Tabroom.com

CHSSA Middle School State Championship

2021 — Online, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Vaibhav Aggarwal Hire

Ravi Agrawal Joaquin Miller Middle School

Alex Ali Hire

Wafaa Fatima Amer Hire None

Ali Feroz Ansari Hire

Lily Aronovitz Blach Intermediate School

Aarav Arora Hire None

Anya Ayyappan Hire

Last changed on Wed May 5, 2021 at 2:57 PM EDT

hey y’all! my name’s Anya (she/her), i’m a freshman at dougherty valley and have been competing in congress for the past 3 years.

what i’m looking for:

argument structure - the logic behind your arguments should be easy for me to follow. evidence should be stated with a source or author, and a date. the best usage of evidence, in my opinion, is when you cite statistics and then explain it's relevance in the debate. i want to hear your thought process, so i’ll take this over a credible author’s word any day.

speaking style - i care about what you say, i don’t put a whole lot of emphasis on how you say it. that being said your speaking still needs to be clear enough for me to fully understand. also keep in mind when content is equal among competitors, i’ll be using presentation to determine who gets the higher rank. feel free to try different speaking styles that you think are effective and engaging, i’m open to anything.

rehash - don’t do it!!!! (note all the exclamation points) if you are planning on extending an argument, make that clear by mentioning the speaker you're adding on to.

weighing - this is so so so important. y’all should not be speaking in parallels. many arguments presented by the opposing side are probably true, so explain to me why your impacts matter more than theirs.

refutations - namedropping is NOT considered a refutation. fully flesh out your links and explain why it disproves your opponents argument. refutations are expected in every speech after the authorship/sponsorship in some capacity.

cross x - ask questions that poke holes in your opponents logic. quality of questions will be taken into consideration when determining overall rank.

adaptability - if you have to flip sides to keep the debate going i’ll be more lenient when judging. adaptability is an important skill for debaters to have.

POing - if you win in a PO election expectations will be much higher than someone who just volunteers for the sake of even having a round. overall as long as the chamber runs seamlessly you will be ranked well.

most importantly, be respectful and have fun! every tournament is a learning experience, so don’t get too stressed about ranks, instead focus on putting your best foot forward. feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Laiba Bajwa Hire 8 rounds

Michael Castigador Balerite Hire

Honey Bansal Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Asher Barondes Hire 8 rounds None

Rupali Batta Hire

Caitlin Bergevin Hire

Anchal Bhardwaj Hire

Manav Bhargava Egan Junior High School None

Neal Bhatia Joaquin Miller Middle School

Tanishq Bhatnagar Stratford Osgood

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 8:40 AM PDT

Tech judge

Put me on the email chain pls: tbhatnagar@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org and collegeprepdocs@gmail.com

Quick summary,

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is better

Defense is sticky.

Theory and prog args: I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad, etc, but I will evaluate all shells fairly whether or not they fit with my personal beliefs.

K's are fine, I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency

If you say Among Us or make a Jojo Reference in any speech I will give you 30 speaks(real)

If you want a long version, look below(totally not stolen from William Pirone)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

* * * * *

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has recently become egregiously long so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with.

Also,go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

This is by far the most fun to judge. Below are some of my preferences/rules when it comes to tech substance debate, listed from the debate norms most specific to me to the least.

Part I - General Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested,you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal linksin summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though.

I like impact turns. A lot. Read them.

You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.

I really value word efficiency– do this well, and you will be rewarded.

"Who what when where why" is not a responseand if your opponents point it out they get auto 30s.

Part II - Evidence:

Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

Whether or not the tournament is onlineI will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.

Part III - Weighing

Weighing = great. Do it.

You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.

—Weighing §1—

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.

Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.

Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.

—Weighing §2—

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).

On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech. 4 minutes is 4 minutes, read whatever offense you want in both constructives/rebuttals.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Pleasemake frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.

Theory:

Theory is ok, I read it a lot my junior year. We usually read disclosure/paraphrase/round reports, but I'm good with anything as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me.

I prefer techy substance rounds thoughso speaks might take a slight dip if you do this in prelims.

—Theory §1—

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.(Tanishq here: This is objectively wrong). No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I’m happy to give comments and help as much as I can.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, andreasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.

—Theory §2—

I default to spirit > text,CI > R,No RVIs,Yes OCIs*,DTA.

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure todo weighing between them.

If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.

I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.

Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.

Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.

Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win.

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap/Baudrillard. For anything else please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read the mythical Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks, especially if you can point to specific links from their case.

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way)you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

Also, theory almost always uplayers the K.You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.

Perms are OP if you use them effectively. I like when people shotgun them.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Also, totally open to theory against these– just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant,anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

If you must, just make sure the other team is cool with them first. Theory against these is smart too.

Make tricks fun, arguments like a prioris or “eval after the 1ac” are meh butparadoxes, skep, etc are great.

Head to the presumption sectionsince it’ll probably be necessary for these rounds.

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise,I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF with my life.

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants.I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first.

Preferences:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 4

Phil - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5

Performance - 5

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points forword efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!

If you want a boost:

+0.2 speaks if you're disclosed and you tell me and it’s OS

+0.2 speaks if you don’t paraphrase (+0.2 for rebuttal too)

+0.2 speaks if you read the Keck/Dowd combo

+0.1 speaks if your cards are Times New Roman with green highlighting

+0.1 speaks if you have round reports

I will give you a 30 if you readALL defense/turns in second constructive(first rebuttal must frontline if this happens).

If it’s a prelim and both teams agree before the round, we can switch the resolution to a different one– it can be a previous topic or something new entirely.

Shivangi Bhatt Dougherty Valley Bridge

Simran Bhattacharya Hire None

Prasad Bhethanabotla Joaquin Miller Middle School

Aarav Billore Hire

Last changed on Fri April 30, 2021 at 4:04 AM PDT

CIRCUIT STUFF (LAY ON THE BOTTOM) (for chssa ms state read the bottom, it's a lay tournament so just chill out and run ur lay cases)

Im an LD dude, run mostly plan affs and da-cp negs. Also run T and theory usually. PLEASE DONT READ GRAPHIC CONTENT i might vote for you if you debate well, but youll get terrible speaks because i am not rly mentally comfortable with that stuff.

Mostly ill give high speaks because unless you do something like extremely bad they're pretty arbitrary in the 27.5-29 range. So if i think you're good but not god tier ill just give you a high 28 because i think speaks are dumb.

If you debate poorly ill give you a high 27.

if ur mean or do anything thats just like morally questionable ill give you a 25.

LARP - DAs and CPs are very good. Perm is a test of competition. MAKE SURE TO WEIGH. if either side forgets to weigh, the other team will win because its pretty clear then (unless its like egregiously bad).

Ks - Regular Ks like cap, militarism, fem, etc. are pretty cool, just explain everything clearly. ROTB is kind of a dumb argument because its essentially "role of the ballot is to vote for me" so find a real moral fw. Most alts are not well written and/or don't have solvency(eg anything that calls for endorsing a paradigm or utopia or anything like that) so call that out and neg teams, just make a well prepped alt. Me voting for you will not have any real world impacts outside of debate, so make sure your K impact/alt is something that is actually measurable in some way or else case outweighs becomes very convincing.

T - Usually fine, TVA is good, so is limits. But if you're core of lit you can win, like running Russia on the nukes topic, etc is definitely topical. T is a stock issue no rvis, CI and DTD but i will vote on reasonability because most affs are T.

Theory - don't read friv theory. Condo good, but you can win off condo bad. Pics good, same thing. Reasonability, no rvis (unless super friv), DTA on most things, but i can be convinced otherwise for this stuff. Fairness > education

Non-t affs - Fairness is probably an impact and something you say in a debate round is very unlikely to affect anything out of it. I'm not well versed in this, but just try ur best to defend why this is fair and why I should vote on some impact. Please find some framing to tell me why the impacts ur k-aff talks about matter.

T-FW- I like this argument, but you have to run it well and collapse well to win. Find TVAs, theyre very powerful arguments

Phil - Explain it well, don't just throw out buzzwords. No moral philosopher would think extinction is good (or at least most of them, I understand some do and that is okay). Im cool with phil though, it's a fun way to debate, just PLEASE dont have impact justified frameworks (ie "the standard is minimizing terrorism instead of util).

Tricks - They're kinda annoying, yes, but if you impact everything out and frame it well, I'll vote for it. Just dont be annoying about it or ill dock ur speaks

Be cool. Don't be a meanie-bo-beanie.

Email : aaravbillore22@mittymonarch.com

TL;DR and Prefs

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 1

Normal Ks - 2

Phil - 3

Not normal Ks - 4

K affs - 4

Tricks - 5

LAY

Treat me like you would any other judge.

I do flow, and I am tech>truth (unless you make an absurd claim with no warrant, in circuit that is okay, in lay it is not)

I won't really consider speaking (unless you're being rude) but it will probably unconsciously affect me a little so keep note of that

Also please weigh and do voters or else I'll have to intervene and probably will make a decision a least partly based on subjectivity, so just tell me what should be considered and how heavy it weighs and I will do that

A Brand BTribe 8 rounds None

Stephan Brooks Brooks Debate Institute

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

Yasha Bruk Hire None

Dylan Bunyak Hire

Xuemin Cai Joaquin Miller Middle School

Feng Cao The Golden State Academy None

John Cao The Golden State Academy None

Ricky Carbajal Hire

Derek Chang Hire

Parnika Chaturvedi Hire

Elizabeth Chavez Hire 8 rounds

Jian Chen Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

lixia chen Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Seshagiri Chilukuri Joaquin Miller Middle School

John Cho Athens Debate 8 rounds

Monica chopra Dougherty Valley Bridge

Madelyn Christensen Hire 8 rounds

Max Crichton Hire None

Lihui Cui BASIS Independent Silicon Valley None

Martina Daniel Athens Debate None

Abyan Das Hart Middle School

Archer Date Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 4:06 PM PDT

Hey all, I graduated from Mountain View High School in 2022 and octafinaled at silver TOC in PF

ask me for my email when making the email chain please

treat me like a techy flay

---if you're new to debate, read this:

I really like arguments that have clear warranting (why something happens / is true, not just stating that it is true even if it's from a card [unless it's a statistic about the status quo, like something being at some percent]) and I really like when you use magnitude / timeframe / probability to compare your case with your opponents. good luck and have fun!

---otherwise, general:

speed is fine just don't go Grand Prix on me, bring up important things from cx in speeches for me to flow it, I will almost always give an oral rfd so don't leave right when the round ends, wear whatever you want, off-time roadmaps are fine just make them quick, I will only write a few broad takeaways in the specific feedback sections for each team but if you want more feedback just ask me

---tech specific:

tech > truth unless your case is wildly squirrelly, if you do have a weird case there should be good warranting & I'll look at you funny & I'll be susceptible to probability weighing from your opponents but I'll rely on your opponents to call out your wack argument, pls signpost, pls extend, when extending arguments extend uniqueness/warrant/impact/implication/really key cards not just taglines, 2nd rebuttal must frontline, dropped defense is probably terminal and dropped turns probably conceded but your opponents have to a) bring that up and b) properly weigh it, no sticky defense, collapse in summary, numbers are awesome but I can go for any well-explained and well-weighed impact, implicate impacts/responses on opponent's case, when explaining link/impact turns b sure to explain why I should prefer the turn over the opponent's case, weighing is so awesome please do it ideally starting in summary, starting weighing in 2nd FF is too late, be comparative when you weigh, anything in final focus should be in summary, please please please have solid internal links into your impact / have a solid impact scenario, if i don't think either team has offense at the end of the round I intervene and do my own analysis probably on the narrative clash, card with warranting > no card with warranting > card without warranting > no card with no warranting

---

On another note, I would not recommend running progressive debate with me. In my experience, it makes debate less accessible to casual debaters as smaller/newer teams don't know how to respond, it makes opponents feel terrible for arguing against it, and it diverts attention away from learning about the (mostly) cool topics we get to explore in debate. That being said, I understand that sometimes topics aren't the best, so if you really have a strong desire to run theory/K's/etc and have a really good reason to, I will evaluate it. Just keep in mind I will be very lenient to your opponents if it is clear they have no idea what is happening and I will be easily persuaded by a substance > theory counter argument (especially if your opponents run no RVIs).

---speaks: definitions will scale with tournament, general case:

30: you're crazy, what kind of milk are you drinking

29.5: delivery very well done: inflection of voice, signposting, slowing on on key facts and when moving to a new side of the case, etc. overall very easy to follow and understand, the structure is clear and consistent

29: delivery pretty clean, few filler words or gaps in speech, appropriate tactical plays made, posts are being signed

28.5: understand well the role that each speech plays in the round, do well at fulfilling that role as well as setting up later speeches

28: you definitely get the gist of the purpose of each speech

27.5: you understand well how debate works and the purpose of each speech

27: catch-all score for some areas of improvement

-- ONLY VALID IF I AM THE ONLY JUDGE PRESENT --

+.1 speaks if you end both your speeches with "Badabap boomp, POW" instead of "Vote Aff/Neg"

+.2 speaks if you refer to your partner as "Scoob" instead of "my partner" and your partner refers to you as "Shaggy" for the duration of the round. To be clear, one of you should be Scoob and one of you should be Shaggy

+.1 speaks if you have a conversation with your opponents before the round starts about how their day is going / an interesting fact about them / what they do for fun aside from debate (cuz we're all here for fun and debate is so fun...right?...)

+.1 speaks if you include "bingo bango bongo" in your speech in a way that makes sense

Bethany Davis Athens Debate 8 rounds

Madhura Deo Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Darshan Desai Dougherty Valley Bridge

Daphne Du Stratagem Learning

Taisia Dubinina Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Sameer Eppanapally Hire

Adam Fagel Pinewood High School None

Satish Fernandes Joaquin Miller Middle School

Isaiah Francisco Hire None

Ben Freda-Eskenazi Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Tue April 26, 2022 at 8:09 AM PDT

*last updated April 12, 2021*

Hey all, I’m Ben (they/them), I go to Los Altos High School

Add me to the email chain benfe024@gmail.com

tech≥truth, I’ll avoid intervention as much as possible while still ensuring accessibility to the round.

1 - ks, phil

1.5 - policy

2 - t

3 - theory

4 - tricks and bad theory

idrc what you read and I like to think im flex - read wtv and win it.

don't be a pos tho

for reference here's my wiki - this is what I read, not necessarily what you should

aff

neg

for online debate

- record speeches locally and send after speech or round if theres a connection issue mid speech

- flash analytics

- send me music please I need smth to listen to

- get verbal confirmation from me before speeches that im ready

- don't worry about your camera - having it off is fine no questions asked

t/l

trad debater =/= don't read "prog" args or args u wanna read but does mean that you should try to be as accessible as you can while also staying within boundaries of what you want to do - however I trust your judgement as to what is accessible. Debate is your space, and what you read is up to you. Nobody, not even your opp, can change that.

on "death good" args: no <3. just no. benatar is fine *only* if read as a criticism of hedonic util, NOT as an advocacy - thats really what he's saying and is also just uh not repugnant

more to be added

Defaults:

truth testing (see the phil part for my thoughts on this), epistemic confidence, neg presumption, no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, fairness > education. that being said, my threshold for how heavily ill stick to these is incredibly low; say otherwise, and I'll follow.

If I cannot understand what you're saying I will yell "clear". If you haven't made any notable change in clarity after three times yelling clear, your speaks will die. Slow down for the last bit of the 2n/2ar, write my rfd for me.

judge instruction is really fuckin great.

cp/da:

tbh im a lot better for this than my wiki or what you know about me suggests

high level ev comparison is very cool. very.

the 2n collapse needs interaction w case or some level of clash w the 1ar direction of offense

Plans: have a solvency advocate lmao

Disads: clear uniqueness, links, and impacts. the more internal links necessary to complete the link chain, I'll have a higher threshold for the quality of each link. If it takes you that many steps to explain an internal link it's probably just not that true, or at least not as true as the aff.

Counterplans: have a net benefit - if ur cp only solves the aff but not a nb you need a disad or a really good offensive case push or just like,,, will lose. SA's are good, but if you can analytically prove that the cp is a good thing, impressive and acceptable. Infinite condo is a good thing. Process cp's probably true, but they should have some nuanced nb as to why this process of the aff is better.

analytic cps - are a thing.

perms are a test of competition omfl.

this is a work in progress!

Theory:

I'll let you know when I hear a good rvi warrant, hasn't happened yet :/

If you win yes RVIs, you still need to win the shell.

weigh standards

funny frivolous shell done well = +0.1 speaks

the 1ar should answer the 1nc standards not just read a ci

Phil:

some of my favorite rounds to evaluate. understand your syllogism, and probably more importantly, make me understand it too. "bindingness", "freedom", "lexical prereq" means nothing to me unless you actually explain it and why it concludes your framing. not sorry. idk about you but Kant's getting kinda boring. way too many affs spend most of their time developing the syllogism and straight up just don't have robust offense. thats sad. don't be like that. good 1ar pivots against the k = high speaks. if you can give a straight ref 1nc and win, 29 speaks minimum.

Does induction fail? dunno. im quite sure I knew last week but thats a past event so idt I can induce from that ://

read an "obscure" Phil author (not Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Sartre etc you get the point) you get a .5 speaks boost

you should engage the util and da 1nc - actually answering things >>> consequences fail

truth testing doesn't filter out util and you should stop pretending it does

Ks:

yay. I’d like to think that I know a lot of the K lit, so I’ll most likely understand it, but no matter what you gotta explain it. Go for specific links.

stolen from Patrick Fox's paradigm bc I agree w this

- Neg blocks/2NRs vs policy affs should be highly organized, overviews kept to a minumum, and most explanation done on the lbl. Organizing your 2NC/1NRs to mirror the 2AC order is good. Link debate on the permutation, framework on framework, etc. Framework should be a model of debate, so "reps first" isn't really an argument. Links should be contextualized to disprove why I should vote for the aff (whether the aff is a policy or a research object - tell me which!), and should be impacted out to some sort of turns case or external piece of offense. Examples - lines from aff ev, references to CX, etc - do them. If I don't know what the alt does by the end of the 2NR my threshold for the 2AR goes way down. Impact framing and comparison is often forgotten in these debates, and should be present in the block/2NR. Floating PIKs should be set up explicitly in the block (LD: if it's not set up in the 1NC, the 2AR gets new responses - you don't have a block! When does it "float?"), and if I miss it, that's your fault for trying to cheat. 2NRs that go for the PIK that don't robustly explain what the PIK actually looks like tend to lose to the perm, so explicitly re-contextualizing the alternative is probably in your interest - the one policy panel I've sat on was because of this.

- K v K debates - stuff gets muddled very fast in these debates, so examples + organization + clear impacting out of arguments is the winning move. I could be convinced "no perms in a method debate" may be a good argument in the abstract, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one in most debates. Read Marxism at your own risk - perversions of the immortal and revolutionary science and revisionist nonsense like "socialism is when healthcare" or "talking about racism is neoliberal" will make me more annoyed and I'd rather you just go for framework than be an annoying socdem.

k-affs: should defend something. your jumping off point should probably be the topic but im open to stuff if not. 2ns should go for presumption more often

more from pat:

- K affs should defend a shift from the status quo to solve an impact - if I do not think this is the case by the end of the 2AR, I will err super heavily negative because, shockingly, affs should defend things. Presumption is underexploited by the negative, but most presumption args should be less about the ballot and more about solvency (or lack thereof). Explaining why debating your aff is valuable is crucial. Overviews are fine but as time goes on, returns diminish. Case debate is essential, and I'm pretty good for the impact turn - I think the aff should be able to explain to me what it does and why it's good, which means saying those things are actually bad is obvious fair game. Wanna restate - the less 2As defend the more annoyed I get.

K v fwk

I don't have a preference in these debates but I do believe in k specific impact turns to T. If you can prove that your model of debate is preferable to T then you win the fwk debate. I think 2ar's are more convincing on the impact turn than the counterinterp, but there are strategic 2ars which go for both or j counterinterp which are good.

Some Ks that I've read and/or I'm comfortable with them:

Baudrillard, cybernetics, security, poetry, D&G, gift, Foucalt, Lacan, ableism, Agamben, Bataille, grove

^explain it^

yo tf is up w the 5 line long k tags ?! stop it.

non-indigenous setcol, nonblack afropess, etc are dtd issues - this is not something I will fill in the gaps on myself, but my opinion and I am very open to 2ns/2ars that go for procedurals like these.

Tricks:

trix are still args and still need warrants. I'll probably be just as confused as your opponent if you collapse to one half a sentence in the middle of your underview. I guess I’m impartial to tricks.

I find that the good ol fwk rob spec tt analytic brain rot 1nc isnt the most compelling but is strategic.

hiding "evaluate after the ac" in a cite of a card isnt a good thing :)

Ev ethics: should be read as a shell - allows for deliberation over it as well as opportunities to actually set norms. much better than a procedural which leaves me w a half explained ev violation and no idea how to decide anything. go read Holden Bukowsky's paradigm for more on this.

RFDs

please post round me talking about debate is fun

don't do it w the intent to be angry tho lol

Some things to get higher speaks:

-Signposting is always good.

-give content warnings!!!!!!! (but not when you don't need one obvs)

-Taking proper prep-time. That’ll make me happy.

-keeping the theory debate clear

-if you have some time left in the 2n (or 2ar) I appreciate if you either go back and keep extending offense, as long as it isnt just a repeat of the first half of the 2n, or slow down, give a lbl and tell me how I should be voting on this round. Slowing down and sequencing should be done more.

-pictures of pets in speech docs

-good 2ns on marxism

-music references

-from pat: Before the debate, both teams/debaters can give me recommendations for a song/s to listen to during prep time, which I will do, and if I vibe with it I may bump speaks.

Some things to get lower speaks:

-making arguments in cx. If you spend 20 seconds making an argument and then you say "what do you have to say to that?", I'll roll my eyes and yawn.

-obviously, evidence ethics are important, so maintain them please. heavy evidence ethics (if proven) is an L20

-be nice to people. cmon.

some other stuff, and pet peeves:

Call me whatever you want, but be consistent I guess. I don't really mind, but if you'd like you can call me my name (Ben!), "judge" "dude", whatever you want.

Explain your cards- "extinction" isn't a good tag. "this causes extinction by..." is a good tag.

Make all the references you'd like, you do you.

You may not concede your remaining cx time to prep time. if you have 20 seconds left of cx, either ask a question, or stop the timer and start your prep.

Anyhoo, just have fun.

obligatory:

Policy--------------------------------X-------------K

K/Policy----------X-----------------------------------Theory/Phil

States CP good----------X------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing------X-------------------------Delgado 92

Fairness is an Impact-------------------------X------Fairness is an Internal Link

Try or die---------X--------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits-------------------------X---------------------Aff ground

Presumption----X----------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---------------------------X-Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

Fiat solves circumvention-----------------------X-Can't fiat enforcement if not in the res

CX about impacts-----------------------------X---CX about links and solvency

Fiat double-bind--------------------------X----------------literally any other arg

1AR should be a card wall-------X--------------------------------------No 1AR cards

(LD) 2NR should be a card wall---------------X-------------------------------No 2NR cards

Memes in speech doc--X-------------------------------------------I'm a boomer and wouldn't appreciate these

CEDA--------------------------------X--------------------------------NDT

Harvard------------------------------------------------------X--Berkeley

good transparent a prioris and clear tricks -x------------------------- what's an a priori?

Rawls------------------------------X-Literally anything else in existence

Sending Analytics in 1ar/2nr-X------------------------------"I don't want to send"

Five 1AR shells-------------------X------------huh,,, just,,, don't do that.

Elizabeth French Prestige Debate None

Edward nicholas Fundulea Hire None

Natalie Galila Hire None

Anika Ganesh Hire

Last changed on Sun April 28, 2024 at 11:54 AM PDT

Hi, I'm Anika! UCLA, Debated at Notre Dame San Jose for 3 years, qualled 3 times, and earned 9 career bids to the TOC. Put me on the email chain (anikaganesh1989[at]gmail[dot]com) although speech drop >>

General

Will not vote on anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. that makes the round unsafe. This includes any arguments that deny the badness of death. Debate is an educational activity, but there are clear lines for what makes the space accessible and safe.

I was a policy and set col/ir debater in high school, which shapes my comfortability in certain debates. Pref me for pure policy, policy v k, and set col/ir v k debates. I’m fine in a kvk debate but substantially better for set col and ir ks than I am for pomo.

I won’t evaluate tricks even if they’re dropped and will lower speaks for every one read. I’m not your judge for phil and will be lost in anything other than a kant v set col debate. If you for some reason read phil in front of me, explain it to me like I’m 5.

I default reasonability > competing interps, neg on presumption, judge kick, no rvis, cx is binding, and dta. All of these can be changed with proper warranting. **NOTE FOR THEORY** I will not vote on 1ar theory without a warrant that becomes a 3 minutes from “condo is a voter for strat skew.”

“If your eyes don't move up from your computer your speaks aren't moving up either” - Sophia Tian.

I value high quality evidence and will give the same weight to arguments as is in the evidence (ie. my threshold for disads with 10 word cards strung together is way higher).

Policy

Weighing is extremely underutilized (especially turns case arguments) and should always be at the top of the speech.

I love cheaty/process counterplans, impact turns (reading the link for the aff is fine), and good da debates. Counterplan competition debates are fun and interesting, just make sure the warrant for the perm is in the 1ar. Inserting rehighlightings/perm texts is fine. Straight turn 1ar/2ar’s and impact turn 2nr’s are some of my favorite speeches to listen to. Risky NC's like 0 off case will be rewarded with high speaks.

My biggest pet peeve in k2nr’s is long and ranty overviews that throw around buzzwords. All of that explanation should be on the lbl. 2nr's should organize the debate into framework, link, and alt sections. Links should be contextualized to the aff even if they’re written generally. Please use link walls!

I like topical k affs that are written/debated well. That being said, you should err on the side of more explanation if the lit base is anything other than cap/setcol/ir/generic baudrillard.

My favorite k 2ar’s are perm + link turn + alt fails, but I also enjoy the fascist way out (framework, case o/w, no link, alt fails). Link turns should be carded. Great 2ar’s on alt fails cite and indict specific examples.

Fairness is ABSOLUTELY an impact. Good TFW 2nr’s have caselists, a TVA, and a clear abuse story.

Cx matters a lot in these debates – reverse pit of doom, asking what the alt does, how the TOP explains the aff, what the aff Does, etc.

Topicality

Topicality is great! I went for t quite a few times as a debater, but all my views were entirely shaped through discussions with Elmer Yang (the topicality GOAT). Nebel-T is less great than topic specific violations, and I’m not voting on the grammar da/niemi.

Theory

Please slow down on interps and standards.

I err neg on condo and other counterplan theory, but I don’t have extremely strong opinions on it. Anything you can do to keep the debate away from regressing to theory is great for me!

I’ll vote on disclosure and think proper disclosure is important.

I hate frivolous theory and will be extremely sad if I have to vote on it.

Make me laugh, keep the debate lighthearted, learn, and make some friends!!

Jerry Gao Stratagem Learning None

Gaurish Gaur Hire

Katie Gerbasi Prestige Debate 8 rounds None

Krina Ghadia Hire None

Veena Gireesha Stratagem Learning None

David Goldstein Hire

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 1:11 AM PDT

Hi Everyone!

I'm David, I'm a former Parli debater and I'll be your judge today. If you have any questions about my paradigm just ask me before the round starts:

Things I like:

->Warrants, warrants, warrants. I will not vote on arguments that you made if I don't believe them. I am not "tabula rasa".

->Debaters having fun! Debate is supposed to be a game. Please don't ruin the fun for anyone else.

->Accessibility. Debate is (in)famously exclusive. My favorite debates are ones generally free of a lot of jargon, highly technical debate, and where teams make an active effort to be clearly understood by the other. My recommendation is try not to talk to fast, take a few POI's, and generally avoid Kritiks and frivolous theory arguments (I can evaluate these arguments I just don't like to, usually)!

Things that give me the ick:

->Arguments with no impacts. Please, please, please tell me why I should care about your arguments more than your opponents.

->Asking if "everyone is ok with an off-time road map" and then not waiting for me to say "no" and starting to present your roadmap that I didn't ask for.

->When debaters say nasty things. We often debate sensitive topics but in my experience there hasn't been a single valid time a debater has said something severely problematic and it was justified in the round, if you think something you're about to say could be in any way possibly seen as yucky, don't say it.

->When debaters are condescending. Don't call your opponents' arguments dumb and don't smirk while your opponent speaks (I'm watching you). This tends to specifically be a problem from boy only teams being rude to their female opponents, but it's a common problem in debate. Everyone is here to learn, just don't assume your better than others because when you lose to the people you thought you were better than, the only person smirking will be me >:)

Things you can read if you have time (but totally don't have to):

->I'm generally towards the left end of the political spectrum (shocker). That being said, I won't believe your "socialism/communism is utopia" argument unless you give me as good as a warranting as Marx himself.

->I love answering questions about the debate or my decision so please ask if you feel like it!

->I love to yap. I usually deliver my RFD verbally but I can write it down for you if you really want me to. I think rounds are recorded though so please don't make me write anything.

->I go to UCSD! If you think you might wanna go, feel free to ask me questions about it.

->My email is: davidgol3p@gmail.com feel free to email me with any questions you might have!

Dilip Gorecha Brooks Debate Institute None

Anmol Grewal Hire

Zhen Gu Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Madhvi Gupta Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Poonam Gupta Stratagem Learning

Dana Hall Hire

Colter Heirigs Athens Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:07 AM CDT

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

********************************************************

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

Julia Hernandez Hire None

Matthew Hitomi Athens Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 28, 2022 at 6:47 AM PDT

Howdy,

I formerly debated for San Diego State University. I mostly did circuit Parli, but I sporadically competed in NFA-LD, IPDA, and a few other formats. I placed 5th at the NPTE and 3rd at the NPDA and I'd like to think that I know my way around most arguments. That being said, I believe that all judges have biases, and I have included mine below.

TLDR

I'm down for most any argument you want to run and will evaluate the round based on my flow. I consider debate to be game and the different arguments we use to be strategies in that game. My favorite debates usually occur when both teams run well warranted arguments that they are comfortable with; the debate should be wide in the beginning and narrow in the end. If you explain what you're reading, collapse hard, and be respectful we'll all have a grand time.

1) General Stuff

A. Speed: I am cool with speed and will call for either slows or clears if I need it. I prefer if interps, ROB's, and plan texts be read slowly and appreciate some pen time in between pages. If the format of debate is carded and you want to blaze it, please provide a speech doc. I also appreciate if speed is used appropriately; don't make someone who's debating for the first time want to quit after their first tournament.

B. Partner Communication: I think that partner debate is a team event and therefore don't care at all if you communicate with your partner in your speech. That being said, I only flow the person who's speech it is.

C. Protecting: For Parli, I will try to protect in the rebuttals but if the round is fast there's a chance I won't recognize a new argument as being new so please call points of orders. I also strongly believe that shadow extensions are new arguments.

D) Intervention: I believe that judge intervention is bad; therefore, I will judge strictly off the flow unless something egregious happens (flagrant sexism, racism, etc). I will try to do as little work as possible so please weigh your arguments and tell me how to vote. I maintain that truth is determined by who wins the flow so even if you are objectively "right" if your opponent beats you six ways from Sunday on the flow I will probably still vote for them.

E. Speaker Points: Debate is a game and I award speaker points based mainly on strategy and execution. Warranted, nuanced analysis with substantive clash is the fastest path to high speaks.

F. Collapsing: Collapsing is a good idea, please do it.

G. Signposting: Signposting is a good idea, please do it.

2) Substance

A. Impacts: I always prefer if the impacts are terminalized in the round, the more specific they are the better. I'm not gonna lie, I usually go for nuclear war/extinction in every round I can but I also love the nuanced, topic specific impacts. In terms of impact calculus I usually default to Magnitude>Probability>Time frame but I will vote however you tell me to vote. I also just love impact calculus in general, the more direct comparison and internal link work the better.

B. Counter Plans: I am very familiar with with most of the common types(delay, PIC, consult, 50 states, etc), and generally think counter plan debate can be super interesting and educational. That being said, the counter plan needs to have a strong net benefit (either a disad/case turn you avoid or an external net benefit) and you should articulate why your counter plan captures the advantages and resolves the aff. See Kritique section for perms.

C. DA's: Love them, read lots of them. Explain how they turn the aff.

3) Theory

A. General Stuff: I read a ton of theory, and I am very familiar with topicality and framework arguments. In my opinion, if you are going for theory you should collapse to it - if you want T to be a voting issue, there should be 12 minutes of T in the block. That being said, bad topicality is really really bad, so read these arguments at your own risk.

B. Abuse: I have no problem voting on potential abuse so long as it is well explained and the other team doesn't tell me not to. If you can articulate proven abuse then you're pretty sure to get my ballot

C. RVI's: I think RVI's need to be explained when they are first said in order to be legit voting issues. Spreading 7 random RVI's on a theory shell probably isn't the best way to get my ballot.

D. Competing Interps/Reasonability: I almost always default to competing interpretations over reasonability; I think to win reasonability you need clear reasons why an offense defense paradigm is bad in addition to a clear brightline for what it means to be reasonable.

E. MG Theory/Condo: I'm open to pretty much any type of MG theory you wanna run but I'm not gonna be a happy camper if the PMR is 5 minutes of new offense that wasn't in the MG shell. I'm fine with conditionality, I'm also fine voting on condo bad theory. I assume that all advocacy's are conditional unless otherwise stated.

F. Disclosure: I'm super down to vote on disclosure if it is well executed. I always disclosed whenever I competed in evidentiary debate, but I will listen to arguments that disclosure is bad.

4) Kritiques

A. General: I'm game for listening to whatever you want to read so you do you. My favorite K's are usually structural in nature with concrete alternatives. The only thing to note is that I don't have the most extensive lit base, (Marx, Berlant, Agamben, Fanon, a little Deleuze) so please explain whatever your lit is otherwise I probably won't understand it. This bit is important because I generally will not vote for arguments that I don't understand. If after the round I still don't understand what the alternative actually does than I probably won't vote for you. The only arguments I am not super confident evaluating are performative aff's or K's.

B. K Aff's/FW-T: K aff's are fine so long as you can actually win that they are fine in the round. I also generally prefer that the answers to framework aren't just generic cross applications from the aff. I go for FW-T in most of my rounds so do with that what you will; I'm totally down to vote for FW-T but I also hold teams to a pretty high standard for justifying why topicality matters in the context of the aff.

C. Perms: I typically consider perms to be a test of competition but I'm down for evaluating perm's as an advocacy if you give me compelling reasons why. I also don't think perms are especially offensive on their own; I would rather vote on a piece of offense, like a link turn, than on just a permutation. When answering the perm you should provide specific reasons why the perm doesn't resolve the K or causes some external impact; I think the argument that "the links are independent DA's to the perm" is rather lazy and nonsensical absent more concrete explanations for why the link means that the inclusion of the aff makes the alt non solvent.

Ralph Ho Hire

Brandon Hom Hire

Li Hong Stratagem Learning None

John Huang Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School None

Chethan Hublikar The Golden State Academy

Sumayyah K Ismail Hire None

Audrey Israel Prestige Debate 8 rounds

Aayushi Jain Joaquin Miller Middle School

Nimish Jain Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:46 AM EDT

I am Nimish Jain, I am an incoming senior at Dougherty Valley High School. I have competed for a while in PF and did a little bit of speech. Please read my paradigm and email me if you have questions.

Short Version:

people say i am tech but i like to consider myself flay

I am the most annoying judge when it comes to warrants. I want every little thing in case to be extended, if you don't extend a warrant into why nuclear war leads to extinction i won't give u extinction.

If you and the opps agree that this round should be a lay round then I can be a lay judge or if yall even want to have a fun round where you just read a bunch of fun stuff (ie.climate change good) then let me know I would be totally down to evaluate it.

For 30 speaks buy me food (MAKE SURE IT IS FULL VEGETARIAN)... the following options are accepted:

Buy me Subway sandwich: (Veggie Delight. Italian Hurb and Cheese. Pepper Jack Cheese Toasted. Lettuce, Tomato, cucumbers, salt and pepper, honey mustard, guac)

Cheese Pizza (margarita preferably or anything vegetarian)

Taco Bell (2 Chalupas (replace meat with beans) and 1 drink (Mountain Diew Baja Blast))

Chipotle (Burrito with: Black and Pinto Beans, White Rice, Mild Salsa, Corn, Sour Cream, Lettuce, guac)

In n Out (2 Grilled Cheese with strawberry milkshake)

Long Version

For any tournament:

I am such a mid debater. Feel free to stalk me. Lay debate is superior but I enjoy tech too.

Top 14 at nationals. 3x Gold TOC (prom is the same day :(, i prefer my social life over debate), 2x Nationals, a bunch of random awards feel free to stalk me :)

Update: I have the right to drop you if I believe you are being racist, homophobic, and etc. I believe debate should be a safe space and I wont allow you to advance if you act rude. This also applies to cross. I really hate seeing crosses where 1 person is just talking. I want to see a nice cross where both teams are respectful. Just done be mean in general.

I want case the disclosed to me:I want the doc and the cards. Also rebuttal doc will be nice. You don't have to send it to the opponents but please send it to me. How to send an email

Topic Knowledge: If it is public forum i know the topic otherwise any other event i don't know anything.

Evidence Sharing: You can call for evidence but like please don't like call for 100 cards otherwise I will knock your speaks down. Btw after round I will probs be asking for cards so if I do plz send it to me. How to cut a card

Tech> Truth

Speed: I don't care if you speak fast. I always speak fast in round. But if you do speak fast, please send speech doc. Otherwise, if I don't catch something I won't evaluate it.

Weighing: Please do it in SUMMARY AND FF. If it is not in both then i don't evaluate the weighing. I also like simple weighing like magnitude and stuff. If you are going to give complex weighing explain it well. How to weigh. I will evaluate new weighing in first FF. Unless the other teams says 2nd FF is too late to bring up new weighing then I wont evaluate it if they dont say it then I will evaulate it.

2nd Rebuttal: YOU HAVE TO FRONTLINE. If you don't frontline in 2nd rebuttal then i immediately look at 1st speaking teams flow and if they have access to their case then no matter what they will win. How to give a rebuttal

Summary and FF: They should be pretty much the same. NO NEW EVIDENCE IN FF. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE. How to give a summary

Cross: I don't care. I wont listen to cross. How to do good cross

Warranting/Implications: Plz provide a warrant and EXTEND it. Tho if you do extend without warranting and the opponents do not call you out I might give you the arg. But if they do call you out then I won't consider the response. Debate has become very Blibby and I hate blibbyness. PLEASE IMPLICATE I BEG. I KNOW WHAT YOUR DEFENSE IS DOING USUALLY BUT I WON'T EVAL IT IF U DIDNT TELL ME.

warranted ev>warranted analytics>unwarranted ev (UNLESS IT IS A STAT, I LOVE NUMBERS!!!!)>unwarranted analytics

Theory and K's: Also I wouldn't run theory in MS :). I understand theory and I will evaluate if it is run properly. I am ok with K's. I am also ok with performance and non-topical. What theory is I THNK DISCLOSURE ON WIKI IS GOOD AND PARAPHRASING IS BAD I WILL HACK FOR THESE.

SIGNPOSTING IS NECESSARY: I need it otherwise I will be very confused and you don't want that happening.

Prepping: You have to time your own speech and prep. I won't do it because I am too lazy to.

Presumption: I am personally against presumption. I want to vote for the better debater so if I can't find a way to vote I will vote off a couple of things (based on priority).

If u tell me to vote for u off presumption then I will (But give me a reason why u deserve the presumption vote)
Who did the better link extensions
Who was the better lay debater
Who did the better weighing (if both teams lost case)

LINK EXTENSION: THEY HAVE TO BE READ IN SUMMARY AND BEYOND. IF NOT I DROP YOUR CASE.

If I am judging speech:

Have fun. I want to be entertained by your speech. Don't just give me the general 3 points. Give me something that makes you stand out because if you stand out you will do better. But if you stand out and fail then u will get low. A lot of times when i did speech i sang during my speech. Some of my favorite songs I have sang were hindi songs or nursery rhymes. I have even sang let it go in the past. But beware if u do that it better make sense.

LD judging: If I am judging LD then treat me like a flay. You can run whatever you want but you gotta explain it to me. I am totally down to judge Ks and stuff but dont expect me to fully understand it

Niyati Jani Joaquin Miller Middle School

Raj Jayaraman Joaquin Miller Middle School

Perminder Jhangra Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

ailin jia Hire

Maya Johnson Blach Intermediate School

Anitha Johny Prestige Debate 8 rounds 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!

Chaya Kamchetty Joaquin Miller Middle School

Udit Karthikeyan Hire

Manpreet Kaur Athens Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 6:24 AM PDT

Online Debate: In the event, you get cut out, I will ask that you resume your speech from whatever your opponent or I last flowed.

Etiquette:

- Do not attack your opponents, attack their arguments.

- If you are rude, offensive, disrespectful, racist, sexist, etc I will tank your speaks and possibly drop you if it's a big enough issue. Debate is competitive, but that doesn't mean you can be mean.

If there is a problem or you think something is wrong (like shady evidence), tell me ASAP so we can pause the debate if needed and solve the issue. If there is a disagreement about the content of a card, I will call for the card at the end of the debate.

Debate:

- LD!! Framework: I want to see strong justifications (please have a card, don't just run framework without having a card, it seems like you haven't researched the topic or don't care about the debate at all) during the framework portion and strong links to the framework throughout the debate.

- When you extend, don't just extend tags, extend cards + impacts or just impact in case time is low.

- When you are making refutations use blocks and evidence! If you don't have blocks, please make some blocks. I like evidence, but I will settle for analytical arguments if both sides don't have warrants.

- Signpost during your speeches and cite the year & author (the last name is fine if you want to give credentials to weigh the evidence that's great!) of your cards. It's ridiculous how many people don't, I'm literally just hearing the resolution and I have no clue what the common arguments so if you start refuting things without specifying what it is, I'm not gonna try to play connect the dots to figure out what you're doing. It's not hard, I'm sure most of you can do it.

- Once you drop something, you cannot come back to it. *If your impacts are better, I might disregard. If you're good on the flow, you have good impact calc, but you drop one non-crucial argument, I might disregard.

- If you bring up an argument in cx but don't later in the round, then it's useless.

Policy!!

- Tech > Truth

- Slow down on analytics and tags!

DA

- specify on link stories

- Do the impact comparison so I don't have to do all the work thx

CP

- tell me what the NB is and how it solves!

- do the line by line well

Speaks/Drop:

- debate skills > talking pretty, you can be a polished speaker AND a flow debater

- If you bring up new evidence or new arguments in a later speech where the opponent does not have a chance to respond, I will tank your speaks (you won't walk out with anything higher than 24) same thing for new evidence, don't bring new evidence when the other team will not get to respond. That's bad faith and I will drop your speaks and potentially even your side if it becomes a key argument.

- I really really hate when you tell me how I should be voting, I am pretty sure I can vote for myself, so use that time to build your arguments, your links, etc.

- I am fine with speed, be like Eminem if that's what ya want, but I do not want to watch spit fly and just hear heaving. If you are going too fast for me to understand, I'll just say clear. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow so when you extend or cross-apply, your side will be missing pieces

- If you make me laugh, it will boost your speaks :))

Cathy Ke Joaquin Miller Middle School

Daniel D. Kim Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Suhh Yeon Kim Hire None

Jathin Korrapati Hire

Murty Kotha The Golden State Academy

Jordyn Faith Kuehn Viewpoint School 8 rounds

Atul Kumar Dougherty Valley Bridge

Pradeep Kumar Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Anil Lalwani Joaquin Miller Middle School

Yoseph Latif The Golden State Academy None

Srivatsan Laxman Stratagem Learning

Evan Lee Hire None

Joelle J Lee Hire

Sanjana Lew Egan Junior High School None

Ed Lingo Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 2:48 AM PDT

TL;DR - Parent judge who was a national circuit policy debater in high school and college long ago (see experience at very bottom of paradigm). Judged mostly open/varsity parli Fall 2018 - Spring 2022 with increasing amounts of PF in the last year or two and occasional LD & Policy judging throughout . Sections below for Parli, PF, and Policy.

General Overview: I will evaluate framework/criteria/theory/role of the ballot issues first. Unless argued/won otherwise, I default to judging as a policy maker weighing aff plan/world against status quo or neg counterplan/world using net benefits and treat debate as an educational game. I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals (summary/final focus in PF) even if you don't call a POO (Parli). I'm fine with tag teaming (but only flow what the actual speaker says). Speak from anywhere you prefer as long as everyone can hear you. When speech time expires, you can finish your thought, but I will not flow any new arguments started after time expires (no new args in grace period). Cross-ex/crossfire will not be considered in my decision unless you reference it in a speech (that will bring it into the round). You can go fast but probably not full speed (not 200+ wpm). I will call clear or slow as needed. If you run K's, please clearly link them to the resolution/aff plan/aff arguments and explain (K's post-date my debate experience). Signpost. Clearly justify/link theory arguments (high bar for you to win frivolous theory). Don't care about your attire. I rarely look up from my flow during rounds. No need to shake my hand.

If allowed by the tournament rules, please add me to your email chain (if applicable) using edlingo13 [at] gmail.com

==============================================

PF Debate Notes:

I am familiar with the basic structure of PF and have extensive experience judging and competing in other forms of debate. But I am still learning some of the PF-specific terminology. Even though I have only judged perhaps a dozen PF rounds before, here's a few notes I hope will help you.

- Because I am flowing, I don't need you to do a whole lot to extend dropped arguments. If you are pressed for time, and, for example, an entire contention is dropped by the other team, you can just say "extend contention 2 which is dropped". It can help to reiterate the arguments to help fill in details I may not have gotten right on my flow or to draw my attention to particular impacts, but there is no need to individually extend every element of the contention. You can save the analysis for weighing.

- Please do your best to clearly weigh impacts in final focus. I know time is short. However, if you leave it up to me to weigh the advantages of both sides against each other, you are taking a big risk. Best to explain to me why you believe your impacts (harms/benefits) outweigh those presented by the other team. Though not required, I am fine with some weighing also happening in earlier speeches (summary, even rebuttal). For example, if after constructives you think you clearly outweigh, no need to wait until final focus to point that out.

- I don't flow crossfire, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in crossfire to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

- Where there are evidence conflicts (each side has evidence saying the opposite), please do your best to explain why I should prefer your evidence over that of your opponents (study vs. opinion, better author credentials, recency, etc.).

- In general, do what you can to provide clash. If each side just reiterates and defends their own case, that leaves a lot up to the judge. If you want my decision to go your way, best to provide that clash/analysis so I know why you believe you should win the round.

==============================================

Parli Debate Notes (though much is applicable to all forms of debate):

** Note to Tournament Directors - Please add Flex Time to High School Parli debate (see sections 4.C. & 4.H. of the NDPA rules for a definition of Flex Time). I think it will increase the quality of debates/clash in the round, give judges a bit of time to clean up their flows & make notes for later feedback to debaters, and ensure fairness in how much time is taken for each speaker to start.

Default Framework:

In the absence of a contrary framework argued/won in the round, I will make my decision as a policy maker comparing the aff plan/world against the status quo or neg counterplan/world.

Unless argued/won in the round otherwise, I think debate is an educational game. I believe the educational part is primarily for the debaters and only secondarily (at most) for the judge(s) and/or audience. This is one of the reasons I have trouble with K's that are loosely, if at all, related to the resolution being debated. The game aspect of debate implies a need for fairness/balance/equity between aff & neg sides.

With the above defaults (and realistically biases) in mind, I will try to come into the round tabula rasa ("blank slate"). Certainly I won't intentionally bring my political biases into the round. I will try to minimize using any outside knowledge of the topic, but realistically some of that may creep in unless background information is clearly explained in the round.

Especially if you don't like the above framework, please do provide your own in the round. I'm far more likely to make the decision you expect if I'm using framework/weighing criteria that you know (above) or have argued/won in the round.

Theory:

Fine by me. But as with everything else, please explain/justify the theory arguments you make. Don't like blippy theory you toss out in hopes the other side will drop your one line VI/RVI or, similarly, some pre-canned, high speed theory block that even you don't understand (and I can barely flow, if at all).

Speed:

As long as you can still be clear, I am fine with any speed. I will call "slow" or "clear" as needed during the round. But, it's still best to slow down on tags and issues you believe are critical in deciding the round. Especially in the first tournament or two of the year and the first round in the morning, best to go a little slower for me. If you want me to get a clean flow, keep things to a max of perhaps 200 or 250 wpm rather than 350 or 400. Don't spread in a monotone. I know from experience that it is possible to add (brief) pauses where there is a period, slow down on tags, and vary your speed while still averaging 300+ wpm. If you are going to go very fast, it is your responsibility to practice it until you can do so with clarity and in a way that can be flowed.

Kritiks:

K's post-date my competitive debate experience. I have read up a bit on them and seen them used in a few rounds (parli and policy rounds). If you run one (or more), make sure you have a clear link to the resolution/aff plan/aff args. It's also important that you clearly explain the K to me and to the other team (including why it applies in this round and why it should be a voting issue). Just spreading through a K that even you don't understand in the hopes I will understand it and your opponents will mishandle it is very unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, if you understand it, clearly explain it, and answer POI's from your opponents if they seem confused by it, I will seriously consider it in my decision. If you plan to run a K-aff, please disclose to your opponents at the start of prep (or earlier). If you don't, a theory argument by the neg that you should have done so is very likely to win.

Counterplans:

Counterplans seem like a natural fit for Parli to me. Especially with a topic that gives the aff broad leeway to choose a somewhat narrow plan, CPs are a good way to make the round fair for the neg side.

Dropped Arguments:

I will extend arguments that your opponents dropped for you (I think this is now called protecting the flow), but it's still best for you to extend them yourself so that you can explain to me why/how those dropped arguments should factor into my decision. When you extend, I don't need you to re-explain your arguments or extend every individual point in a block that is entirely dropped (though no harm in doing so). How you believe the dropped arguments should impact the overall round is more important to me.

New Arguments in Rebuttals/POO's:

I will ignore what I believe to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, so you don't have to call a POO. However, I do understand the general POO process. So if you want to make certain that I will be treating something as a new argument in rebuttals (and therefore excluding it from my decision making process), go ahead and call the POO. I'd prefer that you don't call a lot of POO's (more than 3), but certainly won't count it against you if you feel the need to call each one out. Though odds are if you are calling that many, I already get that we've got a rebuttal speaker who doesn't realize I will ignore new arguments in rebuttals.

Tag Teaming:

Fine by me. I will, of course, only include what the actual current speaker says in my flow.

Speaker Location:

Stay sitting, stand up, or go to a podium. It's all fine by me. However, if you are a quiet speaker in a noisy room and/or I or the opposing team call out "clear", "louder", etc. please speak in a direction/location that you can be heard by all. I'm fine with taking some time before a speech or stopping time during a speech if we need to adjust everyone's location so all speakers can be clearly heard. If someone can't hear the current speaker, I'm fine with them calling out "louder". If the speaker can't easily adjust so everyone can hear them, go ahead and stop time and we will take time to rearrange so you can be heard without having to shout.

==============================================

Policy Debate Notes:

- Debated 4 years of policy in high school (in CFL/California Coast district, went to State & Nationals, won State), but that was long, long ago.

- Defaults: I will default to judging based on stock issues as a policy maker. For theory issues, I will default to treating debate as an educational game (game implies fairness/equity). On both counts, I am open to alternative frameworks/roles of the ballot.

- Theory, framework, K's need to be developed/clearly explained to me and your competitors or you will have an uphill battle trying to win them (doesn't mean you won't if the other teams drops it or grossly mishandles it, but I do need a basic understanding of your argument in order to vote on it). Likewise, calling something a voting issue doesn't make it one unless you explain why it should be a voting issue.

- I know very little K literature.

- I won't be able to keep up with a full speed/invitational/tech debate these days. But you can certainly speak at a rate that the "person on the street" would think of as quite fast. I will call clear/slow if I'm having trouble keeping up.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but do pay attention and will use it to help clarify my understanding of issues/positions in the round. Bring it up in a speech if you want something said in cross-ex to be part of my flow/input to my decision.

==========================================

Experience:

My competitive experience is almost exclusively policy debate from the late 70's and early to mid-80's. Four years in high school policy debate (1 yr Bellarmine followed by 3 yrs Los Gatos High). Quarters or better at many national invitational tournaments (e.g. Berkeley & Harvard back when they weren't on the same weekend ;-). 1st Place California (CHSSA) State Championships. Invites to national level round robins (Glenbrook, Harvard, UCLA/USC, Georgetown) -- back then the tournament director invited those teams they believed to be the top 9 in the country (perhaps a few more if some teams couldn't attend). In high school I briefly experimented with LD. During my senior year in college (UC Berkeley), I debated one year of CEDA debate. Went to perhaps a half dozen tournaments. Won a couple of them, made it to quarters/semis at some others. Helped the Cal team reach #2 in the national CEDA rankings.

Madeleine Lloyd Hire

Wesley Loofbourrow Athens Debate 8 rounds

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

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

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

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

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worlds @ Coppell:

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

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

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson Paul Lopez Hire

Grace Lum Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School

Jiangbin Luo The Golden State Academy

YING LUO Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Michael Lynch Hire

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:34 AM PDT

My name is Michael Lynch. I am an English teacher. I did four years of forensics in high school. I have experience in Lincoln Douglas, impromptu, national/international extemporaneous, congress, and parliamentary debate. I went to state twice in speech/debate and once to nationals in congress. For five years, I was an assistant coach for the Kern Regional Forensics League. I started a debate team at Arvin High School in 2022.

THIS IS MY NUMBER ONE RULE IN FORENSICS: Treat your opponent as you want to be treated. If you don’t want your opponent to go over time, don’t do it yourself. If you want your opponent to play fair and not fabricate evidence, do the same. Treat your opponents with dignity and respect. You are expected to be professional; go out of your way to be ethical. Never roll your eyes, lose your composure, or resort to insults.

I hate the following things: spreading, speaking so fast you sound like an auctioneer, improper English, critiques, and off topic arguments. I expect debates to be about the resolution at hand. Do not come up with an irreverent point such as “Before we can debate, we need to declare the official language of Saturn to be Swedish.” Please do not go over time.

I prefer a few strong, well-developed arguments rather than ten weak attacks. I evaluate rounds equally on content and delivery. I care about eye contact, clarity, voice inflections, body language, and persuasiveness.

I have heard the following sentence hundreds of times: "As a 'brief' off time roadmap. I will address the arguments that my opponent made and then I will strengthen my own." This is not necessary.

A special note for impromptu speakers: please make sure your speech is about the topic. I am fine with stock examples as long as it actually works with your topic. I despise the canned “book—person—movie” formula. It is obvious if your “impromptu” speech is always “To Kill a Mockingbird, Steve Jobs, and Finding Nemo.”

Pranay Macherla Hire

Chetna Mahajan Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Tarun Maharana Joaquin Miller Middle School

Ajay Mangla The Golden State Academy

Rajyalakshmi Mannem Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Rishik Manthana Stratagem Learning 8 rounds None

Srinivas Maram Dougherty Valley Bridge

Divya Matta Hire

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:15 AM PDT

Hi, i'm Divya Matta,

Im a Lincoln Douglas debater from Mountain House High School.

If you don't understand something in this paradigm or want clarifications feel free to ask me in round, I actually encourage it.

Debate: (not including Congress:)

Speaking/Args:

- I will flow your arguments and I am okay with fast talking, but I am not comfortable with spreading.

- I prefer to judge on your arguments rather than speaking style, but will mention if there is something that you can improve on with fluency and word economy. Either way, how you convey your arguments is not AS important as the content of said argument, then again I have to be able to understand it.

- This means try to avoid unorganized arguments and speech's and pleaseee sign post!! I prefer arguments based off evidence and do not appreciate sweeping generalizations.

-Assume that I do not have your case in front of me, and am not familiar with recent news on the topic, so please explain your arguments thoroughly.

Framework:

- Simply stating your V and VC is not enough to win the framework debate. Explain to me how your side supports your framework, and why your opponent explicitly does not.

- However, winning the framework debate does not neccecarily mean that you will win my ballot.

Miscellaneous:

- Understand your arguments and evidence!!! In a situation where you and your opponent have conflicting evidence you have to be able to explain why your's is more relevant and/or more credible.

- Being rude to your opponent or not addressing your opponent respectfully is a big no-no!

- Question your opponent's arguments and/or evidence, but please do not question your opponent's intelligence cause that's just rude. (trying to make your opponent look dumb doesn't make you look smarter)

- Tell me why you won the round, I love good voters and will genuinely consider them when making my decisions

- Being overly aggressive in cross-ex won't get you a L but it's kind of annoying

- Asking the same question over and over again expecting a different answer is not the way to go....

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

- Albert Einstein

- I really hope I will not have to tell you that you are going over time. I will give you 15 seconds to wrap up your speech, but will have to cut you off at about 20 seconds over.

Kaavya Mehrotra Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 2:13 AM PDT

Debate PF at Dougherty Valley but have experience in policy, LD, and speech events

add me on the email chain (ask in person)

tech>truth

weigh! it's fun and wins rounds

speed is fine but sending a doc is always safer and better

If its 8 in the morning i probably will be asleep so advise against just blasting into top speed immediately

not afraid to make an 'i didn't understand it' rfd

I disclose if the tournament allows and I can disclose speaks if everyone in the round wants (i give 29.6 block unless you made the round unsafe but if you look to the bottom it's very easy to get a 30)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, rude, or xenophobic. Just be a decent person!

TABULA ROSA!

Everything in the final should be in summary (obviously, don't know why I should have to say that)

If you have two cards that directly contradict each other, please weigh them. If I get no reason to prefer one card over another, then I won't evaluate either.

I don't listen to cross so if someone concedes something in a cross then mention it in your speech. By that I mean I barely pay attention to content and lowkey think cross can be the funniest part of the debate

To save time just send all the cards you are reading before your speech. I can also tell when you steal prep so I will dock your speaks

Progressive arguments require a speech doc and no paraphrasing

I don't mind theory but I would prefer not to listen to it.

Usually theory debates just become teams yelling at each other about their opponent’s character and gets overly aggressive for no reason
Paraphrasing is bad if they don’t have cut cards and i don’t care about disclosure

Policy

Don’t know anything about the topic so just explain like im genuinely stupid

Like DAs and CPs

Ks were not really my strat but i like them

Never read k affs and usually read fw when i hit it

No tricks or phil

Preferences (for strikes)

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Non-T Kritik - 4

Tricks - 5 (strike)

Phil - 5 (strike)

Performance - 5 (strike)

Speaks

tournaments are stressful and I don't want to make it worse by giving bad speaks

30 speaks if you reference Taylor Swift

30 speaks if you bring me food

If you make the round fun by telling jokes or making everyone feel comfortable, i give 30 speaks.

Congress

my sister placed 5th at TOC, 5th at Nationals, and championed ASU, and made finals of several national circuit tournaments so look at her paradigm. She is Divya Mehrotra.

I love crystal speeches if done well and if you take that risk to give one then, please do proper weighing

Rohan Menon Hire

Ryan Morgan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 1:31 PM PDT

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
"Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

"Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

Surya Muthu Devasenapathy Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Sat May 8, 2021 at 5:22 AM PDT

My name is Surya Devasenapathy and I debate at Dougherty Valley High school.

surya.devasenapathy@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain please

(I flow, so don't extend through ink PLS it hurts my head)

Speaks

30 : Great interaction with content within debate, won on the flow and had great clarity during speeches.

28 - 29 : Had a good round and capitalized on dropped links/args, didn't make any fundamental mistakes.

26-27 : I struggled to understand you during your speeches, and couldn't get the majority of what you said onto my flow.

<26 : Abusive language and arguments during the round. Was offensive to other competitors, and violated the norms/rules of public forum.

Evidence sharing

If a card takes more than 2 minutes to send on the email chain, I will strike the evidence off my flow.

Misconstrued EV will be punished through judge intervention, so please send cut cards that are from good sources.

These are cards. Here's even a link to Verbatim, a macro template that works with Microsoft Word so that card cutting is really easy.

On the Flow

If you go over time by more than 10 seconds, I will automatically stop flowing

Use cross-ex efficiently, and please for goodness sakes don't give a 2 min speech and then ask your opponents, do you agree?

(It looks a lot better to bring things like that up in speech)

If you don't extend conceded turns or terminalized defense through summary from rebuttal, I will drop it off my flow.

Link extend throughout the backhalf

Weighing in summary should be introduced and responded to.

If there is no comparative weighing or meta weighing done, 27 speaks for both teams.

Tech debate

I am not too comfortable with voting off theory or Kritiks, so run them at your own risk.

If the argument is well thought out and not frivolous , I will evaluate it.

In general paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good.

I would prefer that both teams disclose on the email chain 5 minutes before the round(cut cards, but a script works as well), but if it is against your school policy that is alright.

LAST NOTES

Spreading is fine as long as you send a speech doc.

If I can't hear you I will unmute and say clear. If the problem persists I will stop flowing.

Harini Nagappan Graham Junior High School

Gabor Nagy Prestige Debate None

Siddharth Nair Hire

pranav nethi Hart Middle School

Brian Nguyen Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Sabrina Niyamathullah Milpitas High School 8 rounds

Kevin Ozomaro Athens Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 27, 2022 at 7:49 PM EDT

Hey, my name is Kevin Ozomaro; I am a communication graduate student and graduate assistant coach at the University of the Pacific. Before my time at UOP, I competed for Delta college and CSU Sacramento, where I competed in parli and LD debate. That being said, most of my debate knowledge is geared towards LD debate. That doesn't mean I don't understand parli; it just means that I'm more comfortable with arguments commonly found in LD. I've coached debate at all levels, from k-12 to college. I have learned a lot over my time in forensics, but that doesn't mean I know everything! If you are reading something that a communication grad student wouldn't understand at 500 words a minute, maybe you shouldn't read it or slow down and explain it to me. Below are some basics to how I view and judge debate.

NPTE People:

Low pref if:

1. you like K affs that are confusing( Sunbutthole K, pretty much any racist shittt)

2. You think condo or not condo is the most important thing in the world. Yes I'm from UOP but I don't care mannnn

3. you think reject is a great alt

High pref if:

1. Afro anything K / identity K

2. neolib K

3. Heg debate/ or militarism or militarization

4. not a fan of spreading

The Basics: because I know you don't want to read...

In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)
Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds

NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)

I'm fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.
Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse
I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.
I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise
Tell me why you win.
If you are rude I will drop you. Its kinda simple don't be a butthole. Examples are not slowing and spreading someone out of the round.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization: is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate, I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik. If I can't understand the K I will not vote on it, doesn't matter if it goes dropped if I have zero idea what is going on I will not vote on it. That goes for both K affs and neg K's.

I will also mention that I'm not a fan of this memorizing evidence/cards thing in parli. If you don't understand a critical/philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I'm in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can't do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is "antithetical" to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call "clear" or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

Evidence: If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

Thanks, Ryan guy of Mjc

Lauren Pak Hire None

Satwik Panigrahi Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Sat May 1, 2021 at 11:16 AM EDT

About Me:

Pronouns: he/him

I am a freshman at Dougherty Valley High School and I debate in Varsity Public Forum.

General:

My Email is msg4satwik@gmail.com. Please send an email with cut cards or case docs to me, so I can look over evidence easily when asked to.

Label email chains adequately with the following template: "{Tournament Name} {Round Number} {AFF Team Name} vs. {NEG Team Name}"

Please have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. Speed-wise, I'm fine with anything, however, do not sacrifice clarity for speed. I flow on a computer, so it only harms you to speak unclearly.

Tech>Truth. I vote for fully warranted args that are not racist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, etc. I try to be a tabula rasa, however, there have been instances where I broke that promise.

Cross:

I don't flow cross. I don't really care either. Just don't be mean. Also, I know I said I don't care about the cross, but try to ask smart questions.

Rebuttal:

Read as many Turns/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. The second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too.

Evidence:

I am fine with exchanging evidence through an email chain but use it sparingly. I don't want any team to feel like their opponents are using the round to leech off of their prep.

Please don't Misconstrue evidence it is bad ethics for debate and it will not be tolerated. Also please only send cut cards. Check this link if you don't know how to cut cards, Also check this for an example of a cut card.

I will only look at evidence if I am deliberately asked to in speech, it seems too good to be true, or there is a massive clash over it.

Backhalf

EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND...

WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH...

Impact calculus isn't the only version of weighing. Please try to do a more narrative form of debate, where you're not only looking at the policy's impact but also the entire link chain. I enjoy people reading large OVs and Metaweighing at the top of summary, but these should be extended from rebuttal. NO NEW ARGS!!!

Progressive Debate:

Theory>K>Case. I know the essentials of progressive debate, and I think it is valid to read it in Public Forum. I'm not the best K Judge, but if I get time to read your authors at the end of the round I'll evaluate it. If you read frivolous theory I'll strike it, but I won't intervene. It is essential that the other team reads an RVI for me to drop them on their frivolous theory. I don't have a preference on disclosure or paraphrasing, so I'm probably the best judge to have theory debate on.

If you read some quasi-CP that is modified for PF, I'll evaluate it as long as you can argue it isn't abusive. But, I do hold these to be major forms of offense, so if AFF can successfully defend against it, that'll suck.

Tricks debate is not meant for Public Forum, so don't do it.

Framework should be ran at the top or bottom of constructive or rebuttal. It cannot be read first in the back half. I default to util.

Speaks:

I don't really think speaks matter that much, but if you do the following you'll be fine. I am comfortable with almost all speaking styles and speeds but make sure to give a speech doc if you are going to spread.

Other things I dock speaks off for:

- Being mean in cross. Debate is a fun event don't dominate the other person in cross.

- Stealing prep

- Going 15 seconds over time

- Reading a progressive arg and not knowing how it works

- Reading a theory that you violate

If nothing is done from this list then you can expect a very high speaks count for all the debaters.

Other Stuff I Like:

- Comparative weighing.

- Signposting.

- Brief Roadmaps.

- Strategic Cross.

- Weighing as soon as possible.

- Summary/ff parallelism.

You get +1.5-2 speaks if you're funny, say a hip-hop reference, anime reference, or tell me your favorite song.

Conclusion:

Overall, debate in my view is a means of discourse on important topics. This activity is a privilege to have, so try to have fun and learn from any mistakes. I know sometimes debate gets competitive, but try to stay calm and respectful.

Feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions or concerns. Also, shout out to Ivan Shah for letting me use his paradigm as a boilerplate.

Rebekah Park Blach Intermediate School

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 12:11 PM PDT

I'm a sixth-year debater and generally flay. I've only been debating in West Coast spaces for TOC. Flowing all speeches except for cx.

Spreading is fine, just be cohesive. (Or just drop speech docs)
I hate funky evidence ethics but I love indicts for those ethics! misreading or lying about cards will result in lowered speaker pts or an auto drop.
Tech > Truth

Argument expectations -

Extensions:

Collapse to make all of our lives easier, PLEASE. Extend necessary link chains and impacts during summary; if only one team extends, that’s essentially an automatic win. If neither team extends through summary, I’ll evaluate based on previous speeches but both teams will lose speaker points.

Weighing:

impact analysis/world comparison/weighing in general is more likely to win you the round. Remember to warrant phrases like "timeframe" and "magnitude" instead of just throwing them around. If only one team weighs that’s a massive advantage for them. If neither team weighs, I’ll evaluate the arguments based on my own knowledge which will likely result in a decision you don’t like.

Other:

Signpost/roadmaps:

Just do it. I am not exactly well known for my ability to flow capably, so tell me where I should be looking instead of leaving me to find it on my own.

Theory(PF):

I will only evaluate good theory, so if it's run badly it will be an auto drop. You will definitely have to convince me why I should be voting for your progressive arg vs. the res at hand.

That being said, I am a passionate proponent of anti-disclosure theory! It’s your freedom to disclose just don’t force it on others. I will not be voting off of disclosure unless the other team completely ignores their theory argument. Try to define all interps and responsibilities. have fun with it!

Novice: Just don't run theory/Ks

Evidence:

I'll probably ask you to drop the card if you can't find it in 5 minutes max. Do not lie about your cards, even if you miscut it. If I find that a team falsified evidence, depending on the severity it could result in an automatic win for their opponents and/or contacting tab and their coach.

Non-PF Debaters:

I have 0 experience with parli, LD, cx, congress, literally any type of debate other than pf. Please explain rules to me and keep your opponents accountable. However, if your opponents violate a certain rule, you will need to bring up the rule on the NSDA website or the tournament rules.

Hiren Patel Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School None

Ramesh Pentakota Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Alexis Perez Hire 8 rounds None

Clarice Perez Athens Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 22, 2022 at 10:01 AM PDT

Clarice Perez’s Judging Philosophy

I debated in Public Forum style debate for one year in high school, as well as two years of LD, NPDA, and IPDA style debate in college.
I would consider my self a flow judge and stick pretty strongly to voting on the flow.
I attended a performing arts school for four years and, I do appreciate some level of passion brought into the debate as performance does play a large aspect in selling arguments
Won nationals and states in Parli and IPDA

Specifics

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain. clariceperez@outlook.com

Speed: I don’t mind a little bit of speed however if it is being used in an abusive way I will take than it to consideration.I will flow all arguments I can but if your team is going to spread understand that most likely not all arguments will be evaluated due to being unable to write them down. I will take into consideration if your opponent is stating "clear" repetitively and you are continuing to go at the same speed. If you do call speed repetitively do not go up and spread during your speech, it is not a good look.

Topicality: I will flow whatever is argued, however, I do believe the resolution is worded in a specific way and meant to be interpreted in that way for fairness. With that being said it is the negations job to run a constructed T sheet for me to actually vote on topicality. I will not automatically vote for the negation just because the affirmation was claimed to be non-topical, there needs to be clear abuse proven that this non-topical plan is not allowing the negation to make their arguments. I am not a fan of kritik however if a team is running a kritik against you make sure you fully refute it, I will not automatically vote a team down just for running a k. With that being said, please understand that I really don't like K's and it wouldn't be the best idea to run one in front of me

My Ideal Round: I enjoy hearing a true debate, I don’t love hearing procedural arguments and would prefer to hear argument based clash. Also don't just read cards to me and expect me to buy the argument, evidence is great if there's logic provided with it. If you're going to read evidence spend the time to elaborate and explain the significance of the evidence to your case rather than just spewing statistics at me. I would prefer quality over quantity when it comes to advantages and disadvantages. This makes it much clearer when deciding which area to vote as well as always for maximum time to argue for or against specific points. I always prefer a fair amount of signposting to ensure that arguments are being flowed in the correct areas. Be cordial and keep it friendly, I will pay attention to time so need for unnecessary pointing to a timer if your opponent has gone over time. Impact calculus is always nice for a final focus speech, probability will always weigh heavier than magnitude for me. If you are going to claim nuclear war as an impact really make sure to have the link chain there to see it as a probable impact.

Nicole Pi Hire None

William Pirone Stratford Osgood 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 9:53 PM PDT

TOC:

Let’s move quickly, TOC rules say your prep starts during evidence exchange

Go like 85% of normal tech speed haven’t judged in a minute

* * * * *

I debated for three years on the national circuit for College Prep. I now privately coach.

Add me to the email chain: wpirone@stanford.edu .

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has become egregiously long over the years so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can argue anything you want in front of me. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with. I enjoy voting on creative, fun arguments I haven't heard before.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow directly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. That said, please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

I tend to be very facially expressive when judging—it can help you know which args to collapse on and which to kick. If I'm vibing with something you're saying, I'll nod along with it during your speech. Argument selection is critical to my ballot—identify the best possible collapse strategy, go for the right argument, and do solid comparison on it.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

If you disagree with any part of my paradigm, just make a warrant why I should evaluate the round differently. I'm open to almost everything.

Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested, you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal links in summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though. This also applies to impact turns—if your opponents' link is conceded by both sides, you don't have to extend it.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm: I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This also applies to responses such as "they don't prove xyz" or "they don't explain who what when where why"—make actual arguments instead.

Well-warranted analytics are great, blippy analytics are a headache.

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is preferable to impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better (larger, faster, more probable, etc). On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Theory:

I'll tolerate theory. I'm chill with any shell as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me. Friv is fine, just make it funny (dinosaur/shoe/no evidence theory is interesting, disclose rebuttal evidence is boring).

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA.

If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.

I will evaluate topical kritiks. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security—anything else is a stretch so please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read a Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks (especially if you indict the methodology of specific studies from their case).

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way) you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument. Similarly, rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

CPs:

Totally open to theory against these though – just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant, anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

These are fun, but never voting for unwarranted blips like ROTO or “eval after the 1ac.” Paradoxes, skep, etc are ok.

GOATs:

I aspire to judge similarly to Ilan Ben-Avi, Ishan Dubey, and Ryan Jiang.

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I always default to the first speaking team.

Speaks:

I award speaks based on fluency and in-round strategy. Humor also helps.

Most importantly, have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.

—WP

Nirmala Ponnada Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Satish Ponnaluri Dougherty Valley Bridge

Lilyan Poquette Hire None

Kruti Pota Joaquin Miller Middle School

Tanya Prabhakar Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 6:52 AM PDT

[last updated 3-16-2024]

Hi my name is Tanya, I competed in NPDA for three years at DVC and in NFA - LD at WKU for two years. I finished top 8 at NFA nats and was second place speaker at the Grand Prix national championship. I graduated in 2023, I'm assistant coaching debate at DVC now.

Add me to the email chain: tanyaprabhakar1@gmail.com (although I would prefer you use speechdrop to an email chain). Its really easy, you just make a room on speechdrop.net and everyone can upload their docs. You can still save your opponents' cases like this and it's way faster.

!!! IF YOU'RE IN PF SKIP DOWN TO THE PF SECTION AT THE BOTTOM PLEASE

How do you feel about speed?

On carded stuff/analytics in the doc I have a higher threshold for speed, if its not in the doc slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.. You don't need to guess, I will slow you if you're too fast for me. I won't drop you or get mad at you for being too fast but I also won't pretend to have stuff written down that I don't have written down.

I'll vote on speed bad in novice and JV. If your opponent slows you on something not in the doc you should probably slow.

Disclosure

I am pro aff (wiki) disclosure. I am willing to vote on aff disclosure theory if it is not responded to properly. I also expect people to share docs in round, even if you aren't spreading.

Substance

I really don't buy consult or delay counter-plans. You can read them, just know the perm solves for me 99.99% of the time.

Disad and counter plan debate is cool, I enjoy watching it. I like a good advantage counter plan.

I like and will vote on Ks, but I won't pretend to understand an alt I don't get.

To vote aff I need you to win: offense against the alt OR a perm

To vote neg I need: the aff to not win that stuff

Also, make sure that there are clear, ideally carded, links to the aff. I probably won't vote on just a no link, but it's a pretty good justification for the perm, which I will vote on. Links of omission are generally a no go for me, unless you have a well warranted (ideally carded) explanation for why not considering X in policy making is uniquely bad.

Can I read non T affs?

Yeah that's fine, as long as it has a topic specific link. As a default T FW comes before the aff, especially in parli.

I like T. You can read T and not go for it. You can read multiple Ts. I don't care. I don't need proven abuse, but there does need to be some clear impact on the round/debate in general (ie link to fairness and education).

Theory/Procedurals -

I don't mind theory debate, and I don't need proven abuse. Again, default competing interps. You also have to win that kicking the arg doesn't resolve the offense. I think theory is frivolous based on the interp, not the amount of theory read (for example, time cube theory is frivolous even if its the only theory you read, but reading, like, diclosure and A spec and speed together isn't necessarily frivolous.

I don't vote on RVIs. Make sure your standards link back to your interpretation. Have fun and be yourself.

PF Only:

1 - I have the expectation that both debaters are on the same page about what kind of debate they'll be having. If you want to be really fast and really technical that's fine, as long as your opponent is okay with that. I will vote on speed bad.

2 - Evidence sharing: If I don't have your evidence, I cannot evaluate it, and if you don't have each other's evidence I can't trust you and your opponent to evaluate it. And at that point it's going to come down to drops and analytics. The easy way to resolve this is to send your docs to each other. If I don't have your evidence my cap for your speaks is gonna be a lot lower than it would be if I did, because for all I know you made everything.

3 - Progressive/technical debate: I understand that I would be considered a tech judge in most PF pools. However, I have few stipulations around tech in PF: Firstly, PF is a lay event. The norms on the circuit mean that most debaters have no idea how to respond to theory or the K and will lose even to awful theory or Ks because they don't know how to respond. You can still read these args, just know I will be much more likely to intervene if I think the argument is badly executed than I would be in LD or Policy, even if it is conceded/poorly responded to by the other team, simply because I think there's no educational value to bad technical debate in a lay event, and I don't want to incentivize that.

Secondly, a lot of technical args just don't translate well to PF, largely because of the lack of plan texts. T doesn't work, and neither does a significant amount of (the most compelling) theory. The lack of plan also means you can't have a counterplan or alt. Without alts the k loses all uniqueness and no longer functions. I'm not saying that you can't read any technical arguments but you also can't just read old LD or Policy backfiles as-is and expect me to vote on them.

Rishit R Pradhan Hire 8 rounds

Ridhima Prashanth Hire None

Nikhita Punati Hart Middle School None

Saarrah Qutbuddin Hire None

Rishabh Rai Hire None

Kaviya Raja Hart Middle School

Anagha Rajesh Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Fri November 18, 2022 at 12:01 PM PDT

Hey! I’m a Lay LD debater (NSDA Nats 22 qualifier) and a middle school coach. I use she/her pronouns. Here are a few things to keep in mind during your round!

1. Signpost clearly, especially if you’re collapsing arguments or moving to different parts of the flow. Clearly state when/where you are extending impacts/evidence as well!

2. Don't do sketchy extensions. If you mention an argument in your constructive, mostly drop it in refutations, and then completely blow it up in your voters, I’m not going to be comfortable voting on it. Extend important arguments consistently throughout the round.

3. Weigh well and weigh early. Grant your opponent their full impact and then show me why yours still matters more.

4. Don't forget about framework, especially when weighing impacts or giving voter issues. Also, I am all ears for a good framework debate, but if you and your opponent are arguing for pretty much synonymous things, please don’t waste too much time going back and forth over it.

5. Don’t spread out your opponent! I am not a huge fan of spreading online and will vote against you if you are using it in an abusive manner. Regardless of what speed you’re speaking at, make sure you’re always enunciating clearly.

Be respectful! Winning rounds feels great, but it should never be at the cost of your opponent’s well-being. During cross-examination remember that you can be assertive without being rude. If you're discussing sensitive topics, I would appreciate brief trigger warnings in your off-time roadmap or at the top of your case. Use your discretion and be mindful.

For circuit LD: If you and your opponent both agree to run a circuit round and it is allowed by the tournament, that’s fine with me. That being said, I am a lay debater and will need a clear explanation of any niche theory/philosophy arguments.

oh and pls chat with me after the round if you're a taylor swift fan :)

Rajiv Ranjan Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Pedro Ribeiro Athens Debate 8 rounds None

Tyler Sagadraca Ruiz Hire

Subrata Saharoy Joaquin Miller Middle School

Veronica Samaniego Athens Debate 8 rounds

Gina Sanchez Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Natalie Schultz Hire

Gaby Scully Hire 8 rounds

Shivakumar Seetharaman Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:11 PM PDT

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

Ivan Shah Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 12:56 AM PDT

TL:DR

pf Gtoc 3X, Did Nat circ PF for 4 years from Dougherty Valley. tab stalk if you want

Stuff:

Warrant

Keep round fast, Send docs w/card before every speech

Be sassy in cross

Weigh

Comparative weighing

If there's no Comparative weighing I vote on the path of least resistance (Strength of link)

Signpost do it but keep roadmaps short

Speed is totally fine, ill clear you if its too muddled

Prog is fine - k, theory, etc

I lowk like tricks

presumption warrants - default first>neg>whoever had shorter speeches?

If they have no path to the ballot save everyone time and TKO them in speech (ill give you 30s)

Dont skip Grand, make it fun

EV. Challenges - eh I'm salty from personal reasons but ill do them if its a valid tko

Long Boy

About Me:

Pronouns: He/Him

Senior At DV And Frequently Debated In Varsity Public Forum And Impromptu. I've Been Doing PF For Over 5 Years, I Have 14 Bids - 9 Gold(Tab-Stalk Me If You Want, GTOC 3X, Cal States 2X, Nats, Champ LCC, Jack Howe, Cal RR Semis Etc)And Have Done Impromptu For 4 Years (Not Successful Because I Get 1st Prelim Seed And Then Talk About 3-Idiots In Finals To Get Dead Last)

PF:

Label Email Chains Adequately. Ex. "Cal RR R3 F1 Email Chain Dougherty Valley DS V. Fairmont Prep SS."

Please Have Pre-Flows Done Before The Round For The Sake Of Time. Don't Be Late. Read Any Argument You Want, Wear Whatever You Want, And Be As Assertive As You Want. Any Speed Is Fine As Long As You Are Clear.

I'm More Than Happy To Evaluate Anything You Run, So Do What You Do Best And Own It!

Tabula Rasa - Tech/Truth, I Like To See Clash And Please WEIGH, That Lets Me Know What To Vote On In The Round. Collapsing/Crystalizing Is Essential, Don't Go For Every Single Argument On The Flow.

I Am Fully Experienced In Whatever The Current Topic Is Cause I Compete Frequently. If you read a definition of the word USFG or smt imma lose it.

Cross: I'll Listen, But I Won't Weigh Arguments Made In Crossfire Unless You Restate Your Points In A Speech. This Doesn't Mean You Should Ask Bad Questions, Make Sure They Are Smart And Strategic.

Rebuttal: Read As Much Offense/DAs As You Want, Just Please Implicate Them The Line-By-Line And Weigh Them. The Second Rebuttal MUST Frontline Terminal Defense And Turns, Probably All Defense Too. Check OutThis VideoFor Some Help.

Evidence: I Am Fine With Exchanging Evidence Through An Email Chain But Please Don't Ask For Too Much Evidence And Steal Prep, I Will Dock Of Speaks. Also If A Team Takes More Than 2 Mins For A Card Either Its Striked From The Round Or You Need To Take Prep To Pull It Up.

I Will Only Look At Evidence If I Am Deliberately Asked To In A Speech, It Seems Too Good To Be True, Or There Is A Massive Clash Over It.

Summary: First Summary Only Needs To Extend Turns But Should Also Extend Terminal Defense If You Have Time. I’d Prefer For The Second Summary To Extend As Much Defense As Possible With Author Names.

Please WatchThis VideoIf You Have The Time.This OneIs Also Good If You Only Have Ten Mins.

Final Focus: The First Final Can Do New Weighing But No New Implications Of Turns, Or Anything Else UNLESS Responding To New Implications Or Turns From The Second Summary. The Second Final Cannot Do New Weighing Or New Implications. The Final Focus Is A Really Good Time To Slow Down, Treat Me Like A Flay Judge In These Speeches And My Decision Becomes A Lot Easier.

Prog Debate: Theory>K>=Case. I'll Evaluate Ks AndTheoryI Have Experience WithProgressive ArgsAnd I Enjoy Listening To Prog Rounds Over Substance Ones. Check Out ThisYoutube PlaylistIn Your Off-Time If You Want. Also, Look At ThisTheory Demo Debate Round. Ive listned to some of the best K debates on the circuit but don't get discouraged. I hate judges who say they want perfect K debates. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Speaks: I Am Comfortable With Almost All Speaking Styles And Speeds But Make Sure To Give A Speech Doc If You Are Going To Spread. (For Online): If I Can't Hear You Or You Are Muted I Will Unmute And Yell "Clear" Up To 2 Times. If The Problem Persists I Will Stop Flowing And Tank Speaks.

Other Things I Dock Speaks Off For:

- Going 10 Seconds Over Time

- Reading A Theory That You Violate

If Nothing Is Done From This List Then You Can Expect A Very High Speaks Count For All The Debaters. 99% Of The Time I Give Above A 29.3 Just Cause I Can :)

Other Stuff I Like:

- Have A Little Fun In Cross, Don't Be Too Uptight

- Make Me Laugh

- Metweighing (ComparativeWeighing)

- Signposting

- Brief Roadmaps (if the roadmap is more than 5 seconds its times gotta start)

- Unique Weighing As Soon As Possible

- Summary/FF Parallelism

Decision: I Will Provide Oral Decisions After Round Most Of The Time. (Depends On Tournament Specific Regulations). If I Give An Oral Disclosure, There Won't Be Much On My Online RFD. Post-Round All You Want, I Enjoy It But I Won't Change My Decision Unless I Pressed The Wrong Button On Tab.

I don't provide my email for safety reasons. I'll give it in round

Hidden section

For 30 speaks:

Coffee - Caramel Macchiato

Subway (Italian Herb and Cheese, Veggie Delight, American Cheese, Toasted, Lettuce, Tomatoes, Black Olives, Onion, Salt & Pepper, Ranch, Garlic Aoli on Half, pick another sauce for the other side)

Margarita Pizza

Taco Bell (Supreme Crunch Wrap Veggie - w/ +seasoned rice, onion, cheese jalapeno sauce)

Chipotle Order - 3 Soft tacos, white rice, black beans, mild salsa, cheese, guac, lettuce & corn

In & Out - Grilled Cheese w/ onion

Anything else veg

Wendy Shan Joaquin Miller Middle School

Saumya Sharma Hart Middle School

shweta Sharma Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Suhani Sharma Hire

Last changed on Sat October 23, 2021 at 2:28 AM PDT

I have experience in mainly Lincoln-Douglas Debate, both as a debater and a judge. As a debater I understand the basics of the other categories but may ask a few questions beforehand to make sure I judge properly.

Pronouns: she/her

tech > truth (Essentially I will judge only on the information that you provide in round, I may ask for copies of your case to ensure I have all the correct information.)

General:

Be clear when explaining the biggest impacts of your argument; the benefits of your side should be obvious. I don't usually flow during cross-examination but I might consider it for speaking points.

Do not be rude to your opponent. I understand the competitiveness and intensity of debate rounds, but that is never an excuse to be blatantly rude or disrespectful to your opponent.

LD Judging Preferences:

I'm alright with speed during speeches. I may interrupt you to let you know that you are going too fast at any time during the round. However, if you are spreading just to force your opponent out of the debate, that is an immediate drop.

Have clear links and connections, no matter what the card says it has to be proven relevant to the topic at hand or it is not considered in flow.

Framework is crucial, it is the defining factor of LD. Therefore, there is no need to overdo it but you definitely should do you best to mention it.

In terms of Theory and Kritiks, I am not very familiar with these and would suggest avoiding them unless absolutely necessary. If you do end up using them then please be sure to explain each part clearly.

Make sure to give off-time roadmaps when appropriate. Stay organized, especially in rebuttal speeches. SIGN-POSTING IS KEY in order for me to follow your flow and arguments.

When giving your rebuttals and final speeches, I encourage you to use voters to your advantage. Make it extremely clear why I should vote for you.

Voting Criteria: (for all events)

I will do my very best to give a holistic look at the round before making my decision. With that, please note that utilizing voters effectively only helps you.

In terms of arguments and rebuttals, make your defenses and offenses clear. Dropped arguments will hurt you only if they are pointed out, I will not look for what you dropped. Make all links and impacts as clear as you can.

Speaker points are pretty straightforward for me. I give anywhere between 27-29, unless you're perfect I might give you a 30. You'll get a 27 if your speeches are alright but need a bit of work. A 28 is average debating. A 29 is above average debating, eloquent, well-thought out, and easy to follow. I will automatically give you an extra speaker up to 29.5 if you can reference a meme during any of your speeches.

Any rudeness, hate speech, harmfulness, or profane language will have your speaks dropped all the way to the minimum and you will be dropped on the ballot for exactly that.

I look forward to judging you today and hope that you have fun! :)

Uma Sharma Hire 8 rounds None

Uma Sharma Hire None

Christina Shi Joaquin Miller Middle School

Rohit Shrivastava Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Ansh Singh Brooks Debate Institute None

Vaishnavi Sirkay Blach Intermediate School

Zoe Claire Soderquist Hire

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 8:31 AM MST

Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't send chain it's not going on my flow.

Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.

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

LD/Policy TLDR

Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions

For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.

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

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

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

Random:

Flex prep is fine

Tag team is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Tag team cross is fine.

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

Misc LD/policy things:

I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.

Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.

If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.

Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)

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

PF paradigm- I was an LD debater but I did PF a a few times. Knowing my LD background, you can feel free to read framework or non-traditional PF arguments. HOWEVER, I feel PF should be a debate for a lay judge so everyone can understand it, so if you have a lay panel and you run that stuff be warned that might not end up favorably.

TLDR- If you have a tech panel do what you like, but on a lay panel I will be less flexible so you should act like I'm a somewhat experienced lay judge in such a situation. Additionally, reading progressive in front of an LD judge who did a lot of that stuff might be bad if you don't structure it properly or understand what you're doing.

- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

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

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).

- There is a huge PO shortage on our circuit. If you step up to PO, do a decent job, and (if I'm parli) are also active in the other session, you will receive a good rank as a result. If it's your first time POing, ask the parli questions and try your best and you probably can still get a decent rank. It's all about trying your best. But, even if you don't perform the best as PO, you can still make ranks by following the above suggestions in the next session!

Aadit Sood Hire None

Ashley Soong Athens Debate 8 rounds None

Paddy Sreenivasan Joaquin Miller Middle School

Akhilesh Srivastava Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Michael Sterbenc Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy 8 rounds None

Elizabeth Su Hire

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 2:34 PM PDT

Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her).

lizziesu425@gmail.com for the chain/questions

TLDR: first year out, broke at TOC senior year, mostly read policy but dabbled in phil. will vote on any complete argument (bar the -isms) but you should err on the side of over-explaining something if you don’t think I’m familiar

Defaults/changed with a sentence: DTA, competing interps, no RVIs, permissibility negates, policy presumption

--no strong argumentative preferences but I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on "I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr." If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of "they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff" isn't going to cut it

--not great for phil v phil or k v k but walk me through it and we’ll probably be fine

--very good for cp competition stuff, politics, 0 off case, T (but not from a backfile), and util v phil

--fine for the k if you interact with the aff and do lots of judge instruction, but not if you like 6m of overviews, buzzwords, and K tricks with 0m of line by line

--I will intervene in the case of in-round safety concerns (misgendering, etc.)

--evaluate the debate after the 1AC and no aff/neg arguments are logically incoherent.

--2ars do not have to throw everything at the wall

--debaters should flow the round and take prep/cx for clarification (re: marked docs - in general, please try to minimize dead time!)

--will usually flow by ear and read ev later

--feel free to respectfully disagree with my decisions

Speaker points are boosted for strategic pivots and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks. Will ignore 30 speaks theory.

--it has come to my attention that i was a speaks demon/goblin this past year, i'll try to be nicer.

Speaks will be docked for splitting the 2NR/2AR 5 different ways or otherwise making the debate irresolvable.

Pervinder Sudan Brooks Debate Institute None

Sunny Sun Hire

Priya Sundaram Dougherty Valley Bridge

Kiran Suresh Hart Middle School

Saumya Swati Hire None

Saumya Swati Hire 8 rounds None

Lena Tang Brooks Debate Institute

Mei Tang Joaquin Miller Middle School

Noah T Tang Hire 8 rounds

Sylvia Tang Stratagem Learning None

Patrick Tapia HS2 Academy

Selena Teng Hire

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 3:13 PM EDT

PF/Parli Paradigm for NYCUDL

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Selena. I competed in LD debate for Millburn High School (NJ). Some miscellaneous things to take into consideration:

- I evaluate only the arguments you make in round without using my own knowledge and opinions.
- Weigh/compare between arguments! This is where a large portion of rounds come down to.
- Signpost your responses; it makes them easier to flow.
- I will be very happy if you run a framework and execute it correctly.
- A team once called me "your honor." Please don't do this or anything similar. "Selena" or "judge" is fine.
- If you have any questions before or after the round, ask or email me! I'll be happy to provide information and feedback.

Circuit LD Paradigm

Email: selenateng24@gmail.com

Tl;dr I look for the path of least intervention to the ballot. Good for phil/theory, fine for clash debates, bad for K v K and larp v larp. I'm less tricky as a judge than I was as a debater; you need to have fully fleshed-out warrants. I AM BAD AT FLOWING FAST SPREADING.

Generic
These are all subject to change depending on what is argued in round. I try to default to what both debaters seem to assume, but absent that:
- Tech > truth
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
- Truth testing ROTB
- Permissibility and presumption are the same thing and both negate
- All pre-fiat impacts (theory, T, K, independent voters) are on the same layer. You need to weigh between them.
- If I don't understand your case after your constructive, I won't expect your opponent to predict your massive rebuttal extrapolation.
- I don't think many things are abhorrent to argue, but I will be biased against args that are legitimately terrible (ex. an entire case that explicitly supports racism, call-out cases).

Larp
- I'm bad at evaluating policy. Please overexplain. And if you're against another larper, I'm praying that one of you uplayers.
- I can, however, evaluate util just fine. In fact, syllogistic util can be quite persuasive against Ks.
- Default to epistemic confidence, yes judge kick, zero risk does exist.
- I have a lower threshold for winning calc indicts than most judges. Util debaters undercover them.

Phil
- Love it. I'm most familiar with Kant, determinism, and skep, and I'm somewhat familiar with most other common FWs, but feel free to run whatever.
- This does not mean you can get away with weak explanations. When I say I like judging phil, it doesn't mean I'll fill in the gaps for you.
- Calc indicts <3

K
- Not the most experienced with Ks, but I'm not opposed to them.
- I view Ks as frameworks. That means when going for a K, you should try to frame it as a phil NC - i.e., heavier on the line-by-line as well as explaining why your offense is relevant and theirs isn't.
- I don't understand why so many K 2Ns have enormous overviews at the top that just explain what the K says and don't explain what implications the arguments have on the round.
- Pathos is not offense.

Theory
- I like theory. I'll vote on almost any shell if it's well-justified. SLOW DOWN ON BLIPS.
- Defaults: drop the argument, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > in-round abuse, text > spirit. You should read your own voters, but if both debaters seem to be at an implicit consensus that something is/isn't a voter, I'll default to that.
- Terminal defense on theory, even under a competing interps model, is sufficient for me to ignore a shell. In other words, I don't default to risk-of-offense framing, but you can always argue otherwise.
- It is much harder to get me to vote on independent voters and paragraph theory compared to regular theory shells. A one or two-sentence argument likely doesn't have enough warranting for a full collapse in rebuttal, but I don't have anything against independent voters if you warrant and impact out the initial argument.

Tricks
- I'll vote on them if there's a warrant in the constructive speech. A lot of times there isn't, like "negating denies the antecedent of the resolution, and statements with false antecedents always have true consequents, which affirms" is literally just words. Yeah I know it's condo logic, but I'm not doing that work for you.
- Keep the debate clean pleeease
- If you extemp a random a priori in the middle of the AC, I probably won't catch it. Just put it in the doc.

Dinesh Thandapani Joaquin Miller Middle School

Diya Theodore Athens Debate None

Lei Tian BASIS Independent Silicon Valley None

Tyler Tsudama Athens Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 13, 2023 at 5:11 AM EDT

Hello Everyone! Find the event you are competing below and read the paradigm!

Congress:

I want to see proper etiquette in round and respect to every single Senator/Representative.

Argumentation, Creativity, and Presentation are my top 3 things I look for when I judge.

Argumentation: Your arguments need to make sense. You need to have a clear warrant/evidence and you need to show how your evidence links to your position.

Creativity: Be funny. Give me a funny intro or make me laugh and that's a huge bonus to your rank. Congress invitational rounds are very long and some speeches get blended together. Stand out. Puns are huge for me and originality is key. Arguments that are unique to the debate/not stock arguments, add a lot to the debate and I really appreciate it.

Presentation: Be presentable. Act like you want to be here. Effective gestures and facial expressions add a lot to what you are talking about.

Flow of Debate:

If you are speaking in the 5th or 6th cycle, try not to give constructive speeches but crystallization speeches/consolidation speeches. Giving constructive speeches late kind of ruins the flow of the debate.

Cross Exam:

I only mark off points if there is a lack of knowledge of content or presentation that isn't adequate. (example: stuttering during CX, giving a blank face during CX, or anything in between.)

As a competitor, you must ask questions. It helps the flow of the debate and really allows the judges to see the cross-examination aspect of Congress. When no one asks questions, it's extremely boring and really doesn't allow the judges to see if the competitor knows their stuff.

For PF/Policy/Parli

PLEASE add me to the chain @ttsudama@gmail.com (if rules allow)

- Please don't be late.

- Speak coherently and make sense.

- While I have experience in debate, I want you to speak slowly and calmly. Yelling doesn't make you right. If the volume does become too loud I will mark that off speaker points. If you are speaking too fast and become incoherent I will say "clear" one time as a reminder that you are either going too fast or because you are incoherent. After that, there are no more warnings and you have a higher chance of losing the debate because most likely I will have stopped flowing.

- I prefer case debate. I ask that there is no theory or kritiks. IF there is one ran, it must be well said// easy to understand. Run at your own risk.

-Think of me as a parent judge who flows. Please do not get too technical.

- I default to the voting framework. For example, if you say your Weighing Mechanism is Net benefits, I will choose whichever side provides the most amount of net benefits. Make sure to signpost, organization is key, and bouncing everywhere on the flow gets really confusing and leads to a dock on speaker points+ missed arguments on my flow.

IF you have any questions, email @ttsudama@gmail.com. Ask anything there is no such thing as a dumb question. Just ask honestly. Email is free.

Kazi Tulip Joaquin Miller Middle School

Francesca Tyberg Hire None

Hunter Valencia Hire

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 11:52 PM PDT

Summary: I am a college debater and high school coach who understands the fundamentals of debate and loves hearing people argue.

Background:

4 years High School Parliamentary debate at Analy High School

2 years British Parliamentary debate at UC Berkeley

2 years Coaching at Berkeley High School

Judging:

I will flow the round and give the win based on which team can provide a more persuasive case. I am not a judge that will give you an auto-loss for not understanding the 17-step formula that the opposition (or your own team) expects you or others to know before the round, but I do consider weighing and proving your arguments to be true as integral to the round.

TO WIN THE ROUND, YOU MUST:
1. Show up to the debate (hopefully)

2. Have good arguments

3. Explain why those arguments matter (the impacts)

4. Attack your opponent's arguments

5. Explain why your arguments are stronger than your opponents (the weighing)

While that seems simple, I've seen many rounds where most of those steps go missing.

Although I will be flowing the round, I will not be filling in the blanks for your case. If you'd like to make my life easier, please signpost as you speak, so I understand where you are in the round.

Evidence alone does not win you rounds. Stating evidence doesn't mean I will understand why it is essential to your case, nor will I understand its general warranting unless you can explicitly tell me.

If there are fundamental disagreements about Definitions or Weighing Mechanisms, I will generally default to Government unless Opposition can prove the definition abusive.

Miscellaneous Jargon:

If you need to spread, you may, but I would prefer if you don't. I can't vote for your side if I can't flow your arguments.

Do not expect me to understand your Shells and Ks and Theory arguments. I generally do not vote on jargon UNLESS it can be clearly explained why it is more important than the debate round you were assigned to defend.

Reminder:

You are a fantastic human who's trying your best, so don't feel bad if you make a mistake or lose the round :)

Jacqueline Valenzuela Hire None

Vishnu Vennelakanti Athens Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 3:40 AM PDT

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

Lea Walters Hire None

Flora Wang Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:33 PM PDT

Email chain (yes): talk to me before round.

I debated (2020-2023), judged (many rounds), and currently coach Lincoln-Douglas. I prefer not to disclose personal information online beyond what might be immediately helpful for the competitor, so feel free to talk to me before the round if you have any further questions!

Overview

Call me “judge” in-round, thanks
Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand.
Be ethical with speech times, prep time, and evidence. At the end of each speech, you are granted a “grace period” to finish your sentence, not to make a whole new argument. You are granted 4 minutes of prep (LD). Here is the NSDA Evidence Guide. Don’t steal prep by taking forever to find a card. Cheating is not cute or quirky, and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent as outlined by CHSSA/NSDA rules.
Be mindful of potential triggers and sensitive topics and DO NOT be offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, the list goes on).

Traditional LD

I will not hesitate to drop anyone who chooses to make the round inaccessible (spreading out the opponent) or engage in other debate practices that would not be understandable to a reasonable person. This is non-negotiable.

Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.
There’s a fine line between being cheeky and being annoying during cross. Feel free to do the former, not the latter, I can tell the difference. If you’re confused, ask.
An argument comprises a claim, warrant, and impact, not just a claim.
Write the ballot for me – tell me why you win.

Circuit LD

Send a speech doc and go slower than you usually do – it’s been a while and listening to spreading has always made me very tired. If I miss something, it’s nice to have the doc to reference. Slow down especially on signposting, taglines, and analytics.
I would prefer if the round remained related to resolution – things like friv theory and Ks unrelated to the debate are a bit harder for me to vote on, though possible.
Avoid using heavy progressive debate jargon

Other Events

Treat me like I’m a parent judge. Prioritize clarity over speed, and explain the argument and reasoning to me. Assume I’m not familiar with the topic lit. Please don’t be rude in crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

Pancheng Wang Prestige Debate

Jeremy Wilkins Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun May 2, 2021 at 2:19 AM PDT

La Costa Canyon HS 2019-Present
DEBATE:

"Oh god my tournament just released pairings and I'm supposed to be in the room right now what should I know"

tech>truth
Speech times are set, one team/person wins

Add me to the email chain, I’ll follow the doc when I’m lost and to look at stuff post-round. Email: cyberninjabear@outlook.com

If I’m lost, I’ll look lost and please re-orient me.
For extensions, warrant them and be specific of what I’m supposed to extend.
IMPACT CALC PLEASE. MAKE ROUNDS (and my life) EASY.
SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS/THEORY/PRE-WRITTEN BLOCKS, UNLESS IT'S IN THE DOC. These are often the things that win rounds, so if I don’t catch them your chances of winning decrease.
2 years of HS experience in circuit & trad LD and a very small amount of trad policy. I don’t follow the topics or know the meta and stuff outside of LD, so please explain your stuff.
Run anything you want, just make sure you have the justification.
Don't be afraid to use analytics to take out bad arguments. Just because you need a warrant for everything, doesn't mean you always need a card for it.

GENERAL STUFF

Debate Experience: Debated 2 years in high school. Freshman year did mostly trad LD, Sophomore year mostly circuit LD with like a single policy tournament.
Topic Familiarity: If it's LD, assume I know the topic fairly well, more so if you're reading this in Jan-Feb. If it's not LD, assume I know nothing whatsoever.
Delivery/Speed: I can comprehend speed, but don’t go full speed from the start, edge yourself in. If you spread and I have to yell “clear” or "slow" more than 3 times, I’m going to look confused and lost trying to flow. Also, I’ve realized that changing volume helps me flow better and grasp what you’re saying. Also also, don't spread things not on a speech doc. Fast analytics are fine, but if I'm looking lost or not flowing you should probably slow down.
Cheap Shots/Blippy Arguments: If there’s a voter attached to it, it’s a voter. It’s up to the other team to say why they don’t count. If this is your type of strategy, be reasonable. Your arguments have to make sense and must be warranted.
Kritik FW: Whoever debates better under the interpretation wins.
K V K debates: Can't say I'm that comfortable with this, it'll be hard to convince me why aff perming isn't a good idea, especially if alts are similar.
Views on T: Honestly, that’s what your job as debaters are. My only default is competiting interps. The only exception is that I probably have a lower threshold on disclosure.
CP Threshold: Honestly, I don’t have that great of a knowledge on CP theory past condo bad, but if you want to run theory, keep it organized and I’ll be a-ok and I’ll follow.
Dropped Arguments: Dropped args are "true," but the implications of it can still be contested and should be.
How I evaluate rounds: I will evaluate rounds by first determining framing , i.e. standard, value criterion (For my LD folks), role of the ballot, etc. Second to that, I think of debate like a basketball game. Offense gives you points, defense doesn’t give you points but prevents the other team from getting points. Overviews are just you dribbling the ball, extensions with warrants and turns are offense, defense is just case answers and generic answers to case/off-case positions.
I'm a pretty emotive person when judging - if I look skeptical it probably means I don't buy what you're saying (not that it matters if it goes unaddressed), if I'm smiling I'm probably enjoying the argument, etc. If I look disinterested that just means that I'm probably tired from judging 2+ rounds back to back with little to no breaks, not that I'm disinterested in what you're saying.

PROCEDURAL STUFF

Disclosure: Disclosure is good, do it. I have a lower threshold on disclosure than other T shells.
Prep/Cheating: Compiling speech docs are prep, sending emails/flashing is not prep. CX is not prep, asking questions during prep is ok. Don’t steal prep and don’t clip cards.
CX: I will flow CX to a certain extent. If you want me to make note of what happens in CX, let me know so I’ll have it for sure. CX to me is an important part of debate, so you cannot use CX as prep. Tag-Team CX is ok.
Timing: I’ll time speeches, but time your own prep. Hold each other accountable.
Prompting/Speaking: Having your partner speak or prompt is ok. However, if it happens too often, your speaks will be affected.

FRAMEWORK

Frame the framework by telling me what type of debate you want via your interpretation and tell me why that is net good/beneficial for debate.
“I think of FW like a cp - give me your interp of debate, how you solve it, and hit me with those nice and clear net benefits to your vision of debate.” -Matthew Graca
Abusive Interps, ROTBs, etc. How I’ll treat them is based on what you tell me to do with them.
morality is not a framework, this is non-negotiable. If you run morality I WILL default to the other persons equivalent v/vc.
please don't have framework debates if you both are more or less arguing for the same thing - if both of your impacts function under each others frameworks then it's unnecessary

KRITIK

Everyone has a spicy alt like "giving back the land" or "revolutionary suicide" What i need to know is HOW YOU PERFORM YOUR ALT. Are you literally giving back the land to the natives? how are you committing revolutionary suicide? this stuff should be explained.

Even if you're not performing your alt (which is ok i guess i mean how else are we gonna spread the gospel of death good), why is your method good/better than the other team's method?

btw, if your alt is literally just "reject the aff" and that will spillover to 100% solvency with no further explanation, i may involuntarily laugh

THOUGHTS ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF Ks

(1) Cap: A staple in the policy diet, I can easily understand it as long as there is a good explanation of the alt

(2) Nietzsche: Hit it before, and promptly lost to it. Give me the impacts and explain it and I'll vote on it.

(3) Security: another staple. Understand the basics of it

(4) Race: refer to cap but replace "policy" with "circuit LD"

(5) Queer: Ran it for policy this year, understand it.

(6) French philosopher soup of the day: i hope you write good overviews

(7) Language Ks: go ahead

(8) Ableism: yeah sure go for it

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

I prefer theory be in this form for organizational purposes.

Interp: The rule
Violation: How they broke the interp
Standards: Why that’s bad
Voters: Why those standards matter

My defaults are competing interps and drop the argument.
RVI’s: Topicality is not an RVI. But I mean if its in the speech, you should answer it, but I’m a hard press for RVI’s.
I’m not fond of frivolous theory.
For theory, examples of in-round abuse are better and more convincing than potential abuse.
Sounds dumb, but attach a voter to your argument. If you don’t tell me what to do, then I don’t know what to do with it, so your opponent in the next speech can tell me to disregard it.
In my opinion, Topicality is a big time-suck because so many people drop it. If you read topicality, then at least try to go for it, if you do, I’ll reward you with some speaks.

THOUGHTS ON LARP/POLICY ARGS

Counterplans

Go for it. They must have a net benefit though. If you go for multiple CP’s in the 2NR, tell me how to evaluate them.
Aff should probably perm and tell me how the perm functions.
Judge kick is ok if you tell me

Disads

Anything is fine as long as it makes sense
Also elections, ptx, or midterms is not persuasive. I'll still evaluate them you read it, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I prefer anything else.
Impact Calc and weigh please.

Case

Answer case, and run impact defense.

SPEAKER POINTS

If you want I'll disclose speaker points
I start from a 28. It will go up or down based on strategy, mannerisms, spreading quality etc.
I am impartial to all spreading styles except for the "booming and committing verbal genocide" style and the "spread at 0.05dB for the card text so no one can possibly tell I'm clipping xD" style.

<20, rude, mean, racism/homophobia/etc good
25-27.5, couple of things to fix
28-29, average range, decent speaker
29.5, impressive
30, solid, perfect speeches and strategy
- Shout out to Ethan Tan https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=ethan&search_last=tan who I more or less stole this paradigm from, as well as Matthew Graca for a couple of extra bits https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=graca

SPEECH:

"Oh god my tournament just released pairings and I'm supposed to be in the room right now what should I know"

1. Speech is subjective, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. I have enough experience both first-hand and through friends to know that you can go from 1st in your first round to 7th in your next.
2. Give me a good theme and I'll give you a good ranking
General:

Experience - Did speech for a year in total, a DI for the first half and extemp for the second half, maybe one day I'll be able to put duo here as well.
Speech to me regardless of the event is like any English essay you've ever had to write for school - it needs to have a message. What that message is depends on the subject matter of the essay, and the same applies for speeches.
Building off the above idea - my evaluation and eventual ranking of your speech will depend on how well you convey your "thesis statement" on four points - uniqueness, conciseness, complexity, and spin.
Basically, if you can make me hear something new, make me be able to keep track of what you're saying, make me think about what you're saying, and make me consider a new perspective on what you're saying, then you'll probably get a high rank.
Time signals will be given if asked for, I won't offer them because truth be told 9/10 it will just turn awkward for me, for you, and for everyone watching the exchange, and nobody wants that.

I would say more but due to my limited experience with speech I can't.

Madison Wong Athens Debate 8 rounds

Jean Wu Prestige Debate

Jiacheng Xi Hire None

Rick Xie Hire 8 rounds

Emily Xu Hire

Jing Xu Joaquin Miller Middle School

Prashanthi Yalamanchili Stratagem Learning None

James Yang Velásquez-Liangyi Leadership Academy None

Xiaoyong Yang Joaquin Miller Middle School

Omid Yeganeh Prestige Debate None

Jocelyn Yeh The Golden State Academy

Keun Soo Yim Stratford Sunnyvale Raynor Middle School

David Yin Hire 8 rounds

David Yin Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Krista Yokoyama Viewpoint School 8 rounds None

amanda zhang Egan Junior High School None

Feng Zhang Joaquin Miller Middle School

Jeane Zhang Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Peng Zhao Stratagem Learning None

Helen Zhong Joaquin Miller Middle School

Wei Zhong Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Qing Zhou Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Yu Zhou Stratagem Learning None

Erica Zhu Velásquez-Liangyi Leadership Academy

Janis Ziese Clovis East High School None

Michael Zong Hart Middle School None

Login to Tabroom

CHSSA Middle School State Championship

2021 — Online, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges