates to your harms being solved and why it's important that we debate about this. Bonus points: K affs are difficult to run at this level, but if you manage to describe to me why your K aff is important, why you as debaters performing the k aff is important, and why the debate that you are having right now with my ballot pushes us int he right direction, you will more than likely get my ballot.

Voter Issue arguments- If a particularly egregious event happens in the debate round, I typically give 90% leeway to the team that suffered the action, so it does not take much, but you still need to explain to me how it was bad for debate and why my vote is going to stop it (saying "the negative team misgendered me and this is bad for debate because _____ and your vote prevents this because _____" will work fine.)

Speaker points are given based on performance whilst giving speeches and during Cross-Examination. Nothing you say before or after rounds will affect your score. Charisma, effort, and conviction are preferred over bravado or aggression.

LASTLY: Do your thang. Be yourself. Do you boo boo. I will be able to keep the flow as organized as I can, signposts and roadmaps are always helpful. Trust yourself as a debater, you are here because of the work you have done, and win or lose your performance and courage in debating is more than enough. GO YOU!

Jay Villanueva Saint Francis High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 12:09 PM EDT

I have 12 years of debate experience. I have 2 years of high school LD, 1 year of Policy, and finished with a year of Senate. I then competed in NPDA, LD, IPDA, and BP at UNR. I am versed in debate, so don't be afraid to run technical arguments. However, if you need accessibility, I also understand.

Pronouns: She/Her

I plan on judging high school and college debate. Please refer to the appropriate section. Thank you!

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

LD: Connect your contentions to the (V)alue and (C)riterion. Probably should justify your V and C as the most important/relevant V and C for the RESOLUTION. You can use an analytic, but carded evidence to uphold your V & C would be stronger. You can run your case like a Policy case, but keep it in the format or LD (Value Net Bens through Cost Benefit analysis for example). You can run Ks, just connect it back to your V and VC. You can run whatever really, just justify the argument to me. I'm still not used to hearing CPs in LD, but go for it! I have Parli, Policy, and college LD experience, I can keep up. Be nice to each other.

PF: The only high school debate event I never competed in. Be straight-forward. You have evidence, tell me why it matters. Be nice to each other.

Policy: Run whatever (K, DA, CP, Aff-K, Perf, T., Theory, etc.) but be inclusive. Arguments need to connect logically between cards. Don't make leaps in claims. Be nice to each other.

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

NPDA: I competed in NPDA for 4 1/2 years for UNR. I will be upfront by saying that I was not nationally competitive. I did not do well at NPDA nor NPTE and have difficulties flowing Elim 2 and beyond at either tournament. That said, I can keep up with most and plan on flowing on paper.

Here is how I evaluate the round:

T/Theory comes before the K unless there's enough work on why the K should come first. I default to competing interps. If you believe the T/Th to be abusive or problematic, I will vote on an RVI for both equity and education. Don't waste my time spreading out your opponents with 3 T/Th and collapsing to the undercovered one. However, I'm more likely to vote the argument down and not the team on an RVI. So at least it's not a one-shot kill(?)

Ks are an important part of critical thinking, and thus important to education. However, I also believe that in a world where the resolution is the only guaranteed point of research, and where Debate should be about having equal access to good education, you need clear links to the resolution. This includes Aff Ks. I think performances face a unique problem in this case. I say, contextualize your perf to debate or the world around us and explain why it's a more pressing issue than the resolution. Give your opponents options to compete against your performance. Disclosing your perf at the start of prep could easily resolve competitive equity claims for me.

The second part of Ks for me are Solvency. I have a hard time buying K solvency. Unless it's rooted in fiat, K solvency often sounds like it's some high theory, PoMo, Ivory Tower analysis that I can't wrap my head around without having prior knowledge on the subject. That said, I try to be tabula rasa, but I obviously have my knowledge bases. I understand Security, Borders, EcoFem, EcoSec, Queer Args primarily, although not exclusively.

RoB/RoJ: I think these are fine, except when you're aff and you also run a Plan alongside the K. Just because your read "PT: The res" does not mean you are doing the res. Unless you are. If you are just saying it to answer back a Theory Interp by saying, "we did read a PT" without actually integrating it into your K args, then you're just wasting your time in my opinion.

Also, give me reasons why your RoB/RoJ is preferable, even in the PMC/LOC.

CP/DA: Competition block. Is it feasible to do both? Is it preferable to do both? What are the advantages of doing the CP alone (the DA that goes with it)? What are the DAs of doing the CP and the Aff? What are the ADV of doing the CP and the Aff?

ADV: I need a clear link story. Internal links are helpful here. Solvency is fine instead of IL. Critical impacts will win my heart, but magnitude, probability, and timeframe are definitely also important. I'll vote on any of the three if you explain why in this round one matters over the others. Or go for all three, whichever.

Don't be rude. Don't attack the opponents, attack their arguments. Be clear in your delivery. Signpost. Have fun. Learn a lot! :D

Divjot Walia Archbishop Mitty 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 16, 2022 at 7:50 AM CDT

Junior at the University of Texas at Austin.

Email

divwalia [at] utexas [dot] edu

Key Takeaways

1. Consistency across the flow is important to me. I will be flowing, and any inconsistencies you have in your argumentation will be evident and affect my decision.

2. PLEASE signpost. It is in your best interest. Spell out your desired outcome for me, even though I am not a lay judge. This should never change.

3. If you are an LD or PF debater with a more traditional style and you are given a case to read, make sure you have a full understanding of what you are given (and it sounds so).

Value and Value Criterion

I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. If you are going to read a passage explaining your value/value criterion, make sure (a) it contributes to your argument meaningfully and (b) you actually have an understanding of what you are saying. If you are reading a philosophical passage simply for the sake of reading it, please, save us all the trouble.

Progressive LD, Theory, and Ks

I will only entertain progressive arguments if they are explained well enough. Arguments do not necessarily need to be understandable to a "lay" judge, but a judge should not have to be specifically keyed into obscure terminology in order to follow your argument. In other words, if you run theory or Ks in order to score an "easy win" against an opponent who debates in a traditional fashion, you will lose the round.

Ks are often valid, but are not always productive. I will not entertain debaters who seek to make debate inaccessible in this manner for their opponents, and for that matter, for judges, simply for the sake of winning. Use them for their intended purpose, and nothing more.

Theory

Running theory is akin to asking me, the judge, to intervene in the round. I will only do so if the request is reasonable.

Speed

Slow and "fast" conversational talking speeds are all fine. I really have no problem with moderate speed so long as taglines and impacts are read slowly and with purpose. However, in my experience, speaking extremely fast rarely results in any sort of advantage.

Speaker Points

25 - terrible round with massive flaws in speech.

26 - bad round. Glaring clarity, time management, or fluency issues.

27 - average. No large mistakes but persistent errors nonetheless.

28 - above average. Few mistakes. The quality of speech made the argument more compelling.

29 - well above average.

30 - perfect.

Flex Prep

Unless this conflicts with a rule of a specific tournament or circuit, I will not allow flex prep. Asking for evidence during prep time is okay, but don't expect me to pay attention. I judge based on what I hear during speeches and CX.

I will not rigorously flow during CX but during rounds between similarly competent debaters, this will likely be a deciding factor.

Roy Wang Los Altos High School 2 rounds

Joseph Michael Williams Hired Judge 6 rounds

Ju Yang Palo Alto High School

John Yu Amador Valley High School 4 rounds

Hao Zheng James Logan High School 6 rounds None

Blake Ziegler James Logan High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 4:51 AM EDT

TOC Conflicts (besides DTA): Isidore Newman AB

About Me
Basic Info

he/him

Associate Director of Debate and Speech, The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

Notre Dame ‘23 (Political Science, Philosophy)

9th year in debate, 5th year coaching

Add me to the email chain: dta.lddocs@gmail.com (Subject Line: TOURNAMENT --- ROUND --- CODE)

Ask questions: blakeziegler.debate@gmail.com

Learn more: blake-ziegler.com

First and foremost, I’m a teacher, which means my aim is to maximize the educational experience of competitors in a safe and equitable manner. I believe debate offers vital skills and opportunities for young people, which is why I’m still involved in the activity. Due to this, I see my ballot as an implicit endorsement of the strategy of whichever debater I vote for. This means that if I see your strategy as morally repugnant or you're not taking this activity seriously, it'll be very hard to get my ballot. As the adult (or one of) in the room, I also seek to ensure this space is void of discrimination, harassment, bullying, and the like. I take that responsibility seriously. Any arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc. will result in an immediate loss.

Conflicts
James Logan (former Head LD Coach)

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, soft left affs

2 - Policy args, non-topical affs

3 - Phil* (see phil section), T/Theory

4 - Trad

5/Strike - Tricks

Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy

Overview
I competed in LD in high school and exclusively coach this event. I’ve competed and worked in traditional and progressive styles. I believe that the only difference between those styles is the emphasis on persuasion and the way arguments are packaged. With that said, my basic view of this event is as follows:

The affirmative’s burden is to show that the aff a) has someone doing something and b) is a good idea. The negative’s burden is a) to meaningfully engage with the aff and b) show the aff is a bad idea. Whether either side wants to add to their burden is up to them, but that’s how I enter the round.

Both sides should link back to a framework and tell me why I should care about their impacts. LD is unique as a values debate and it’s unfortunate the way it’s been left behind on progressive circuits. I evaluate the debate as to who best demonstrates they link back to the framework of the round.

Extensions, impact weighing, and crystallization are very important to me. Evidence is especially important - it’s the foundation of any argument. Be clear about your advocacy and your arguments. Extend arguments with claim, warrant, and impact instead of just stating the card name. Consolidate the round to its key issues and show me what matters. Sign-posting is very important. Give me voters in the last speech!

Traditional/Whole Res Cases
Go for it. This is my bread and butter. I'd recommend focusing on linking to framework and impact calculus. There isn't enough evidence comparison in this style.

CPs and DAs
A well-researched CP and DA makes me really happy, especially if the evidence has a strong link chain. Extinction and nuclear war are legitimate concerns in a lot of policy areas, but the link chain has to be very clear for me to buy it.

I love politics DAs, but the link chain needs to be especially clear if it's the 2NR strategy - why is the aff the brightline for the impact?

Ks and Phil
I read Ks and phil cases in high school and frequently coach students on these arguments. I’ve likely read whatever literature you’re pulling from, but you should assume I’m an uninformed audience. You should be able to clearly explain the argument without buzzwords or highly technical language, especially on the alternative for the K. Even if I know the argument, I won't vote on it if your explanation isn't clear. Also, be sure to identify impacts to violating the philosophy. Why should I care about it?

Debaters often misinterpret or exclude significant parts of the literature they’re using. Sometimes, this outright contradicts what they’re arguing. Make sure what you’re reading accurately reflects your author or risk losing my ballot. I recommend opponents to make this argument if applicable.

I love philosophy and spent several years working in how we should teach philosophy to students. With that said, I put it as a 3 on my prefs shortcut because I think debaters typically don't approach philosophy well. They don't understand the literature, generally only read backfiles, and can't explain these complex ideas in clear sentences. I think the biggest issue for philosophy debaters is 1) making sure their contentions actually link to the framework and 2) explaining how the philosophy interacts with their opponent's own framework and impacts. Struggle in these areas tend to happen when debaters don't fully understand the literature. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, then I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you.

Also, tricks aren’t phil.

Theory and Topicality

I still think theory is valuable for debate but am weary of it being misused. I recommend only using it if there's legitimate abuse in the round that creates a significant structural disadvantage. If you do, be clear, weigh impacts, and tell me if the shell comes before the case. I won't buy frivolous theory and have a low threshold for responses to it (i.e., "gut check - this is frivolous theory").

Topicality is different. It's legitimate to question whether the aff is topical (and whether the aff needs to be topical in the first place), but there are frivolous topicality shells that I view the same way as frivolous theory. I think a lot of these frivolous shells (e.g., "USFG acronyms bad") are better off as plan flaws.

Non-Topical Affs

Debating the topic is good. Not debating the topic can also be good. If you're running a non-topical aff, my only expectations are 1) why we should abandon the topic, 2) why the topic can't contain your advocacy, and 3) how voting aff solves your impacts. If you do that and win the flow, I have no problem voting for a non-topical aff. My biggest issue with these arguments is debaters can't articulate how the ballot solves the problem.

Tricks
Don’t run them. They’re bad for debate. It's an auto-loss and 20 speaks. This includes formatting your doc in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult for your opponent to decipher it. This also includes spikes.

I have a low threshold for answering tricks - “This is a trick. They’re bad for debate” is enough.

Disclosure

Disclosure is good for debate, especially for small school/lone wolf debaters like I was. I’m very sympathetic to disclosure arguments if it’s clear the opponent hasn’t disclosed. My expectation is that you provide an open source doc of your aff on the wiki or email to your opponent. The only exception is students whose school bar you from disclosing or there’s some other reason outside of your control, such as tech issues. In those situations, you should still try to disclose to the best capacity you’re able to.

You don’t need to disclose new arguments. They’re new.

Spreading

Spreading is fine. I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Tech over truth within reason

Prep time ends when the doc is sent

Be respectful. Debate is an activity for everyone

No flex prep

2NRs shouldn’t go for everything

Evidence has become increasingly poor in debate and I’m sad debaters don’t spend more time on evidence debates

If you’re a varsity debater going against a novice debater and intentionally overwhelm them, that’ll lead to a loss and 26 speaks. This is not to say go easy on them, just treat them like any other opponent. The same goes for a circuit debater trying to out-circuit someone from a traditional background or just entering the national scene.

How you deliver your arguments and conduct yourself in round matters

Be brief with your off-time roadmaps and don’t say “This is a x minute speech”

If you go significantly over time, I'm docking speaks

Don't curse

Face the judge when you're speaking

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater.

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something bad, like a racist argument.

People who've had a significant impact on me and heavily influenced my views on debate

Byron Arthur

Aaron Timmons

Jonathan Alston

Elijah Smith

Chris Randall

Ed Williams

Bennett Eckert

Chetan Hertzig

Login to Tabroom

James Logan Martin Luther King Jr Invitational

2021 — Online, CA/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges