I'm a parent judge with four years of experience judging traditional debate.

I appreciate clearly developed arguments and good juge instruction (explain why you've won the round). I take thorough notes throughout the debate but don't keep a rigorous flow. The most convincing arguments in the round are the ones that will win my ballot.

Please provide a clear framework (including definitions) and explain how your offense functions under that framework.

I did PF in high school. I do IPDA now at UCSD.

GENERAL

My ballot comes down to keeping this atmosphere fair, fun, and educational. If a strategy is within those lines you should be good.

I don't prefer speed. Additionally, if one side is not comfortable with speed, you shouldn't be going fast. That being said, if both sides are cool with speed and I am made aware of that I won't tank speaker points.

Signpost where you are going ("Responding to their contention 1..." "Their x card says y..."). Try and stay in chronological order and take care of top of case argumentation first.

Also, please note that I don't flow cross. If something comes up in cross and you want to make sure it's on my flow, you need to mention it in the speech following cross.

I appreciate a good narrative. Tell your story how you want to.

I'll vote on theory but it should be brought up as more than just a strategy to win.

PF

My RFD will most likely include the framework debate. If a framework isn't fair: tell me what their framework is, why it isn't fair, give a different framework, and why this new framework is better. I would prefer to not listen to a topicality debate though so -> If you can win on both frameworks presented, do that.

Please include neat voters in FF.

If the framework isn't as important for the topic I will end up looking at the flow and the overall narratives.

LD

I never did LD but I do appreciate a good value debate. Make sure your value is both fair and intertwined with your narrative.

I am open to most argumentation though so long as it is fair and educational.

Parli

While I do appreciate some evidence in parli, I will prefer logical argumentation in this event. Make some good POIs but I will probably end up voting on the speeches themselves.

Congress

Give a unique, fun speech. I appreciate the rp as a congressmember but don't get too caught up on that. I prefer one good speech to two mediocre ones so don't feel the need to game recency.

Policy

Never did policy but I will respect the event and flow however the round goes. My general preferences will still mostly apply, however.

Speech

In general I don't have any preferences for speech. In impromptu, however, I prefer speeches that fall in line with the name of the event and will place those over any canned speeches.

When Linking out to Nuclear war make sure to have a strong, evidenced-based link chain.

Tell me what you want me to do. Give me voters. You won't get credit for things you don't say.

ABOUT ME

Hi there! My name is Nicholas/Nick Panyanouvong (he/him). I'm a sophomore at Stanford studying biochemistry.

I was a member of the James Enochs speech and debate team for all four years of high school. I've competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, IX, Impromptu, OO, and OA. Over the course of my S&D career, I qualified to the CHSSA state tournament four times, NSDA nationals three times, and earned several bids to NIETOC/TOC.

DEBATE

I'm fairly versatile here. I prefer traditional debate, but I'm tangentially familiar with 'progressive' approaches like kritiks, theory, CPs, and so on. If you employ any of these strategies, I ask that you:

1) Slow down. I'm not too great with speed in general, so if you start spreading AND using technical jargon I will likely have no clue what you're saying.

2) If possible, provide a brief explanation of how your approach still engages with the resolution/your opponent's argument. Please don't just read off cards verbatim. If you're going to use Ks or theory shells, I want to know that you can articulate your point in laymen's terms. It'll also help me track your argument better.

Now for the more general stuff: I will flow the round, but I generally flow arguments, not cards. Try to avoid excessive reliance on evidence and remember to arguments back to your framework. I'm also not a huge fan of debates over the relevancy of evidence (e.g "my evidence was published more recently than my opponent's") unless you can provide a meaningful explanation as to how this difference may invalidate their argument.

If you would like to add me to an email chain: nickliem@stanford.edu

SPEECH

Not much to say here, but if I'm judging you in extemp/impromptu, please stay away from canned speeches! It's pretty noticeable when you twist the topic/question to fit a pre-prepared format. Don't worry if you have some verbal hiccups/awkward pauses - they're totally natural in spontaneous speaking! I would rather vote for that than a disingenuous speech.

And that's about it! Good luck!

Experience: I have a lot of experience in IPDA debate so some things I like. To win my ballot for Affirmative you need everything topicality, contentions and really importantly impact calculus. If Aff doesn't do this I will not vote for you. For Neg you only have to prove that what they're saying isn't true or won't have the same effect to the opponent. For Neg I need topicality, contentions, as well as impact calculus. If both sides are missing these critical points I will almost always default to the negation unless the Aff has some strong logic why I shouldn't.

Kritiks: Don't run any of these by me absolutely none or that's an automatic vote against you. I dislike these and find it to take away from the integrity and education of the debate for a win and feel its a cheap strategy.

Sportsmanship: I understand Debate is highly competitive and emotions can run high please keep it under control. I don't like rudeness or disrespect and if your opponent is being that way towards you please let me handle it.

Overall: Have fun enjoy and run Strong arguments do not discount my Paradigm as I will use it every debate without a doubt.

Hello,

I have been judging in the YFL tournaments for the last 3 years and would prefer to judge speech events!

Thanks,

Siva Senguttuvan

Competitive Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Extemp, OA, PuFo, LD

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Coaching Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Assistant (Alumni) Coach; Head Coach/Program Coordinator

Judging Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - All events

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Background

I have been involved in speech & debate in some capacity since high school and competed at the collegiate level. My emphasis has namely been geared towards extemporaneous speaking and debate (namely PuFo, LD, and Policy/CX). Though I'm new to coaching, I've been in this community of wall takers for over 10 years and love every minute of it!

In terms of my general judging philosophy I'd say two phrases should be considered, those being "tabula rasa" (clean slate) and "sell me!". My perspective is that it's the competitors burden to prove to the judge or show why their performance is equipped to pick up the ballot. Certainly I can make the connection and piece together the narrative/story, but the more you ask me to intervene the more I have to implement my biases into the round. Long-story short it's disheartening to see competitors lose rounds because they leave ambiguity to be pieced together, and as a former competitor who has lost more than one round to this - I don't want to do the same to other speakers/debaters.

In general, from a technique standpoint if you act as though your judges are lay judges it's easier to ramp up than it is to tone back.

Debate Cues

1) Procedures - Card quals, roadmapping, and signposting

These make for a smooth round and much more efficient! Do your judge a favor and get things moving the longer the day, the less quality the adjudication- we get tired too haha

2) Arguments - Impact Calculus, Topicality, and Solvency

I generally am pretty open to what is brought forth, hence my "tabula rasa" spiel, but need to see a clear end result from either team in the debate. Whoever has the more believable and impact narrative will pick up the ballot.

3) Evidence - Needs to be there, this is debate...

No matter the style of debate, if you make an argument it needs to be proven in some way. If not then you ask me to be an "activist judge" where bias takes precedence over argumentation, in my view this is unfair to the competitors and bad for debate.

4) Sportsmanship - We all want to learn from this experience

Compete with honest intent and assertion, but not to cause harm. Too many a time debates get ugly and personal, that's not why we're here. This is a learning opportunity and academically stimulating. Let's keep it civil and competitive.

Speech Cues

1) Structure - Clear and concise

My coach taught me this rule and it's what I teach unto others: a) Tell them what you're gonna tell them; b) Tell them; c) Tell them what you told them. There should be a logical pattern in your speech.

2) Impact - Make it personable

Cultural competency is a really big aspect of public speaking that goes unsung. Find someway to connect with your audience and give us something tangible to take away from the speech, once completed.

3) Creativity - Bring it to life

I have a really special place for Interps and OPP because it brings forth the creative energy and so too can other speeches. Make this speech an experience for us to enjoy!

4) Authentic - You are the centerpiece

With speaking you are the epicenter, give the audience a reason to divert their attention to you! Also, bring some creativity to the forefront this makes for a more compelling speech.

Email: wildes.adam5@gmail.com for any email chain, please.

Speed: If I have the document go as fast as you please if I can't get a document, anything over the slightest spreading I will struggle to flow, so I will say "clear" and after 2-3 times if you still don't slow down I will put my pen down until you slow down.

I have competed in most debates, but mainly CX, Parli, and congress. I have experience watching and doing a light competition in PF, and LD, so I am comfortable to judge them.

I vote tech over truth, as even a bad point is better than no argument, but I do take validity into account, so if I think the argument holds no validity at all, and you don't prove to me that it should, I will prefer basically any defense made over the original argument.

For me, more policy-based arguments, logistical arguments, and impact weighting are things I tend to vote on. That being said, any good argument I will clearly weigh and feel comfortable voting for.

Finally, please be generous during cross ex or crossfire, I want both teams to have time to answer questions and ask them, feel free to stop them after you get an answer, but don't try to bully them during cross. Most importantly don't be rude, and respect me, other judges, and your opponents, and we should have no issues.