Tabroom.com

La Reina Invitational

2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Abraam Abdelmalak BC Academy

Erika Ahn Jeng Academic Center

Jose Alva Serra Academy

Diana Alvarez Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 12, 2019 at 1:11 AM PDT

Diana Alvarez

General:
-Tech and Truth?
-Speed is fine but please be clear.
-Do what you do best. I am open to Affs/K’s that I may not be well-versed on but it is your job to articulate the argument(s) - “the best debaters do not win by confusing their opponents” - I also need to know what I am voting for.
-Debate is a game and you should aim to win. You do not enter a round knowing exactly what you will go for but rather make decisions on what occurs within the room.

*Don’t be racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic or argue these are good in ANY way, I will not vote for you.

-Simply because the other team did not say the phrase “Role of the Ballot” does not mean that they dropped the framing question - some debaters may phrase this differently. Whoever controls the framing of the debate will win my ballot.

Specifics:
-Theory:
Condo - will vote for but need impacts to these, I prefer an articulation of why having multiple contradictory off cases forces the aff to debate themselves rather than “x amount of off case is cool.”

Aff:
Policy - tell me what the plan does and extend solvency accordingly. I prefer arguments, do not just read 30 cards and not explain what they mean.

K Affs - I read them most of the time in high school however, I will not vote for you ONLY because I love K affs. You need to have an advocacy that articulates what the aff does and be able to defend it entirely. For instance you have to defend why the aff precedes a full endorsement of the topic.

Framework vs. K Affs- I will vote on framework but I encourage you to not only read alone. At least try to engage the aff and if you are unable to do so, this will make your fw arguments more persuasive rather than simply resorting to only framework.

Please do not just read your generic 8 minute block in the 2NC without engaging the specifics of the aff that make it impossible to be neg- provide instances where the aff has proved this. This goes with any off, speaker points will be awarded generously.

Neg:
-The role of the neg is to disprove the aff.
-Case debates are often undermined and should not be. I like case arguments that make the aff question their solvency.

-CPs/PICs: If they aren't kicking aff on theory - go for them! Otherwise, can be considered cheating.

-DA’s: Need strong internal links, impact extension, specifics are awesome!

-Kritiks: Love them! You need a good link, the more explicit it is the better! You do not need to have the best link if you can use instances in which the aff links. Know the literature you are reading.

Topicality is not my fave but slow down when you read shells. I will vote on it if the aff mishandles it but do not reach.

Questions? Email me: d.alvarez028@gmail.com

Neil Banerji Hire 8 rounds

Kelly Barber La Reina 8 rounds None

Chance Boreczky Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 28, 2021 at 1:26 PM PDT

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Note to LD competitors at the FBK tournament - I almost exclusively judge policy, but I've done LD in the past and am quite familiar with the format and traditional argumentation. Most of the below should be pretty applicable, less so the stuff about evidence.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

Scott Brown Honor Academy

Last changed on Wed August 10, 2022 at 9:15 AM PDT

mcdonogh '08 (policy debater)

fullerton college '21 csuf '22 (no debate, history)

current/conflicts: honor academy (2018-present), troy/oxford ("independent")

previous: centennial, mcdonogh (db is the g.o.a.t.), fullerton union, many others

if i'm judging you at a local ca/chssa/ocsl/ca ld tournament that has explicit rules (no plans/cps) - please disregard everything below and follow the rules

short:

1 - k, larp/policy debate, theory, t vs larp affs

3/4 - phil

4/5 - spreading analytics

strike: t-framework/usfg, tricks, t-nebel, disclosure/wiki theory

shmedium:

in a 100 judge ordinally ranked judging pool, here's how i would rank myself:

1 - you're a jv/novice debater and want to get a ton of feedback/tips for improving

2 - k / "larp" / policy

5 - clarity ≥ speed of delivery (model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIC2kG3kZMQ&t=6741s)

6 - t* vs larp affs (*see 69 & 95)

9 - 3 off & case

10 - process/immediacy/consult cps when the aff doesn't go for theory

11 - you want the debate judged off my flow, not the speech doc artifact

12 - nuanced, in-depth conditionality bad vs 8 off & case (not 1 sentence i can't flow in 1ar)

50 - word salad highlighting

59 - 7+ off & case

65 - baudrillard (yet i keep voting for it -_-)

69 - t-framework (prolly much lower)

70 - phil (i'm just not smart enough)

71 - nr kicking planks of giant multiplank cp b/c other team didn't ask

80 - process/immediacy/consult cps when the aff goes for theory

90 - tricks

95 - "nebel t" / whole rez / spec t

96 - disclosure theory

99 - you read the "china should ban its own laws to benefit us unilat heg good" aff

100 - evaluate the debate after the ac

please strike me if you intend on having a detailed discussion of bodily organs/sales

defaults?:

speaker points aren't real everyone gets at least a 29.0 (unless you say death good :()

truth&tech > truth ≥ tech

flex prep is fine (although typically not a strategic use of time imho)

debaters must explicitly give me option to kick in speech (no judge kick?)

no risk > there's always a risk

clarity ≥ speed

i'm currently flowing on the computer in lots of tiny cells - not giant block cells

you should debate as if i'm at the peak of the bell curve for iq

my vocabulary on a scale from 1 to jon sharp is a solid 3.5

not a fan of bad scholarship backfile checks - if you turned in an academic paper for biology class with a bunch of a idso cards, do you really expect the professor to give you an A?!

line-by-line > overview > embedded clash

judge instructions > overview

order > "off time road map"

please label your "off case" positions / flows

rfd/decision:

i often decide/vote very fast - don't make anything out into this (it's not you, it's me). i actively think about the debate during the actual debate itself and often have the debate mostly figured out when the timer beeps for the last speech. i hardly ever (never) reconstruct debates afterwards - i'm actively looking at evidence during speeches, cross-x, prep.

i use a double check method where if i am going to vote aff, i go through the entirety the flow of the nr after i have made my decision in my mind and try to make sure i'm not missing anything and have an answer to every "what about this" that is flow based in the last speech.

i will give a verbal decision that starts with who i voted for and why. after i'm done the decision part of the rfd, i'll ask if you have any questions and then ask if you want feedback/tips/comments/advice.

lets spice it up. if both teams opt in:

5 minutes after the pairing release, i will roll a 6 sided dice:

if it lands on 1, i will judge the debate using scott wheeler's paradigm

if it lands on 2, i will judge the debate using chris randall's paradigm

if it lands on 3, i will judge the debate like my dad who has coached high school football for 40+ years

if it lands on 4, aff gets to choose any paradigm they want and i will follow it

if it lands on 5, neg gets to choose any paradigm they want and i will follow it

if it lands on 6, congratulations! you've qualified for the bonus round!

bonus round: i will roll the 6 sided dice again:

if it lands on 1, this is a heg good/bad impact turn debate and we will flip a coin to determine sides

if it lands on 2, this is a whole rez case debate. off case positions, theory, t, plans, and kritiks are disallowed

if it lands on 3, aff must break new

if it lands on 4, womp womp womp. you've lost the bonus round. please proceed back to the regular round and roll the dice again

if it lands on 5, neg must go for a 2nr position they have not previously went for on the topic

if it lands on 6, this is a tricks debate. i'm not sure what that means

Rebecca Castelloe Westview High School

Lilian Chang Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Wallace Chen Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Last changed on Fri November 19, 2021 at 11:38 AM EDT

Clements '20

email: wallacethechen@gmail.com

hey! i debated PF for 4 years, competing on the texas circuit and somewhat on the national circuit my senior year. i qualified for tfa state, nsda nats, the toc, blah blah.

i'd say that i'm a typical flow judge. debate in the style that you're most comfortable with, and i'll probably be able to adapt to you :)

i'll try to make my paradigm as understandable as possible to debaters of all levels. that being said, if you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts! if you're in a hurry, just read through the bolded.

- i am a tabula rasa judge. i will walk into the round with a clean slate of mind and learn as the round progresses.

- i vote based on a tech > truth philosophy. i view debate as a game, and i expect the debaters to play the game by its rules. whatever arguments are presented to me are assumed to be true until proven otherwise. however, the more absurd an argument is to me, the less subconsciously inclined i am to give credence to it.

- i will intervene as minimally as possible. a response made to an argument, even if it is unresponsive, will always flow through for me if it is implicated. however, my threshold for responses will be low; telling me it's unresponsive is enough for me to not evaluate it. i will also inevitably intervene a tiny bit if i need to make a decision when there isn't a clear path to the ballot for me on either side (it's your job to prevent this from happening, anyway).

- speed is fine, but only if the enunciations are clear. please keep in mind that i am no machine. the quicker you speak, the more you risk me misflowing something or missing it entirely. i would prefer a more comprehensive and moderate speed debate, and your speaker points will reflect this!

- i will not evaluate progressive arguments such as theory, kritiks, tricks, etc. i was more of a traditional substance debater and never properly learned the inner workings of these types of arguments, so please don't read them. as Jacqueline Wei puts it, "Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible." if there is any true abuse in the round, warrant out in a speech why they are abusive and why i should drop them. i'll be receptive to it, because i think you can check back abuse without reading shells and making the round exclusive.

- i do not think defense is sticky, but this only applies to arguments that your opponents go for. if they don't extend something, consider it dropped. now that summaries are three minutes instead of two, i think it's advantageous for you to just extend defense on their argument(s) regardless of whether or not it's conceded.

- anything you want frontlined in the round has to be in the speech right after. this includes all offense and defense that is read against your case, or else it's considered conceded to me. your frontlines don't have to be that thorough in second rebuttal, but they should most definitely be fleshed out in second summary.

- i have a high threshold for extensions. i expect warrants to be in anything that you extend, and turns should have impacts that are properly weighed if you want me to be able to vote on them. also, i think it's strategic for debaters to narrow down to one or two arguments by the end of the round. go for more if you think it's necessary, but collapsing is definitely the move. telling me that an argument has no warrant/implication/impact flows through and is an acceptable response to me. if you win your argument but extend it poorly, don't expect the best speaks.

- i hate rhetoric impacts. telling me that "poverty happens" or "war will occur" is not really contextualized enough for me to happily vote for; i will buy any clarity of impact weighing if this is the case. i would prefer numbers or statistics when it comes to impact extensions, but, of course, if you win the weighing and explain why your impact comes first, i'd still vote off of it even if it's fundamentally rhetoric.

- summary and final focus should have alignment. whatever you want me to vote for in final focus should be in the summary speech (yes, warrants and everything). it does not matter if your opponents do not address it; you still have to properly extend it. i won't vote for anything new in final focus. and yes, i can tell if you're lying. don't read new evidence in second summary either. if you do anything cheap, your speaker points will probably be hurt.

- offensive overviews in second rebuttal make me unhappy. these can probably be turned into disads or turns against your opponent's case. if you read like two or three new contentions in rebuttal and mask it as an overview, i think that's incredibly abusive. if the other team tells me this is abusive, i'll agree and cross it off my flow.

- please signpost. tell me where you are on the flow as you go, otherwise it will be very hard for me to follow you. roadmaps before your speeches are appreciated too!

- weighing helps me very much when evaluating rounds. i hold weighing in a layer above substance, but you'd still need an impact to access that layer. it isn't necessary, but it does make it easier for me to sign my ballot for you. however, please don't just throw buzzwords at me and say you outweigh on six different mechanisms. i think weighing should be properly warranted and explained as should any other argument.

- i default to utilitarianism absent a framework/weighing. i'll intervene with common sense, looking at the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

- i will call for evidence only when necessary. if debaters explicitly tell me to look at a piece of evidence, i will call for it after the round is over. if i think the legitimacy of your evidence is crucial for my decision, i will also call for it. that being said, i will base any implications made on that piece of evidence on what i read. so, if you heavily exaggerated what your article says, then that card's implications will hold less weight when i'm making my decision. if the card is completely miscut, i'm automatically dropping you and tanking your speaks. while it is somewhat interventionist if the opposing team didn't make the analysis that your evidence is misconstrued, i don't think that teams have the ability nor the obligation to check back every single piece of evidence that you read. i hold evidence ethics in a completely different sphere; if you miscut evidence, you are a cheater in the game of debate.

- i presume the team that lost the coin flip when i do not see any offense coming from either team by the end of the round. my friend Yukiho once explained this to me, and i thought it made a lot of sense. the team that loses the coin toss begins the round with a structural disadvantage and are thus rewarded with the default win in this scenario. i used to presume first speaking team, but i feel like most teams that lose the toss end up speaking first anyway. if the team that won chooses a side, then they are receiving an advantage by securing their preferred side. feel free to warrant out another way i should presume, though.

- i don't flow crossfires. however, i think crossfires are such an underrated aspect of debate rounds. cross was my favorite speech as a debater, and i will appreciate an interesting discussion. crossfire is also binding, which means that anything you say must be upheld for the rest of the round. feel free to be funny or cuss, as long as you aren't being rude or derogatory in any way. seriously. cross shouldn't be a shouting contest.

- speaker points reflect your speaking style and strategy. to get good speaks from me, i expect strategic decisions that make the round very clean and organized. i was a very narrative-heavy debater, so if you guys paint a very clear picture for me, you will be rewarded! (also +0.5 speaks if you bring me food)

- flex prep and open crossfires are fine. as long as both teams agree to it, feel free to have everyone speak during cross or take prep time to ask each other questions.

- please read content/trigger warnings if you plan on making arguments pertaining to sensitive issues. debate should be a safe space for everyone! at the very least, people deserve to be prepared for the discussion before the debate begins. if you're going to be reading arguments like that, please be prepared to drop it or replace it with something else in the case that your opponents are uncomfortable with it.

- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. if you are offensive or derogatory in any way, i will down you and nuke your speaks. even if you are the best debater in the world, some things are more important than a high school activity.

- postround me if you want. i don't think you should do this to a judge unless they explicitly say it's fine in their paradigm; it's important to understand that no judge wants to make the wrong decision. but, for me, it's fine if you disagree with some aspects of my decision. i'll discuss it out with you as long as i'm not in a hurry.

most importantly, be sure to have fun! if both teams agree to it, i am totally down to judge the round with different conditions. you want me to be a lay judge? i got you. i also don't care what you wear as long as you're comfortable! just don't shake my hand please.

if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts

Noah Christiansen ModernBrain

Last changed on Thu May 19, 2022 at 11:55 AM PDT

I debated for four years in policy debate at McQueen high school and qualified to the TOC (if that even matters). I currently debate for USC and qualified to the NDT twice when I attended CSU Long Beach. Currently, I am a speech and debate coach for ModernBrain which means that at times I have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. (even though I judge policy more). For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.

Here's my email - please put me on the chain: noah@modernbrain.com

Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate whether you're policy or kritikal and am open to vote on anything.

Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto vote framework. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on framework. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? Literally, the fact that I coach some K debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage is so sad to me. So, for the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.

Some specific stuff:

T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. The China QPQ T and the Education Curriculum T allowed for some great conversations that were in-depth and allowed both sides to have good reasons for their model of debate. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). In high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) spending a ton of time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level of the debate. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the policy topic, so make sure T is clear...

DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the aff and neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the aff rather than a super generic one (unless the aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.

CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible. With that being said, I don't auto judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: "If you don't buy the CP kick it for us." Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.

K - I mainly went for the K, but that doesn't mean I'm a "k hack" by any means. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth, HOWEVER, please try your best to explain k as well as possible. Just because I do read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alt.

FW - I think that engaging the aff is something the negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that you want to engage with the aff. The aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I went for FW against K affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a k against a k aff. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of affs that I see don't necessarily need to be untopical, so I feel that the neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)

K affs - I love a good k aff that is engaging. The aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I think the FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community about it. The big problem I've noticed with people running k affs is that they don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. Like I said above, I understand all types of theories and am open for any type of k aff. Against k's, you have to have a competing theory of power that solves for their impacts or avoids their impacts.

Policy affs - Not too much to say here. If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins.

Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate because a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. Debate has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me an advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC. It's a place where you can activate your agency. #AbolishTheCoachesPoll

Don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Some literature I enjoy/read in debate - cap, queer theory, settler colonialism, critiques of resiliency, academy stuff, security, psychoanalysis etc. My favorite authors at the moment are Deleuze and Guattari!

Carol Chung Westlake High School

Matt Conrad La Reina

Chris Coovert Goodman Middle School 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 13, 2017 at 2:41 PM PDT

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 21 years
Coached CX: 17: years
Competed in LD: 4 years
Competed in NPDA: 2 years
Rounds judged 2016-17, LD: 10, CX: 1, PF 1

LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

Hugh Corkery Oak Ridge

Last changed on Thu April 28, 2022 at 9:37 PM PDT

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

Sankar Dandabany Granite Bay High School None

Surendra Dara Honor Academy

Alexander DeMartine Loveland High School

Last changed on Sat June 19, 2021 at 6:42 PM MDT

Weigh

I begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost.

-Rupi Kaur

I was a former LDer and congressional debater, and now I’m the assistant coach at Loveland High school. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

Spreading is for cowards. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will most likely win).
DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. I’ll start ignoring you, and think about my wonderful mother nagging me to do chores. The longer you speak over time, the more annoyed I’ll get.
Every time you don’t signpost, weigh or have voters a small puppy dies. In addition, if you reframe, or clip cards the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a small kitten gets adopted into a loving home.
Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win.
Please inform everyone in the round if you have a trigger. Also, please be kind to each other. The debate community needs to be a safe place for everyone.
I don’t disclose after round. If you ask me the other person will get a default win. Congrats you played yourself!
Friv theory, no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks need to have solvency and topicality.
Please time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time, or I’ll whip out a case and start debating you. Jk, you’ll just get a default loss.
If you have an anime reference in your speech I’ll give you extra speaks, and my respect.
At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented and NSDA was intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

Individual event paradigms:

LD:

The framework is everything in LD. the framework needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong vvc clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF for one, yuck!
Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I hate hangnails, and I will hate your case, and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).
The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework, rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.
I hate counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.
I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

PF is card-heavy, create an email chain with your opponents before the round. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).
The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and have impact analysis. You have four minutes, use them!
1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).
The crystallization speech needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all) not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).
If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it.

Emma Baldwin and Aiden Hurst are the best (and my favorite) Pfers in Colorado, so just do what they do and you’ll win this round and any round.

Policy

My first general rule applies, especially to CX. Cowards don’t deserve to win.
I don’t want people in public flashing me, and I don’t want teams to flash cases to each other.
I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue they win. Unless they run a counter plan. Then the round is just a comparative analysis on ads and disads.
In terms of stock issues, topicality is the most important for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside of the room as Senor Chang did to Annie Edison in Community.
Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

Congress

My brother was the greatest congressional debater of all time, so I may be a little harsh with my scores (I have high expectations).
Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread you are failing in every aspect.
PO must follow basic parli pro and must make the session a fun environment for everyone.
Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech has an expectation to respond to arguments from speeches prior. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they need to respond to previous arguments).
To get a high ranking in the chamber you need to engage (speeches, questions influence on chamber).

Patrick DeMartine Loveland High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 14, 2022 at 3:26 AM MDT

Speech Events

You will see my paradigm on the RFD.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive speech and debate. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Off time roadmaps - Please make them on time roadmaps. You speak, my timer starts.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose. Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. if you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Kritiks and counter plans - Don’t - wrong event to run those.

Judging style - If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be the thesis and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

Frameworks - I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Theory - Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Plans/Counterplans - No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks - No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations - The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Congressional Debate

This is one of my favorite events. I want to see you address the chamber and persuade me (and them) with ethos, pathos, and logos. I am a sucker for mythos-driven analogies on the topic or why the other side falls. I give bonus points for good constructive speeches (authorship/sponsorship and 1st neg), especially if you address the chamber. I dislike it when arguments are rehashed/repeated and later speeches do not address the congressional record to date (or worse misrepresent it). In later speeches, I want to see crystallization, impact analysis, and weighing. I break ties in ranking on questions and procedural motions that benefit the flow of debate and the chamber.

Big Questions

Please be sure to address and answer the question. The event is asking that you take a comprehensive and broad perspective to the question or the inverse of the question.

Xiaohu Deng Westview High School None

Amit Dhuria The Golden State Academy None

Michael Eberle Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Last changed on Fri May 13, 2022 at 1:47 PM CDT

Background:

11 years of debate and coaching experience
College National BP Debate Champion

K's, topicality, and spreading are all open. Questions of topicality and evaluation of Kritiks will be judged first by their relevance and will not be considered valid if used as a means to avoid a valid debate.

Paradigm: Policymaker, Hypothesis, Games

First and foremost, all debate is an educational activity designed to become a coordinated and collaborative discussion in which both sides are competing to form a better understanding of a given issue, plan, philosophy, or outcome. By that standard, the best teams are the ones that can beat the best possible versions of their opponents. Little to no weight is given to strawman attacks against their opponent which does little to prove the strength of one's own argument. Additionally, respect will always matter more. No team will be punished for being passionate, unique, raising their voice, or "aggressive." However, teams that are disrespectful and rude towards their opponent will be noted by their lower speaker points and potential faults in their argumentative/persuasive ability.

I care first about the comparatives and their collective balancing. 1 positive argument, by its own weight can potentially be more persuasive than 3 dropped negative arguments. As such, a dropped contention is persuasive, but not condemning. Arguments which turn an argument against itself or its principle are particularly persuasive. You are not debating the judge, each idea will be given its own merit and credit, however, I am not entirely tabula rasa and will not grant an idea inherent credit simply because it was said in passing. Teams that attempt to narrow the debate either topically or definitionally will be noted as having run from the most important facets of the entire activity. I encourage each side to attempt to take their opponent at their best and the team that contributes to the collective and cooperative discussion best will be the team that wins. No idea is considered facially invalid except those fundamentally relying on bigotry, use debate as an opportunity to test your persuasive ability and argumentation. When appropriate, it is entirely valid to work towards, imagine, establish or critique a hypothetical context so that an argument can be weighed in its proper setting.

Principled argumentation is highly valued. Policy is characterized first by the principle or philosophy which justifies the action. Failing to uphold that principle, or simply not having a foundational philosophy, will weaken your stance to complete dependency on your ads and disads. Impacts are weighed on their likelihood as well as their significance. Nuclear war, if poorly linked, means very little. 1 person suffering all the torment of the world, means quite a lot, even if the scope is small. Taking hardline stances is encouraged as you test conventional wisdom, assumptions, and biases, and will not be held against the team that does so. Overall, cases should not be two ships passing in the night attempting to fire ads and disads at one another, they should be principled and each at the heart of the discussion asking "Why are we talking about this?"

Richard Fang CR North High School None

Kino Farr Kudos College Of Youth Leadership None

Evan Feldman Kudos College Of Youth Leadership 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun May 8, 2022 at 5:58 AM PDT

Background: Coached middle school speech and debate for eight years, high school for seven years, elementary school for three years and community college for two years. I'm in my final year as a speech and debate competitor at Eastern Michigan University.

High School Competitive Experience : Mainly in Congress, Impromptu, Parli, Spar and Duo. Qualified to states in Congress, Duo, Original Prose and Poetry, and TOC bid in congress.

College Competitive Experience:

DEBATE:

1. Parli: NPTE Qualifier, 2nd seed and Semifinalist at CA State , 8th best Speaker & Semifinalist at Phi Rho Pi Nats, Awarded best CC Parli team in the country as voted on by competitors (Bossard Twohy Award).

2. IPDA: Semifinalist and 9th Spkr at CA State, Co-National Champion at NOFC

IE'S/SPEECH:

CA Community College States: 2x champ in IMP(1 picket-fence) and Extemp, Finalist in ADS/STE. Individual Sweepstakes Winner in non interp events (Tabor Collins Award)

MI States: Runner Up in Imp and Poetry, 3rd in Extemp and Persuasion, Individual Sweeps Winner.

Phi Rho Pi Nationals: Finalist in Imp, Semifinalist in Ext.

AFA: Quarter in ADS/STE and Poetry, Semi in Persuasion/Oratory

NFA: 2x Semi in ADS/STE, Quarterfinal in Persuasion/Oratory, 2x Octofinal in both Impromptu and Poetry

NOFC: National Champ in Persuasion & in Poetry, Silver in ADS/STE

Interstate Oratorical Association: National Qualifier

Coaching Experience:

Congress: Finalists at Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, CSULB (Jack Howe), La Costa Canyon, Nova Titan, The Tradition, ASU, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CHSSA States, CMSF States, NSDA Nats, TOC

Impromptu: Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, CHSSA States, CCCFA State, Phi Ro Pi Nats, NSDA Nats

PARLI: Finalists at CSUN, Grossmont, Pasadena City College, UOP, CCCFA States, Phi Ro Pi Nats

Extemp: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, Yale, CCCFA State

POI: Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, CHSSA States, NSDA Nats, NIETOC

OO: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, CSUF, CHSSA States

THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN I JUDGE YOU:

1. Role of the debate space: This activity should be a safe and inclusive place for EVERYBODY. I am open to progressive and identity based arguments, and I want ya'll to be comfortable in the round. Although I've faced my own discrimination as a member of the Jewish community, I will never know what it's like to deal with the marginalization that POC, Women/Womxn, and the LGBTQ face on a daily basis. Thus, if there is anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable in the debate space, please let me know.

2. Evidence

A. Recency

I am a sucker for recent evidence, the more topical the the evidence the better. It's hard for me to trust that evidence from 6 or more years ago is still relevant (everything 1/1/2017 and beyond is fine until 12/31/2022).

B. Citing

Please at LEAST cite the year of the evidence, month is fine, and date is only necessary if it's extremely recent or if the date has some significance. Each contention should have evidence (this also applied in Extemp, Info, OO/Pers).

C. Sourcing

PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE INFO WAS PUBLISHED. Johnson 20' could easily be someone's parent or a random blog writer. Tell me if it's from The Brookings Institute, or Vox, or PBS, or the National Institute of Health. I also value source diversity, don't repeat the same publication if possible, some other publication has probably said the exact same thing.

D. Conflicting evidence

I am happy to hear arguments about why yours is better than your opponents' (Recency of publication, larger sample size, more diverse sample size, more credible publication, misuse of evidence, conflict of interest in publishing etc).

E Quality/Bias:

I personally don't like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Wire, and other sources that have had too many problems with fake news. I won't accept evidence from conspiracy theory or white supremacist sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, The Daily Stormer, or anything from Q-ANON.

3. Delivery:

A. Speed: I have a fine motor skill issue that prevents me from flowing super fast. I will listen to some speed, but not full spreading. I can handle more speed than lay, but less than the avg flow judge. If I call speed 4x and you don't slow down you will lose the round.

I am less willing to deal with speed in Congress, IPDA or BQ where the point is to be conversational.

B. Speaker Points: Rounds should be fun. I want ya'll to be able to use your wit and humor, thus I will take that into account if you are looking for a way to improve your speaker points. I like puns, Childish Gambino, Hamilton, Lil Dicky, Rick and Morty, sports, and silly analogies. You won't win just for being funny, but you'll up your spks for sure.

C. Standing/Movement: I expect all competitors to stand when they speak (not required during cx). It's better for your vocal projection, confidence and overall presentation. If you are doing Congress, Spar or an IE (not including interp), I expect you to also do a speaker's triangle/three step walk.

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS ONLY: Please don't look down at the camera, place it on a higher platform so that it can be at eye level when you stand. Make sure you look at the camera to simulate eye contact and not stare at yourself or a second monitor... Also please make sure you are fully in camera when you're speaking.

4. Argumentation

Types of Arguments I will and won't listen to

A. All events:

Debate is a game so run what you want, but here is a tip sheet if you have me.

a. Counter-plans: Make sure they aren't perm-able, that they are non topical and that they don't bite into your own disadvantage

b. Perm: Show why both plan and cp can be done. I won't allow everything to be permed just because it's a "test of competition"

c. Ideology: I'm not only from a metropolitan city, I'm from a metropolitan COASTAL State, not only am I from a metropolitan COASTAL state, but that State is California... you do the math on where my politics lie. Jokes aside, speech and debate is already a progressive activity, but I'm a mid twenties adult from the most liberal place in the country who is an intersectional feminist and is part of a marginalized minority...like I'm pretty far left. I will listen to conservative leaning arguments, but be careful. I recommend framing them within a progressive lens, and how your impact will protect the disenfranchised.

d. Structure: If you do a status quo, link/change, impact type structure you improve your chances of me voting for you/ranking you well. Also, if you're using an opponents argument against them SAY TURN. If you don't have an argument to turn it, then de-linking (showing why it doesn't apply) or saying it's non unique (that their impact is already happening without the resolution/topic) is helpful. I really appreciate when people number their responses.

It's in your best interest to give impacts (why we should care/the result of your argument). Please state the name and number of your contentions. Say the word impact, tell me what the TANGIBLE impact is, then explain it (hopefully with evidence).

Event Specific Notes

A. PARLI, PF, LD, CX, IPDA and BQ Only..... If you have me in congress, keep scrolling.

e.Conditionality: Kick whatever you want as long as there isn't offense on it. I'll listen to condo theory

f. Topicality: If you're being abused by the aff, run it. I'm also okay with seeing it as time strategy. Show the articulated abuse.

g. Reverse Voting Issues: They usually aren't very persuasive but I will buy them more than the average flow judge.

h. Spreading Theory: If you're calling speed, clear and the team refuses to slow down I will probably vote for this if you do an okay job running it.

i . Kritik's: Will listen to them if the structure is very organized. I want to be told the role of the ballot, the framework, the link, the impact, the alt etc... I've only voted on four k's ever.

j.No New Points in Rebuttal Theory: I'm a fan, but you have to earn it.

k. No Neg Fiat: I'll laugh, but hey, if you can do it, good for you.

l. Trichotomy: Bleh, you better make some really compelling arguments.

Overall: Be organized, use sub-points, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly. Hard for me to vote for you if you don't give me voters. HAVE FUN.

B. Congress ONLY:

1. CLASH is the most important part of congress.

Even if you're the first speaker, tell me what opposition speakers are going to say. When you CLASH, tell me which opponents you are responding to directly (Senator Trololol or Representative DankMemez YOU said). Yes I am okay if you clash with members of your side as long as you don't contradict yourself.

2. DO NOT repeat points made by others without contributing to the conversation.

If someone makes a point that is even REMOTELY similar to yours, you can't just pretend that they didn't say it. Like if you have an economic point about job growth and someone else on your side talked about gdp growth you can address them (Senator Renegade YOU brought up how this legislation increases the nation's gdp, and while I agree that this is important, we also need to understand the economic implications of how this bill impacts job growth).

3. Speaking order

Any person can win from any spot. However, the later you go, the more I expect you to clash, and the more I expect your points to be unique. If you are nervous about clashing or have generic stock points, I'd recommend going early and predicting the round. If you're one of the last speakers to speak on a bill, please compare the aff and neg (like a two world scenario), and give summaries of why your side has won.

4. Organization

A. Within a speech

Attention Getting Device, Quick Preview (pass/fail this bill and there's a few reasons why), Contentions and Clash (preferable to do them as the same time), Quick Conclusion.

B. Within an argument

State the name of your argument as you start that contention. Then you can kinda do whatever you want as long as you explain why your argument connects back to the bill and clash if possible.

If you do a status quo, link/change (if we pass/fail this legislation then), impact type structure I'll be impressed.

5. PO'S

Be efficient, be personable, be confident, be organized, follow Parliamentary Procedure, and it's in your best interest to tell us how many questions/speeches we got in while you presided.

Congress Overall: Overall: Be organized, CLASH WITH OTHER SPEAKERS, number your responses, HAVE FUN.

David Finnigan Beverly Hills High School

Everett Graves-Swinney Loveland High School

Last changed on Wed December 9, 2020 at 10:31 AM MDT

I competed in Trad LD for 4 years and currently coach Trad LD in Colorado. I am a flow/experienced judge. I love clash and I love a good debate. I vote based on the flow and coverage first. I vote second based on the quality of the arguments and rebuttal efficacy.

Speed/Spreading: I do not want you to read your fastest. Save that for practice and your friends. I can handle moderate speed. If you choose to spread, I will give you the benefit of saying CLEAR once in the round if you are incomprehensible/going too quickly for me. After this point, if I do not understand you, I will not flow your arguments.

Kritiks, Counterplans, etc: if you choose to run these arguments, the burden is on you to make sure I comprehend them. Impact the importance of your K, counterplan, etc. Why should I care about this argument?

Rebuttals: You do not need to repeat what your opponent has said in previous speeches - signpost and then make your arguments.

Timekeeping: I ask that you keep your own time. However, I am the official timekeeper of the round and will be keeping time as well. I do this for one main purpose - to keep all debaters honest about speech and prep times.

Professionalism: I expect a moderate amount of professionalism in the round. I will not fault you for any technical issues, nor for your background/surrounding noise. I will also not fault you for dress. However, I expect professional behavior in the round. I will lower speaker points for rude behavior, and if I believe it was too aggressive or abusive, I will vote you down. It's okay to be confident, it's not okay to be cocky.

Signpost, signpost, signpost. I won't guess where you want me to flow an argument. You don't want me to guess anyway. Lay it out for me clean and upfront.

Additionally, give me some voters in your final speech. Tell me all the ways you won (while keeping attitude in check).

And finally, I do not disclose and I do not give oral critiques. I'll leave RFD and comments on the ballot. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round starts. I'm not opposed to explaining more or answering other questions not addressed here.

Ruchi Gupta Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Sangeeta Gupta Cypress High School

Laurie Hardy-Jenkins Bonita High School None

Bharti Hathalia The Golden State Academy

Lucas Havemose Arroyo Grande High School

Grace Hsu Sunny Hills Speech and Debate None

Nitin Jain CR North High School

Kiran Jasti The Golden State Academy

jayaprabha jayaraman Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Zebin Jiang Bonita High School

Tim Kilgore CR North High School

Heather Knoedler Newbury Park High School

Vedesh Kodnani Brooks Debate Institute None

Rachel Konda-Sundheim Loveland High School

Lynn Kong Newtown Middle School

Kasi Krishnan The Golden State Academy None

Varinder Kumar Joaquin Miller Middle School

Hon Wai Kwok Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Jesse Laitman CR North High School

Last changed on Fri May 28, 2021 at 4:01 PM EDT

PFD: The most important thing to do prior to actually participating in PFD is preparation. One should know not only the current facts of the issue but also the continuity of the issue of time and its possibly complex history. This way, you can weave this history into your arguments by using EXAMPLES related to the historical ramification of the issue to strengthen your own argument while at the same time refuting the opponent.

LD: What I look for in LD is the hard drive of facts fueled by the passion of the debater. Passion does not equal emotion and while debaters tend to conflate the two LD is based in facts and most times statistical data.

Policy: What I look for in an effective Policy debate is fluidity of facts and a clear concise argument that does not get lost in spreading.

Congress: Parliamentarian: I look for proper etiquette when introducing motions. KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! I also look for the passion behind one's speeches. If someone is telling the story of George Floyd for example, the story should be told with pathos and passion rather than reading from a script. Know your speeches like the back of your hand in order to present yourself as a powerhouse on the congress floor.

The Presiding Officer: KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! The PO should have an in depth understanding of the common and uncommon types of motions in order to guide the session through both turbulence and lulls to preferably keep neither from happening. If one does not know this, refer here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Frequently-Used-Motions.pdf

Important Note: If you find yourself tripping over words when spreading, try slowing down. When faced with these obstacles, slowing down will equate to the same amount of facts in the same amount of time had you continued with speed but stumbling.

Praful Lalchandani The Golden State Academy None

Erin Lee Newbury Park High School None

Gyuhong Lee Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Yoyo Lei Hire 8 rounds

Danxi Li The Lawrenceville School None

Suzie Liu Newtown Middle School

Wesley Loofbourrow Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri June 3, 2022 at 9:05 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

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!

Grace Lum Milpitas High School

Rajyalakshmi Mannem The Golden State Academy None

Alex Martin La Reina 8 rounds

Kapil Mehrotra The Golden State Academy

Jennifer Meyers CR North High School

Giovanna Moncores Hire 8 rounds

Stephanie Murphy Westlake High School None

Prabhakar Nacham Honor Academy

HARINADH NAGULAPALLI The Golden State Academy None

Surendra Nayak Westview High School 8 rounds None

Mary Beth Palestini CR North High School

Nilesh Parekh Westview High School None

Dimple Patra Milpitas High School 8 rounds

Sandy Peterson Arroyo Grande High School

Kitiny Phumchun Honor Academy

Last changed on Fri March 4, 2022 at 8:06 AM PDT

*Online: I am almost always 5-10 minutes early, unless I'm judging flights, in which case I'll do my best.

Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out and let you restart from the point connectivity becomes an issue. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a policy (ex. if it takes 15 minutes to reconnect, that's a forfeit), I'll go by those.

Background: 3 yrs of college traditional policy (Stock/CPs/T, nothing cool) & some parli. I coach PF. Pronouns are she/her.

PF:

I believe paraphrasing will just never be as honest as reading cut cards, so I'll try to incentivize better norms: if you don't paraphrase, tell me sometime in the round: "all evidence we introduced was in cards, boost our speaks" and I will by .5. To clarify - if the 1st speaker doesn't paraphrase in constructive, the .5 boost goes to the first speaker. If the 2nd speaker doesn't paraphrase new cards read in rebuttal, it's .5 for them.

Disclosure is probably good because evidence ethics in PF are awful, but I'm more likely to reward you (in speaks) for doing it than drop a team that doesn't, particularly if that team is a small school.

However you decide to share evidence, make it fast. If it's e-mail, I'll drop mine when you start the chain.

If it's in final focus, it better be in summary. Signpost well.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is important to me. First summaries - call them out.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Dumping as many blippy, unwarranted responses as you can on the flow to see which one your opponents forget to cover and try to exploit in the back half = overrated, not fun, will probably annoy me.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize mitigating structural violence," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more progressive, the more you should either A) strike me if possible (I want to be fair to you), or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc, err on the side of caution and go slow, and assume I'm not as well-read as you.

All:

If it's the first round of the morning, the coffee hasn't kicked in yet, skip everything above (other than the "this is online debate please go slow," go even slower now) - hello, this is my first day judging ever, please debate accordingly.

I won't time you if you're in open. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police, either. That said, I'll probably strike any new argument read after time, with a grace period of ~10 sec for arguments started in time. It's case by case. You blitz a few starting words at 3:57, my threshold is low that you deserve that grace period. Either way, make a case for yourselves and each other, don't leave it up to me.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out. I've seen teams use Google Forms. For what it's worth, I haven't seen anyone in PF run anything graphic enough to warrant this, but it's nice to err on side of caution.

Compare warrants + tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round, thanks. Update: I don't know what it is about online debate that makes people brave. I'm serious - don't.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. I gave two 30s last season and one was for the nicest debater I've ever come across.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thangam Pillai Joaquin Miller Middle School

Cayden Pocrass Valencia High School

Last changed on Sat February 12, 2022 at 1:19 AM PDT

I am mainly versed in Public Forum Debate, I've been doing that for a couple of years

I can tolerate something in the mid-high range for PF in terms of speed, try to keep it below 250 words per minute, treat me like a lay judge in this regard. Signpost as best as you can.

Add me to your email chain, I like cards, pfjudge2@gmail.com

Case

Everything should be clearly warranted, if you read that the UPenn study says that M4A tanks the economy, I want to hear why exactly it does so. If an actor has the ability to do something, I want to know why they will do it.

I have a vague understanding of theory and Ks, I can probably remember their structure and the basics pretty well, and I would actually love to see theory or a K actually run in a round at a non-blistering pace, because I really do want to see how one actually reads them in a speech, but I understand if my lack of familiarity dissuades you from running them. I have a passing familiarity with the Security K, and I sort of get the basics of Biopolitics, but any K you're running is going to have to be warranted and explained very well, and is going to have to fit well within your framework. I tend to think that Ks don't quite work well post-fiat, feel free to prove me wrong, but I do kind of buy pre-fiat impacts on how these things hurt the debate space and the real world. In terms of theory, I won't vote on Disclosure and especially not on Paraphrase theory, but I'm probably ok if you're going after something actively malicious by the other side. I'll vote on RVIs if you can prove that in this particular instance the opposition's theory is frivolous and is just being used to try and steal a cheese win. For adjudicating theory I’m probably going to go competing interpretations 70% of the time, unless the opposition is just nitpicking unimportant details or semantics. I highly doubt I will see tricks (or any of the stuff previously mentioned) in a novice pf round, but if you are going to try to run tricks or any other way to claim some ridiculous automatic win, I will not vote for it, even if it is 100% dropped by the opposition.

Rebuttal

The rebuttal speech is for defense, card indicting, turns, extending impacts, Ks and theory. Nothing new that isn't linked back to your case or the opponent's case.

Summary

The summary speech is for shoring up your defense, card indicting, extending your offense and defense, beginning to weigh, and theory run against egregious abuse that happened after the rebuttal speech.

Final Focus

Extend your offense and defense and weigh, I'll accept weighing in final focus that wasn't started in summary.

Big Nos from me

Don’t be rude or disrespectful, I’ll dock speaks for light disrespect and drop for egregious behavior. Try to keep cross functioning, only interrupt if your opponent is going off-topic and dodging the question, or if they are just repeating their case, I understand if Grand Cross is completely dysfunctional, because it usually is. Don’t extend through ink, don’t misconstrue evidence, I will call for it if it’s validity is thoroughly contested and I will be reading the email chain.

Overall, have fun, crack jokes, and be respectful and we can all have a good in-round experience.

If you want an extra speaker point and to show me that you read this, come into the round with a fun hat or something on top of your head.

Sriram Potluri Prestige Debate Academy None

Debashis Pradhan The Golden State Academy

Lakshmi Rajasekaran Joaquin Miller Middle School

Dhana Ramaswami Valencia High School None

Rajashekar Reddy CR North High School

Christian Rodriguez St. Ignatius College Preparatory

Chris Ryan Arroyo Grande High School

Vidya Sambasivan The Golden State Academy

Emily Shen Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Anoop Singh Joaquin Miller Middle School

THOMAS SPARGO San Luis Obispo High

Last changed on Fri November 9, 2018 at 1:17 PM PDT

Hello All,

Background

I am a business consultant. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. As a heads-up, I do take notes during debate, but not in the usual "flowing" format. I am mostly knowledgeable on the topics provided for these events.

Speaker Points

I will most likely give you 27-29 if you:

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments as you go.

b) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Please remember that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more well elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me. I do not care as much about evidence but more about which team is able to persuade me more effectively. Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this will also be weighted heavily. If your impacts do not show me why a normal person like me should care, then I will probably be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening.Try not to be disrespectful during this time and remember to look at me, your judge when answering or asking questions. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.

Remember to have fun, good luck!

Tom Speaker CR North High School

Shashidhar Srinivasa The Golden State Academy

Ashutosh Thakur The Golden State Academy None

Janiel Victorino QD Learning

Josh Weingarten Honor Academy

Dharmendra Yadav Milpitas High School None

Dave Zhang Omega Speech and Debate

Jessica Zhang BC Academy

Liping Zhang The Lawrenceville School

Daisy Zhao Newtown Middle School

Login to Tabroom:

La Reina Invitational

2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges