For debaters:

I will only give wins to teams that flow with crayons. Extra speaker points to competitors who wear antlers or holiday headwear.

Just kidding. I'm a flay judge and truth > tech... Sorry don't panic! Basically I have one year of Public Forum experience (octafinalist at SCU, blah blah). Be nice and do your best. Ignore my rambling; the only valuable information here is that humor will earn you speaker points.

For speechers:

I will give 1's to anyone who performs martial arts during their speech -- yeah I'm joking I won't.

I have a bit of experience in interp, but my main event is Informative/Expository. In my experience, speechers don't read paradigms, so if you happen to read this, type the secret code ("fish") in the chat and you'll get extra speaker points. Nope I'm messing with you again. I promise I'm an impartial judge. Good luck!

Pronouns: She/Her

Events: OO, PF with Sydney Sick

My debate experience includes the one year of PF I have participated in.

I'd prefer if you limited spreading and theory.

Make sure your arguments are explicitly and logically explained.

Don't waste cross ex.

Address all of your opponents' points.

Weigh your impacts.

Email: karin.liu2022@gmail.com

Hey! I debated for BASIS Independent Silicon Valley in LD for 4 years. I currently study Psychology and Economics at Dartmouth College. My debate experience is largely limited to lay debate and I have not participated in a circuit round in forever, so please be especially clear if you're running a circuit-style case.

Speed

I consider myself fairly adept at understanding spreading, so go for it if that's your style. I'll yell clear if I can't understand what you're saying. I encourage you to slow down if you're emphasizing a major point or when crystallizing.

Argumentation

Theory: Don't be abusive and yes, I will apply a reasonability standard.

K's: I'm a huge fan of Kritiks and love discussing discourse/identity in the debate context so don't hesitate to run a K with me. Please be clear in your argument logic as I'm not familiar with many types of newer Kritiks.

Topicality: This works. Be clear on where you see a topicality violation and the impact of that.

Narratives/Performative: This works. Use a framework to establish why a narrative helps you accomplish the goals of the round.

Anything else: I'm unfamiliar with other forms of argumentation besides the ones above and standard lay arguments, so if you're going to run something else, be especially clear on your framework and I would advise you to refrain from spreading. Don't feel bad about running a standard lay case! If that's your style, you are absolutely on the same playing field as any progressive argumentation format.

Speaks

25-26: Debater was rude or abusive to the opponent.

26-27: Major improvements in clarity and delivery can be made and/or debater's arguments were non-sequitur.

27-28: Average speaker at the tournament.

28-29: Top 10% speaker at the tournament.

30: One of the best speakers I have ever seen. Top 2% at the tournament.

I do value strong communication skills and respectful competition when evaluating speaks but I will only value substance when deciding the winner of the round. Have fun and most importantly, use every round as a learning experience!

E-mail : roopa.shirol@gmail.com

Please speak at a moderate pace so that I can follow along.

Be loud and clear.

Let me know where to record your arguments.

You can time yourselves.

During cross-ex, please speak one after the other and not at the same time.

Pronouns: He/Him

Affiliation: Leland HS '20, UC Berkeley '24

Background: Competed extensively in Congress for my four years of HS (top 40 Nationals, Berkeley finals, 2x State, etc.), with experience judging or competing in basically every event except Interp and Policy.

General Comments (for all events):

• Always treat your fellow competitors with respect. For speech events, this includes paying active attention, not stonewalling, and staying quiet when your competitors are speaking. For debate events, this includes not rolling your eyes/shaking your head when your opponent is reading their arguments, asking for cards in a respectful manner, and not being disruptive while they are speaking (whispering to your partner is allowed, but don’t be obnoxious)

• Don’t be discriminatory/racist/sexist.

• Presentation is key. If I can’t hear and understand what you are saying, then it doesn’t matter how good your content is. Good speaking skills (voice inflection, meaningful pauses, etc.) will always be rewarded.

• Organization is very important. Use taglines and signpost so I can easily follow along w/your speech on the flow.

• Don’t abuse your event’s grace period. Doing so will result in lower ranks and/or speaking scores, and I won’t listen to any arguments made past the grace period.

• Remember to enjoy yourself and have fun! Good luck!

Speech/Extemp/Imp:

• Always give me your topic before you begin your speech.

• I rank good organization, effective speaking, and the inclusion of emotional rhetoric (when appropriate) very highly.

• Do not become a thesaurus -- larger synonyms of simpler words aren't impressive. Keep in mind that clarity is the number one most important aspect of a speech, and using any superfluous words doesn’t help you achieve that goal.

Congress:

• Out of all the debate events, Congress is the most holistic. This means that I will judge you not only on your argumentation (speeches/questions), but also on your overall presentation skills (speaking proficiency/level of engagement with the chamber/Congressional role player) Congress does have a role playing element -- it is important to treat your fellow legislators with the appropriate level of maturity and formality.

• Presiding: I judge POs equally fairly as I judge speakers -- there is no competitive disadvantage for POing. I will not hesitate to give an excellent PO the 1 (or a very high rank) in the round. That being said, POing is an art -- you must always be fast, fair, efficient, clear in your communications, maintain chamber decorum, and understand proper procedure. If there is clear bias (e.g. coincidentally choosing your schoolmates three times in a row) or you make repeated/notable mistakes, you can expect low ranks. Just as a speaker will need to be flawless to obtain the 1, a PO will similarly have to be of excellent quality.

• I have been in too many rounds, especially as one attends more prestigious/national tournaments, where no one wants to deliver the first authorship and/or early speeches. If you volunteer to give the authorship speech after 10 minutes of dawdling because no one bothered to prep, I will look upon your speech more favorably. In addition, good authorships (establish strong context and explain the legislation’s mandate and initial advantages) will be ranked very highly. Authorships are essential and I heavily appreciate those who put in the work to prep one.

• Rebuttal/Crystallization speeches with clash are the bread and butter of Congress -- I should be hearing more of these as we progress through cycles. Excellent rebuttal and crystallization speeches are hard to find, but when delivered appropriately, will be ranked extremely highly. Do your best to deliver such a speech.

• Engagement with other speakers by mentioning their names shows me that you’re paying good attention, however, don’t make laundry lists of legislator names.

• Part of being an exemplary Congressional debater is adapting to the flow of the round as cycles progress -- I look down severely on rehashing points that another speaker mentioned earlier without offering a new perspective or extending their argument.

• As cycles continue, I expect each speech to have some degree of rebuttal or crystallization. I will severely penalize you if you give a pure constructive speech in late cycles (if there is a particularly profound point, exceptions can be made here)

• Good intros and persuasive rhetoric will be heavily rewarded. I’ve heard all of the low-effort/cliche/joke intros -- avoid them. Crafting an excellent intro will earn you my respect and appreciation.

Parli/PF/LD:

• Aim to speak at medium speeds -- I am a “flay” judge, so I will not understand spreading but I will record my own flow. If you go too fast for me, I will call “clear” -- please slow down if you hear this. If you continue to speak too fast, don’t expect perfect case comprehension or a high speaker score.

• Practically all of my experience is with lay/case debate, which I have a strong understanding of and preference for. If you really have to run theoretical/kritikal arguments, understand that I will not be well-read or experienced at all -- be prepared to do more explaining at a more basic level than you usually do. In general, if you keep things simple/clear/clean/organized, I’ll have the best chance at understanding and voting for your arguments.

• Time your own speeches and your opponents, and keep them responsible to their time. If your opponents go overtime, silently hold up your stopwatch/phone and I will get the message. If you are a debater who habitually abuses the grace period, read my note about this above in “General Comments”.

• Framework (V/VC/burdens) is incredibly important and round-defining. Take your time to flush out and argue for your own framework, because I will judge you off of the agreed framework of both teams. If there is no agreed framework, I expect both teams to argue for their own framework effectively. If either team goes a speech without arguing for their framework, I will assume that you accept your opponents framework. A good framework can augment your argumentation and easily set up your team for victory -- don’t make the cardinal sin of ignoring this part of debate. If neither team presents their own framework, I will default to utilitarianism.

• Include impacts in each of your arguments and use impact calculus. Your impacts should be attached to a clear, consistent, and strong internal link chain. Good impacts will always be appreciated and regarded positively.

• PLEASE WEIGH! Write as much of my ballot as you can for me by weighing impacts, voter issues, and highlighting critical parts of the debate and why they fall in your favor.

• POIs/Crossfire: Always remain respectful during questioning. For Parli, I would prefer you to take at least 1-2 questions; however, due to time constraints, taking no questions will not negatively impact your speaks. I generally do not put POIs and crossfire questions on the flow, though I will note if there is an important concession/anything interesting that gets brought up during questioning.

• POOs: Call them. I will be watching my own flow, but I can’t guarantee I’ll catch an entirely new argument brought up in the last speeches. Keep me and your opponents accountable.