Stratford Fall Novice Invitational Online
2020
—
Online,
CA/US
Speech Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Vidya Balasubramanian
Ocean Grove School
None
Shreya Bedi
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Sophia Campbell
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue November 10, 2020 at 7:17 AM EDT
I have competed in PF for several years so I am aware of how a good debate should be structured, and while my decision will be based on the content presented by both sides, I will be conscious of the overall demeanor within the round as well.
Judging will mainly be on evidence, organization, and which side was able to be more persuasive and impactful.
I have no biases on particular topics.
Respect is necessary towards both your opponents and myself.
I have also competed in Original Oratory for my entire speech and debate career.
PF Resource:
https://pfdebate.info/
Feng Cao
The Golden State Academy
None
Jaishree Chitkara
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Riti Dey
Hire
8 rounds
None
Wei Gao
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Bharti Hathalia
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:37 PM PDT
Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents
Shama Islam
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Tresa Johnson
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Sushma K
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 10:27 PM PDT
Hello there!
Some things to consider:
Cases:
Please share cases with each other before your first speech. A speech doc would be helpful if you are reading any cards during your rebuttal. I need to be able to access all evidence that you use.
Speed:
It is the debater's burden to make sure that the speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds.
Impact:
Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clearly stressed and extended. It's worth repeating and stressing if you feel you have the winning arguments. Don't just say "______ impact has more chances of happening than my opponent's impact of ____" I would like to see evidence on anything you do present on impact debate.
Clash:
Clash is necessary. You must convince me that your arguments outweigh your opponents. Dropped arguments leads to that argument being won by whichever side presented it. If your opponent dropped an argument, make sure to clearly state that during your speech in case I miss it on my flow.
Off-Case:
I am okay with Topicality/interp. If one does run T/interp the opposing side I would say the other side has to respond. If the T has been dropped, whoever ran the T is more likely to win the round.
I am familiar with the capitalism K, ethical imperatives K, and Feminism K. If you read any unfamiliar K's, please explain well.
Counterplans are okay with me. Make sure to explain how your counterplan would have more benefits than your opposing side.
Refutes:
Any cards you read against your opponent, be sure to ask if I or the opponent would like to see them before moving on. (or just use a speech doc like I mentioned earlier)
Other:
Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.
Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!
Riju Kallivalappil
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat February 6, 2021 at 7:56 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I do not understand most of the technical expectations for various speech and debate formats. What matters to me is that you make a convincing argument. Your arguments should be clearly articulated in a way that a lay person can understand. The arguments have to be rational and follow a logical sequence. I usually do not care too much about how many references you cited in your speech/debate, although I might note a complete lack of references as a red flag. Make eye contact, be confident and speak clearly.
Purvesh Khona
Stratford Osgood
None
Youngmi Kim
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Aliya Mody
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Sujay Nair
Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School
None
Arthi Narayanan
Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School
None
Dana Nguyen
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Hari Nidumolu
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Subadevi Pandian
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Anuradha Pariti
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Rosy Paul
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Satish Ramakrishnan
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Frank Ren
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Ganapathy Sankar
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:57 PM PDT
Parent Judge:
Don't spread, make sure to make your arguments clear.
All responses to constructive must be in rebuttal. If an argument is not extended through FF & Summary, then it won't count. Make sure to frontline your defense against the opponents through all speeches as well.
Sign post
ganu.sankar@gmail.com -- add to the email chain
Samir Sawant
Athens Debate
None
Anand Sundaram
Athens Debate
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 5:10 AM EDT
I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.
Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)
For all Debate:
- Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
- General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
- I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
- When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
- Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
- Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
- Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.
For Public Forum:
- PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
- Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
- On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
- Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
- I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
- Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
- Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.
For LD:
- On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
- On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
- On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
- Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
- Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
- On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
- Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
- NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
- Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.
Ruchi Tandon
Athens Debate
8 rounds
None
Gaurav Tomar
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
8 rounds
None
David Wang
New Age Learning
None
Jessica Xie
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 20, 2021 at 5:14 AM PDT
I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon
Zishuang Ye
Athens Debate
None
Howard Ying
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Kiana Young
Speak Sustainably
None
Christina Zhang
New Age Learning
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:02 AM PDT
Hello, I'm Christina Zhang. I don't have much prior debate experience, so I would count as a Lay Judge. Knowing that please arrange your prep accordingly.
General:
Just call me Judge. Please do not call me by my name.
Please signpost. If you do no signposting it will be exceedingly confusing. If the I don't know what you're saying then I can't weigh your arguments.
Arguments:
- Tech & Truth: A standard Advantage/Disadvantage round is probably the simplest, and while I do acknowledge tech over truth, I still do tend to occasionally favor truth over tech, so even if one side drops an argument, that doesn't mean I will automatically weigh it against them if the assertion is not properly explained enough.
Ie. You bring up nuclear war, but never properly explain it well enough and don't address simple things like Mutually Assured Destruction, even if the opponent completely drops, I might not weigh in your favor and just strike it from the round.
Basically if it doesn't make enough logical sense, then I won't consider it.
- Impacts. If I don't hear a properly quantified impact it might not have nearly as much weighing power.
Just saying: "Grows the economy", "Increases QoL" or "Saves lives" are not proper impacts. "Grows the economy by 153 billion USD over the next 2 years", or "Decreases cardiac deaths by 10%", or "Increases GDP per capita by 5%", or "Prevents 4000 deaths" are properly quantified impacts, so will be weighed to their fullest extent.
Theory:
I don't know any theory, so please don't run any theory. I'm not very experienced, so keep everything simple. Just because you win on theory on the flow doesn't mean that I'll take theory into heavy consideration or even at all
Kritiques:
Just don't run them. If you run a K, there's a good chance I might not understand it so even if you crush the opponent on the flow, you'll still probably lose. Debate is about accessibility and understanding, so if the layperson can't understand what's happening, you'll likely not get you point across.
Renee Zhang
New Age Learning
None