Tabroom.com

Cal State Fullerton Invitational

2020 — Fullerton, CA/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Krishna Akshantala Northwood High School 6 rounds

Aneesh Ankareddy Prestige Debate

Srinivas Ankareddy Prestige Debate 4 rounds None

Joaquin Arreola Honor Academy 8 rounds

aillin arteaga Hire 8 rounds None

Drew Ashlock West Ranch High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 5:19 AM PDT

Yo whaddup I'm Drew. I'm currently a political science major at UCLA and a member of their Mock Trial team but I debated for West Ranch High School for 4 years. I've got experience in I.E.'s and experience in LD and Parli both at a technical and at a traditional level. I went to Parli TOC and have qualed for CHSSA state champs in both Parli and Impromptu. If you have questions about things not listed here email me at drewashlock2002@gmail.com for any further questions. Id be happy to answer.

TL:DR: If you both want a lay round, cool I'll evaluate like a lay round. But if either of you want to go tech, im game. Completely tech over truth. I'll vote on anything. Like anything as long as it isn't blatantly racist, homophobic, or sexist. For LD just send your speech docs to me cause although im game for spreading ive got a pretty bad ear for it.

Speed: Speed is fine in both parli and LD for me. Obviously LD speed is significantly faster cause its carded evidence you are reading from so Id very much appreciate it if you sent me the speech doc. For the most part though you can zoom through evidence just slow down on taglines and say your plan text and interps twice. Same goes for parli. That being said, if your opponent is ultra trad and can't keep up make sure to take ultra POIs for parli and for LD make sure to send them the speech docs and be kind in CX. If I need you to clear up, I will yell clear.

Theory: Im game for pretty much everything on Theory. JUST PLEASE FOR PARLI READ YOUR INTERP TWICE. PLEASE. Often times I flow parli rounds and get everything but the interp because the kid was incoherently spreading through the first part. Make sure to link your standards down to whatever voters you are running though. If you are saying fairness comes first, thats rad, just tell me how whatever your standard is that they are violating specifically links to fairness. On the issue of voters, I default competing interps and no RVI but that is easily subject to change depending on how the round goes. If for some reason I do end up being forced to vote on reasonability, Im very receptive to disclosure good, Nebel, PICS bad, and Condo bad. I also default weighing theory before everything. If your opponent is running theory, and doesn't explicitly state that their shells are a priori, dont expect to auto win on them by saying weigh theory against case in the next speech. That being said, if you say weigh theory against case, and they don't respond, then I'll do as you say.

Kritiks: Like I said, open to anything. Aff or Neg I dont really care tbh. I will tell you this though: I have never been a huge K debater myself. That means im not ultra familiar with the lit. Basic stuff like Cap, Security, Neolib I know but if you are running something obscure you better explain it well. Also parli kids i know you dont have to cite evidence but at least reference who founded the ideology. YOU ARE NOT DELUZE DONT ACT LIKE YOU ARE. Other than that just read your alt text twice and be clear on alt solvency and internal links. Also I weigh theory before K unless told otherwise but you probs got that from the theory section.

CP: Cp's are a solid neg strat in some good ole larp debate. Just pls pls pls make sure it is competitive. I hate when a non competitive CP gets run cause then 99% of the time the round just comes down to whether or not I buy the perm. Even if it is a PIC or a delay CP or agent CP just do something that means the Aff doesn't have access. That being said, if Im voting reasonability I will most likely drop those CPs listed above. Just make sure to read some good ole CP text and explicitly outline how it doesn't link into your DA's, how it solves for the AC, and its own net benefits.

DA's and Advantages: Yeah they are cool. Im always down for some good ole Larping. Just give me uniqueness impact solvency with some links in between for advantages and squo link impact for DA and we have ourselves a good time.

Impact Calc: Make sure to do this in the final speech, especially if both sides have offense left. Weigh mainly on magnitude, scope, timeframe and reversibility. If one of your impacts is heavy on any of those, then tell me why that is the most important component of calculation. Otherwise I default magnitude.

Rebuttals: Turns are always optimal. That being said they are hard to do in certain cases. The more you can make offensive rebuttals the better.

Spikes, Truth Testing, Tricks in general: YEET. I love running these, and would love to hear them. That being said they are very susceptible to theory and Kritiks so watch out my dudes.

Speaks: I don't really give speaker points off of how well you spoke. And I also don't really give below 27 speaker points unless you are either repugnant in round or just a debater who needs to work on a lot. That being said, I also dont give 30 speaks unless you either blow me out of the water with how incredible your skills are, have built an extremely intricate and beautiful case, make me laugh in round, or bring me a donut.

LD specifics: I don't flow CX. Just use it as a time to clarify stuff for you and your opponent. Also, be sure to collapse to something. Pls don't try to go for everything on the flow in the 2AR cause then it turns into a big ugly mess. Also if you want to get into a "whose source is more valid debate" pls don't because its dumb but if you for some reason YOU HAVE TO then give me solid reasons why to prefer your source.

Parli specifics: I have no issue with tag teaming. Just make sure if it is your speech that you say whatever your partner tells you to say. Also be courteous and take at least 1-2 POIS per speech. Use POO's wisely. I will protect the flow for the most part but if I miss something you need to be there to catch it.

Other than that, have fun guys. Debate is a phenomenal game to play and an even better community to be a part of.

Cissy Bai WEL-JVG Steam Center None

Emma Blum Brentwood School

Scott Brown Honor Academy 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 1:24 PM PDT

clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

Carlos Carrasco Honor Academy

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 8:44 AM PDT

I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice

I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both

Keep me on the chain por favor – ccarrasco244@gmail.com

If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back

general -

- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms

- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it

- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far

———- some more specifics ———-

I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well

Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too

On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.

On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.

Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically

on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible

Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.

Carol Chong Academy of Higher Learning

Bob Curley Beacon Park None

Sharon DePrano Prestige Debate 4 rounds None

Kaijun Ding Oak Park High School 5 rounds

Robin Eckert Beacon Park None

Kelly Eisenbrand La Reina

Last changed on Thu February 4, 2016 at 2:10 PM PDT

What you need to know:

1.) I'm Kelly. College debater, late to the debate game. Parli sucks; I do it anyway.

2.) If you're funny and/or irreverent, I want to vote for you. I won't without good reason to.

3.) Tech>Truth

4.) Process Counterplans are gross. I'll hear you out but ew.

5.) Theory=debating about debate. Give me something more substantive than education/fairness please. Impact debate is best debate.

6.) Ignore me though; I'll listen to anything, and I'd rather you tell me both how to vote and what to vote on.

7.) Slow your theory down. Way down.

8.) Don't be a jerk.

9.) Flex prep is obviously fine. Keep each other honest by timing opponents' prep.

10.) I am pretty easy with speaker points. I don't really give out 30's (means there's no room to improve, and there always is). If you're a jerk, I'll drop your speaks a lot. If you jump around the flow and are messy, don't explain things, make my job annoying, I'll drop your speaks a little. But I'm generally pretty generous.

Plan text debate? Yeah. Of course. The more specific, the better though. And yes, all planks are up for debate.

Krit Affs? Yes. Love. You will have a legit hard time convincing me they have no place in debate. Familiar with most of the lit. Go nuts.

Disads? Yeah, of course. Linear, nonlinear, politics, yep.

Counterplans? Covered. Yes, (though conditionality is a thing I like to see, please have this debate if Neg has at least one conditional world) PICs are fine.

P.S. Cross applying your overview to the line-by-line in rebuttal speeches is annoying. And I hate underviews, I don't know why people do this; don't be this person; save a tree.

A word on LD and PoFo though (I get stuck judging these a lot)

DON'T BE A JERK.

FOR LD: Capitalizing on the time differential on the neg by running excessive theory is gross. I won't drop you for running theory mainly. But I kind of wish you wouldn't, and my sympathy will go Aff because I think it's really unfair to capitlize on something your opponent literally can't do anything about.

RVI's aren't a thing. Spreading is not inherently abusive.

FOR PoFo: PoFo=net benefits debate. I honestly don't think there's enough time for a real framework debate in this format, and it's kind of a waste of time.

John Ferris Nova 42 Academy 1 rounds

Max Freeman Prestige Debate 1 rounds None

Manish Garg Oak Park High School

Katie Gerbasi Prestige Debate 8 rounds None

Xin Guo Cerritos High School 2 rounds

Sarem Haq El Camino Real Charter High School 2 rounds None

Connor Huffman The Village Middle School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 8:29 AM CDT

Personal Background

As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.

Speech

I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them

Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.

That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.

For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).

Debate

I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest
for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege
Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)
If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech
Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required
Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.

That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it
Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K
Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear
Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF

At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not

Minyang Jiang WEL-JVG Steam Center None

Anitha Johny Prestige Debate None

Kiran Joseph Oak Park High School 5 rounds None

Anisha Joshipura Riverside STEM Academy 8 rounds None

Jermiene Junsay Riverside STEM Academy 2 rounds

CHRISHMA KARKADA The Golden State Academy 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT

Hey guys,

LD

I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:

-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.

-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.

-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.

-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.

-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:

-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.

-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.

-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this

-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this

EXTEMP

I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.

I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.

I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10

Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!

As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.

Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.

Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!

Robin Kelman Oak Park High School 5 rounds None

Kathy Kendrick Cypress High School None

Venu Keshavan Riverside STEM Academy 8 rounds None

Arlene Kim CL Academy None

Hyong Kim West Ranch High School 5 rounds

Johnny Kim Honor Academy 8 rounds None

Daniel Kyle Nova 42 Academy

Mike Kyle Nova 42 Academy 4 rounds

kat labayan Hire None

Brenda Lam Oak Park High School 5 rounds None

Doug Lasken Taft High School

Jennifer (Jeongeun) Lee Oak Park High School 8 rounds None

Erik Legried Brentwood School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 21, 2018 at 9:21 AM MDT

*Updated on 4/21/18 while migrating to Tabroom. I'm revising this because my former paradigm was dated, not because of any significant changes to my judging philosophy.*

Background: I coach LD for the Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I competed in LD for Robbinsdale Cooper HS and Blake HS, both in Minnesota, from 2006-10. I studied philosophy, economics, and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University, graduating in 2014. I have judged several hundred circuit LD rounds, and plenty traditional rounds too.

Overall: I am a 'least-intervention' judge, and try my best to vote on the arguments in the round. Barring certain complicated extremes (i.e. offensive language, physical coercion), I vote for the best reason articulated to me during the debate. This involves establishing a framework (or whatever you want to call it - a mechanism for evaluation) for my decision, and winning offense to it.

Some implications/nuance to 'least-intervention' - a) I won't evaluate/vote on what I perceive to be new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, b) I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand when they're introduced, c) I won't vote on arguments that I don't hear, and d) I won't vote on arguments you don't make (i.e. if your evidence answers something and you don't point it out)

Spreading: I think speed is overall bad for debate, but I will not penalize you for my belief. You should debate at whatever speed you want, granted I can understand it. If it's just me judging you, I will say clear / slow up to three times per speech. After three I will stop trying. The first two 'clears' are free, but after the third one I will reduce your speaker points by 2 for a maximum of 28. On a panel I will say 'clear' once, maybe twice, depending how the other judges seem to be keeping up.

Speaker points: holistic measure of good debating. I'm looking for good arguments, strategy, and speaking. I average around a 28.5. A 29.3+ suggests I imagine you in elimination rounds of whichever tournament we're at. I'm averaging a 30 once every four years at my current rate.

Loose ends:

- As of the 4/21/18 update, I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.

- If I think there is literally no offense for either side, I presume aff.

- I default to a comparative world paradigm.

- I default to drop the argument, competing interpretations, no RVI, fairness/education are voters.

- I will call evidence situationally - on the one hand it is crucial to resolving some debates, on the other hand I think it can advantage unclear debaters who get the benefit of judges carefully reviewing their evidence. I will do my best to balance these interests.

Feel free to contact me at erik.legried@gmail.com.

Qi Bin Lei Honor Academy

Naomi Lin Prestige Debate None

Hui Liu Philharmonic Debate

Kumann Liu Riverside STEM Academy 2 rounds None

Brayan Ruben Loayza Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 8:59 AM PDT

Email: bloayza2019@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school debate for DMHS in LAMDL, now doing my 4th year of college debate at CSUF

I ain't asking for much, just don't be racist, hateful, sexist, homophobic, ableist, and basically, anything that might make a competitor uncomfortable or might make ME uncomfortable.

I'm comfortable with spreading but if you spread through crucial arguments I may not catch it at times so if you want me to flow your most important arguments then slow down a bit. In the realm of online debate sometimes I might not catch arguments if they're not given in conversational speed.

IF you are reading this as an LD debater you will get more info reading the policy page to get a better idea

==LD==

Don't run tricks in front of me. I will not get them, which means I won't vote on them. This also goes for theory debates theory has to be very good at explaining violations and why this is a voting issue or else leave me out of it.

Nebel T isn't a real argument, I do not care who Nebel is.

I probably won't vote on Reverse Voting Issues, they don't make a lot of sense to me as a policy debater (but can possibly be persuaded)

==Policy Debate==

Framing: Framing arguments are a very easy way for me to vote for you, I find it something easy to vote on when teams tell me how I should evaluate the round and why evaluating the round that way is good. This also means that having the role of the ballot/judge argument would be very effective in persuading my decision but these arguments need warrants to them.

K: I'm comfortable judging K's. I'm very comfortable with set col literature and I am familiar with afropess, ableism, and cap literature. Don't worry if I'm not familiar with your K literature all I ask for is a more thorough explanation of your literature and your theory of power. In order to win the K for me, you need to have a link, and if the link is vaguely explained/generic then I really won't buy that you link. If you do link what does that mean and why is that an indictment of the aff (what's the impact).

Kaffs: I'm cool with people running Kaffs and I won't immediately vote them down but I do have to require a good explanation of the aff.

DA: you can win a DA by itself if you have impact framing and how that impact outweighs the affs impacts and part of that impact framing you need to win uniqueness. You also need to win a link on how the aff causes the impacts of the DA. DA must have all its parts in order for me to evaluate it, it must have uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and more importantly an impact.

CP: I also vote for CPs with or without a DA, the DA in my mind is not necessary for a CP but that means proving the competitiveness of the CP and why the CP is preferable over that aff and that means why it solves better for the impacts of the aff or if you're running this with a DA why the CP solves and doesn't link to the DA.

T/FW: In order for me to vote for T you need to win a few questions, why you're model of debate is good, you also need to win how they violate and why that's bad for the round. You need to extend your standards/reasons to prefer your model of debate over theirs.

Brianna Lozano Honor Academy

Mia Macatula Northwood High School

Rey Macatula Northwood High School None

Thirupathi Masipeddi Prestige Debate 4 rounds None

Kristen Mayol Granada Hills Charter High School

Timothy Meyer Granada Hills Charter High School

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

1/21/23

I am getting back into circuit/progressive debate this year, though the last time I was considerably involved was 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty, and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7.5).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (~~frivolous theory~~). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but recognize the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks in my opinion.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes (~~frivolous theory~~).

Mike Murray Nova 42 Academy 4 rounds

Phani Narasimhadevara Young Genius Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy 8 rounds

Badari Narasimhan Northwood High School

Brian Nguyen Young Genius Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy 8 rounds

Tate Oien Magnet Academy

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:01 AM PDT

For email chains: tate.oien@gmail.com

Overview:

Four years of Parliamentary Debate and Congress, as well as one year of Policy and Public Forum at San Dieguito Academy High School. Used to competing in traditional (more lay) Parli, but prefer to compete in circuit/flow as well as judging the latter. Spent a year at the POI Debate Institute at Berkeley. Below are my preferences, if you want me to expound upon them in greater detail, ask me before round. I'm a Junior at UC Berkeley studying Philosophy and Political Economy, so those topics are my area of expertise. My paradigm is my paradigm, if you think something is unfair feel free to let me know but don't expect me to change my mind without good reason.

Tech vs Truth:

It's a false dichotomy, and, in a perfect round, there should be no distinction between the two. But in the event that there is conflict, I'll probably default to tech. It varies from round to round, but more often than not tech provides greater equality in round between both aff and neg.

How I value args epistemically:

Theory > K > Regular Case

My reasoning is theoretical debates frame pretty much the entire rest of the round, and Ks, as unique as they are, are pretty much just a Disad. I default to the idea that debate ought be an educational event and not just a sport, and so I'm more sympathetic to theoretical arguments because they tie directly into that thesis. However, if the K directly attacks that thesis and critiques the fundamental assumptions of not just the aff, but also the debate, then I will weigh the K and the Theory against one another on equal footing.

Weighing/Extension:

I won't flow arguments that aren't extended. When you extend them, you also ought to explain the argument and not just mention it. This isn't a deal breaker, but it helps me remember what your argument was without having to go over my flow again.

Please try and weigh your arguments in the rebuttal/last speech. It helps me judge the round by condensing the main points of the debate.

Speed:

I can flow at most, if not all, speeds on my laptop. If you're going too fast, I'll say clear. If you don't slow down, I'll repeat a couple of times but if you don't adjust I will stop flowing until you do. If the other team calls clear, you better show them the same courtesy you show me. If they're clearly being absurd, I'll call them out on it, stop time, and tell them to show you more respect.

On Counterplans:

If your CP doesn't prove mutual exclusivity, I'm just not going to flow it. Simple as that. A counterplan that can be done in conjunction with the plan is not a counterplan, it is a non sequitur. Other than that, go to town, Counterplans make the debate incredibly fun.

However, I'll flow PICs if your opponents don't run theory against it.

On Links:

If you're going to cite any data, especially economic data, you need to have very solid links. Don't just tell me that employment increased after the passing of NAFTA, tie it directly to NAFTA. Explain how free trade led to a growth in positions for the service industry. If you just mention a figure without linking it to the trend you're talking about, I won't consider it. It's in your best interest to explain yourself as fully as possible.

On Theory:

I'll accept any theoretical argument, so long as it's substantiated. This is certainly the area where I feel the most comfortable judging in terms of non-standard arguments.

On Kritiks:

I'll vote on pretty much any standard negative kritiks, just make sure you fully explain the argument.

I /can/ vote on performance Ks, I just prefer not to. Make it very clear what the argument is to the other team, if not it's just abusive. If both me and your opponent don't understand the performance, then I'll probably hand the other team my ballot.

Generally, I'm not voting on Aff Ks. They're abusive. If you want to run it, tell me beforehand and give me the broadstrokes. I'll more often than not just say no, but I'm open to having my mind changed.

On tricks:

I'll vote on a prioris and skepticisms, so long as they're substantiated, but I refuse to vote on theory spikes. Theory is an inherently reactionary argument, it's meant to respond to something your opponent has already done, a theory spike is counterintuitive to the purpose of a theoretical argument.

Speaks:

I don't really have a set system for determining speaks, but I assign speaks entirely based on rhetoric and actual speaking ability. Think of it like a bellcurve.

25 = 2.1nd Percentile of speakers

26 = 16.1th Percentile of speakers

27 = 50th Percentile of speakers

28 = 84th Percentile of speakers

29 = 98.9th Percentile of speakers

30= 99.9th Percentile of speakers

Weighing Mechanisms:

Justify. Justify. Justify.

This is a big pet peeve of mine. If you don't justify your weighing mechanism, and the other team does, I'm using theirs. If neither do, I'll either choose or use neither. If you don't like that, then you better provide me with a weighing mechanism and justify. Justify. Justify.

Speaking of pet peeves:

1) Please signpost. It makes it much easier for me to flow. I don't care if it sounds stunted, just let me know what argument you're making, and what specific section of it we're currently at.

2) Don't be vulgar. I get it in the context of a performance, but otherwise there's no place for it in debate.

3) Politeness. I'm fine with you getting provocative and even a bit heated, so long as it's proportional to the arguments your opponents make (i.e. if they're lying about something, misconstruing data to a gross extent, or saying something bigoted). If your opponents say something stupid and bigoted and you call them out for it feel free to be as heated as you want. I'm not gonna punish you for it.

4) That being said, don't be arrogant, especially if you're winning the round. This won't cost you the ballot, but it betrays bad character and will probably end up being reflected in your speaks.

Alex Palines La Reina None

Jung Park Nova 42 Academy

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:37 AM PDT

I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.

What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.

Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.

Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.

Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!

Ramurty Patri Young Genius Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Peter Qin North Hollywood High School 4 rounds

Isaac Ramnani Cypress High School

Jerome Robinson Granada Hills Charter High School

Darcy Rojas West Ranch High School 5 rounds

Ramin Saedi Taft High School None

Isaiah Salgado CL Academy

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:31 PM PDT

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

Rishi Shah Stockdale High School

Last changed on Thu October 14, 2021 at 8:12 AM PDT

Rishi Shah

Stockdale High School

Email: rshah23@meei.harvard.edu

If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email. Add me to the chain, but I'll only flow what you read.

I debated both lay and circuit LD for 4 years. Parli for 2.

General/Traditional Tips

I prefer policy affs and DA/CP/K debate, but I’m open to non-traditional affs given that they’re explained effectively and every component of the aff has a purpose.
Don’t forget about case debate! A dropped case turn can go a long way...
If you don't extend an argument or show why an argument your opponent dropped should secure the ballot, I won't flow it
“Rulebook” arguments will not win you a round. Any argument to me is fair game given you don’t lose on fairness.
Speed is fine, but please signpost clearly. Judging over the web is new to me. If clarity's an issue, I'll say clear to let you know.
Please be considerate to your opponent. If your opponent is new to debate, agreeing to a slow round before the debate starts is always the right thing to do. I'm happy to judge a traditional round if that's best for both sides. Keep in mind that traditional rounds still will be evaluated on the flow, so stay organized.
If you say anything racist/homophobic/etc or are overly rude to your opponent, your speaks will reflect accordingly.

Theory

I don’t believe in RVI’s. That being said, you can still win on one, but it should not be your default response to theory.
I could vote on reasonability, but saying a shell is "frivolous" is not enough.

Go for it. I’m open for K debate given you have strong links to the aff. Plan specific links preferred. I will not vote for you if you don’t prove how the aff links.
Not a fan of role of the ballot arguments.

Prefer competing interps.
Impacting out to fairness is your best bet.
Go a bit slower on T, I’m a little rusty on the flow and I don’t want to miss analytics (which most of your T should be).

I err on neg for theory because aff usually does not do a sufficient job. Aff can win condo bad by proving how neg ruined aff’s chance for offense throughout.
Effective perms are much more convincing than theory against the CP.

I like good uniqueness, link, and internal link debates.
Keep your internal links clear, but to the point. No jumping to impacts. Other than that, I don't evaluate DAs differently than most judges.

Ye Shen Westlake High School

Chirjeev Singh Beacon Park 4 rounds

Cammie Soderquist Arizona College Prep

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:13 AM MST

email chain: cammiesoderquist@gmail.com

History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.

Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.

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

Specifics:

Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.

Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.

***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***

Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).

DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)

Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)

Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.

Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.

Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.

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

Things that make me happy:

• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.

• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")

• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)

Things that make me sad:

• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.

• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).

• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")

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

Random:

• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.

• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)

• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.

• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh

Ashley Soong Nova 42 Academy 7 rounds None

Amy Sun Young Genius Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy 8 rounds

Elleora Svoboda La Reina

Miranda Swartwood Cogito Debate None

Paige Teraji Granada Hills Charter High School

Lee Thach CL Academy 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 1:35 PM PDT

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

Kate Totz Brentwood School 8 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)

Lakshmi Tummala Beacon Park None

Usha Venkatasubramanian West Ranch High School 6 rounds

fengyi wang Northwood High School

Jason Wang CL Academy 8 rounds None

Pancheng Wang Prestige Debate 3 rounds

William Wang WEL-JVG Steam Center 8 rounds None

Willie Washington ACLA Network None

John Weirather Stockdale High School

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 9:07 AM PDT

Former Debater. My main events were Lincoln-Douglas, Parli, and Congress. However, It's been a number of years since I debated competitively, so I broadly consider myself a lay judge. Debate accordingly.

Debate should be about communication. Speak and articulate your arguments clearly. Avoid jargon.

Feel free to be assertive, but be respectful above all else. Ad hominem attacks will reflect poorly on your performance.

Substance trumps speed. I rather you argue a limited number of strong, well-developed points, then word-vomit a billion weak contentions. If I don’t understand what you are saying, I will not vote on what you are saying. Don't spread, I will dock your speaker points as much as I am allowed to.

Linkage is of paramount importance. If I cannot follow the logic behind your arguments, you have not done your job. Do not assume I will come to the same conclusions, if you do not guide me there through your argumentation.

Extend everything that matters. Prioritize what is being debated. If a point goes undressed by both teams, I will consider it null, and I will not vote on it. Any points not discussed before Rebuttals will be considered new arguments. If a point has consistently been addressed by either team, it is fair game in Rebuttals.

Cross-X:

If you are asking questions, ASK QUESTIONS. Cross-x is not your rebuttal. By all means, ask pointed questions. Demonstrate that your opponent does not know what they are talking about, but do not grandstand.
If you are being cross-examined, allow your opponent to ask questions. They can interrupt you, it is their cross-x. Feel free to answer/dodge questions however long you like, but when they ask questions, you will allow them to do so.

LD:

Framework is everything. Impacts are important, as are Case arguments, but ultimately my vote will prioritize framework.
Affirmative must win under their own framework first and foremost. Winning under the Negative framework is encouraged, but priority for the Affirmative is the Affirmative framework.
Negative either proves Affirmative framework is bad/flawed, or that Affirmative does not win under the Affirmative framework.

If Affirmative framework is bad/flawed, Negative must provide a counter framework, or otherwise produce a line of reasoning to justify a Negative vote.

Analysis/Logic > Evidence Cards (unless evidence DIRECTLY showcases a flaw in reasoning, or otherwise contradicts your opponent’s statements)
Link everything back to framework. You can have the strongest contention ever written in the entirety of human history on this planet, but if it has nothing to do with your framework I will consider it a null argument.
LD is LD, it is not one-person Policy. Read a Policy-style case, and I will automatically dock you on speaker points. If you prefer this style of debate: find a partner. and do Policy.
Furthermore, LD is philosophy debate. It is about ideas first and foremost.You need to take complex theories, and apply them to the resolution in a concise, rational argument. In short, your job is to explain Kantian ethics to a fifth grader, and get him/her/them to understand why Kantian ethics are better than Utilitarianism when deciding what to eat for breakfast (and vice versa).

Kritiks (and other BS):

Don’t. You will be fighting an uphill battle.
If you do, you are going to need to work twice as hard to prove to me that: (1) you understand the arguments you are making, (2) that you can explain those arguments in a way for me to understand, and (3) that those arguments have rational, reasonable conclusions that are relevant to the debate space.
I will vote a mediocre Topicality argument far before I vote an ok Kritik

Parli:

Keep the debate concise and well-organized.
Give me a consistent weighing mechanism.
Don't bring up POA unless absolutely necessary.

Ex) Ad Hominem, Major Rule Violations
New arguments should only receive a POA if it is grossly clear that the material has gone untouched during the entirety of the debate. If this is not the case, calling a POA is a waste of time. I'm not going to take time away from the debate to play who-said-what-and-when

Policy: Keep it simple. Affirmative needs a plan. Negative can provide a CP, but should be chiefly concerned with proving the disadvantages of the Affirmative. I'm not going to be nitpick-y about the specifics, unless those specifics are brought up in the round.
Value: Follow LD guidelines, but know that I am substantially more lenient given you only have half an hour to prepare.
Fact: Provide a weighing mechanism. Give me a line of reasoning to vote for you.

Julie Wilke Prestige Debate 4 rounds None

Jean Wu Westlake High School

Megan Wu Brentwood School

Last changed on Mon October 17, 2022 at 11:34 AM EDT

email: imeganwu@gmail.com

note for blue key '22: i haven't judged/coached consistently since the 2020-21 school year. please assume that i am unfamiliar with the topic, topic-specific jargon/knowledge, the current meta of debate, etc. when i judged frequently, a large majority (>~80%) of the rounds i judged involved phil fw, t/theory, or tricks to some extent. this is my wiki from senior year.

i debated on the national circuit for a couple years and qualified to the toc as a senior ('19). i taught at nsd flagship '19, nsd philadelphia '19, tdc '19 & '20, and legacy debate '20, and i coached hunter college high school in the '19-'20 season (see hunter sk, hunter nk). in the '20-'21 season, i coached hunter md and lindale pp. i currently attend swarthmore college ('23), where i study philosophy and math.

my coaches and biggest influences in debate: alisa liu, kris wright, katherine fennell, xavier roberts-gaal. as a debater, my favorite judges were sean fahey and mark gorthey.

in the interest of full disclosure, i am profoundly deaf in both ears and have bilateral cochlear implants. i do not believe that this significantly impacts my ability to judge, as i debated on the circuit and wasn’t horrible at it; you should be clear, give overviews, slow down for anything important, and explain to me how i should write your rfd—as you should with any judge. i will use speech docs in the 1ac/1nc, but will not in rebuttals for anything besides advocacy texts and interps. i will call clear or slow in your speech if i can’t understand you.

i do not have any preferences for style of debate; my only preference is that you debate in the way you choose, as opposed to what you think i’d like to see. i will vote for any argument so long as it is fully warranted, won, and implicated. i won’t vote on links/violations that i can’t verify. i am most familiar with philosophical framework and theory/t debates and least familiar with policy/k debate. i won’t supplement a debater’s explanation of arguments with things i know that weren’t on the flow, so it should not matter if i’m unfamiliar with literature that is read because it is the job of the debaters to fully explain and implicate their arguments—nor will i help you out even if you read a framework that i know well.

i will attempt to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters—e.g. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in the 2n/2a but forget to read voters, i will act as if a voter had been read rather than ignore theory and vote on a random substance extension. however, it will always be to your benefit to debate in a non-messy way: even if the 2n collapses to T, concedes substance, and it is assumed by both debaters that substance flows aff, the 2a should still quickly extend the ac. you should also attempt to extend interps & violations. the more i have to think about what the shared assumptions of the round are (and the less clear you are about your ballot story), the more your speaks will suffer.

if i am unable to determine what the shared assumption is, and if no argument has been made on the issue, i will assume the following defaults:

theory is drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness and education are voters, fairness > education
strength of link to weigh between layers, and theory > t > k if strength of link is irresolvable
epistemic confidence
presumption and permissibility negate
tech>truth

---

ethics issues:

evidence ethics, clipping: you need to formally stake the round for me to call tab in & i will defer to tournament policy when that happens. otherwise, i will adjudicate this like any other theory debate.
in-round safety: if you judge that the round needs to be stopped, please ask me to and i will call the equity ombudspurson or tab in & defer to tournament procedure/tab's judgment. i am highly unlikely to stop the round unprompted, or vote on an in-round conduct issue if it is not made into a voting issue by the other debater. my policy on this is intended to place the judgment of the affected debater in higher regard than my own.

---

speaker points: higher when you utilize judge direction, make creative strategic choices rather than spamming args, and are good at cx. lower when you clearly haven't read my paradigm, comport yourself in an uncompassionate way, and read largely prewritten args. i average around 28.6 and i don't disclose speaks.

important notes, especially for west coast debaters:

if you read reasonability without a brightline, say only that “good is good enough,” or tell me to “gut check,” i will gut check competing interps. reasonability should have a brightline that tells me how to differentiate between abusive and nonabusive scenarios.
i would really prefer it if you read and normatively justify a rob/standard/vc, even if it's short. i tend to think that normative ethic spec is a true argument, and if neither debater indicates a framework and there is not a clear shared assumption of a certain framework, i will be forced to default to my intuitions to frame offense—which you likely don’t want because i’m not a utilitarian.
i will vote on an rvi if won.
i will vote on framework preclusion of impacts if won.
i don’t care if your theory shell is frivolous. "this is frivolous" is not an argument.
i think epistemic modesty is weird and have never understood it. (if it means strength of link, just say that instead?)
ethos is created through persuasion/passion/showing you have a ton of knowledge about the subject—not snarky taglines and personal jabs—and good ethos never comes at the expense of safety in the round.

ask me if you have any questions (especially if you're a small school debater). good luck and have fun debating!

Adiela Zadouri Granada Hills Charter High School None

Login to Tabroom

Cal State Fullerton Invitational

2020 — Fullerton, CA/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges