The Cal Invitational at UC Berkeley
2014
—
CA/US
Individual Events Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
David Abad
Lowell HS
None
Alex Ackroyd
Presentation High School
None
Vaneet Aggarwal
Mira Loma High School
None
Ronak Ahir
Leland High School
None
Nizar Ajanovic
Sprague High School
None
Yadi Aliakbar
Mira Loma High School
None
Kelly Angell
Beaver High School
None
Donna Armstrong
University of California, Berkeley
None
Ashley Artmann
Green Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 5:36 AM EST
I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.
PF
Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.
Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.
I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.
Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.
Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.
Moses Baca
Juan Diego Catholic
Last changed on
Tue March 12, 2024 at 10:37 AM EST
General Info
Pine Crest School '18
Georgetown University '22
Explain acronyms (no topic knowledge)
TLDR
Do what you will, but do it well.
T-USFG/Framework/"No-Plan" Affs/Whatever you like:
As a HS debater, I pretty much exclusively went for T/FW against these affs. That being said, I really don't have strong opinions on this. For the aff, advocate something, be able to answer why the ballot matters to your advocacy, and clearly explain the impacts to your interpretation of debate or the impact turns to their interpretation. For the neg, pick your impacts and defend them. Have good counter examples to the other team's examples and be able to explain why the ballot is important to your interpretation.
Kritiks
Do specific link analysis. If your cards don't say anything relevant to the aff, do the explanation yourself. DO IMPACT CALC. Just because it's a K doesn't mean you don't get to explain why the K's impact outweighs or turns the aff. Explain the alt and all of its functions by the end of the neg block. Against the K, defend your aff, point out why their links aren't links, and 9/10 you will get to weigh your aff so case outweighs is solid, and explain why their alt isn't sufficient or have offense against it.
Counterplans
No strong opinions here. If it's theoretically questionable, then question it and win it on the flow. I've gone for enough "cheating" counterplans to really have no strong opinions on this.
Disadvantages
Same deal with the CP section. Do impact calc. Do line-by-line. Don't group things that can't be grouped (i.e. first argument and fifth argument on the flow just because they both started with no link).
Topicality
Slow down. If you're going too fast, I'll tell you. I know nothing about the immigration topic. Do not assume I know camp affs or what the acronyms are.
Theory
Slow down. If you're going too fast, I'll tell you. Have real theory debates with impacts if you plan on going for it in the last rebuttals.
Leanne Barnhurst
Bingham
None
Cathie Barrows
Miramonte
None
Noa Baumgarten
Kent Denver
None
Diane Beall
Miramonte
None
Curtis Benjamin
Richfield
None
Michelle Berlin
Arroyo Grande High School
None
Devang Bhagat
Leland High School
None
Rodolfo Blandon
Cypress Bay High School
None
Dhanunjaya Boda
Dougherty Valley HS
None
Joe Bommarito
St. Ignatius College Prep
None
Mohan Bonala
Mira Loma High School
None
Sarah Botsch-McGuinn
Notre Dame San Jose
Last changed on
Fri September 20, 2024 at 1:28 PM EST
Sarah Botsch-McGuinn
email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com
I only need to be on the chain if you are spreading
Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)
Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)
Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)
Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)
General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 17 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 9 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.
First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**
While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*
I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.
+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.
Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.
If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.
Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.
PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.
A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.
Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.
*Note: Because PF has such limited time, I am not huge on theory in PF especially if both speakers are not especially used to them. Please only run theory if it is especially egregious, even though I like theory debate. There is a big difference between when a debate has 7-8 minutes of speaking time vs 3-4*
Disclosure theory: PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU. IN PF IT IS AN AUTO LOSS TO READ DISCLOSURE THEORY I AM VERY SERIOUS. I WILL JUST NOT FLOW. PLEASE READ THIS. Either I'm over hearing this in LD and it's just done so badly in PF that it hurts my heart.
Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though! Reasonability is a good answer. Prefer competing interp.
Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.
I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.
PF: I get you want to be cool, but please make sure you know your opponent would be okay with it. Email or contact them ahead of time. As I said above with theory, it makes me really uncomfortable to judge rounds where only one side is familiar with this type of debate. I am happy to run k rounds so long as everyone is cool with it.
Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )
Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.
I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.
I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.
Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.
You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.
Preferences for arguments:
If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order for LD:
K debate
LARP
Theory
Phil
Traditional
Tricks
This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.
PF:
Policy/LARP
Traditional
K
Theory
NO TRICKS WHATSOEVER ITS AN AUTO LOSS
I know this makes me sound kind of intense, I promise I'm not. I really love debate, but I also don't like messy debate that feels super one sided and could be avoided if we check in and make sure everyone is cool with the kind of debate we are having. In PF, if you can't get ahold of your opponent I prefer if you stick to lay and presume they are a lay team. In LD go to town
Atorin Carkhoch
Leland High School
None
Paul Carroll
Kent Denver
None
Caren Carter
Bingham
None
Leon Chan
San Gabriel High School
None
Alena Chang
Leland High School
None
Joe Chavez
FSHA (Flintridge)
None
Satvinder Cheema
Evergreen
None
Nancy Chilimidos
Miramonte
None
Meili Christiansen
Beaver High School
Last changed on
Sat September 21, 2024 at 6:28 AM EST
Speech and debate has been part of my life for almost fifteen years. I competed at the National tournament all four years of high school and I have experience competing in every event. I have judged at tournaments across the country since then.
My main concerns for competitors are focus, polish, and confidence. Own your event. Show me that you know your speech/topic/argument and that you are comfortable speaking in front of others.
Daniel Clarke
San Marino High School
None
Preston Clarke
Beaver High School
None
Jack Connelly
C.K. McClatchy High School
None
Mike Conner
Miramonte
None
Dee Crimmel
Rancho Bernardo
None
Sami Cubias
Monroe High School
None
David Curry
Sprague High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:24 AM PST
About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.
About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.
So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.
My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.
Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.
Michael Curry
Sprague High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:24 AM PST
About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.
About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.
So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.
My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.
Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.
Caroline Davidson
Mountain View High School
None
Jason/Kevin Davidson
Helix Charter Independent
None
Lisa Davis
Rancho Bernardo
None
Mary De Luna
Miramonte
None
Anabel Del Toro
Foothill Technology High School
None
Bella Delyaei
Mountain View High School
None
Mehul Desai
Leland High School
None
Rajesh Desai
Dougherty Valley HS
None
Gokul Donthi
James Logan High School
Last changed on
Fri September 18, 2020 at 3:03 PM PST
Hello,
I've been judging since 2018 for the various speech and debate events. I look for clearly articulating of facts and delivering with confidence and poise. Presentation counts a lot that includes clarity, eye contact, movements and also in good participation in the debate sections.
Be respectful of the judges and other participants. Please do make best use of the time.
Enjoy, Be Strong & Good Luck!
Andrew Douglas
Richfield
None
Fenglei Du
American High School
None
Evan Duggan
Cherry Creek High School
None
Katherine Dureault
Miramonte
None
Howard Ehrenberg
Just Give Us Two Minutes
Last changed on
Sun April 10, 2022 at 2:38 PM PST
Hi,
My name is Milan Amritraj and I'm writing this paradigm specifically for the 2022 NPDL TOC.
By way of Parli experience, I was a 2 time California state semi-finalist while competing for Campbell Hall. To the extent that World Schools Debate is similar to parli, I was also a two year member of NSDA's Team USA and captained the team during my senior year of high school. For further general background, I competed in LD, Congress and a variety of extemporaneous speech events. I've also served as assistant coach of the Campbell Hall team since graduating high school in 2016.
My paradigm is not particularly complicated, and I really don't think it should be for Parli debate. This text is not exhaustive, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts if you'd like specific clarification. Below are the most important points.
I'm pretty open to any arguments, theory and K's included, so feel free to run whatever you'd like so long as its well articulated. That being said, I heavily value weighing and crystallization in the rebuttal speeches, so please do a good amount of work to help clarify how you think I should be weighing these different arguments. Otherwise you run the risk of me having to enter the debate to resolve any ambiguities.
Speed shouldn't be an issue. Clarity, however, might very well be. I'll call out clear if theres an issue, but please try to avoid making that happen.
Finally, please avoid any funny business with prep or evidence if those sorts of things come up in round. I have a zero tolerance policy for foul play.
Robert Emerson
Lowell HS
None
Julie Field
Mountain View Idaho
None
Karin FitzGerald
Rancho Bernardo
None
Tina Flores
California
None
Ellwood Floto
Rancho Bernardo
None
Melissa Fonder
Elko High School Forensics
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:15 AM MST
Be decent humans.
Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?
I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.
Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.
Be decent humans.
Anna Fong
San Marino High School
None
Justin Friedberg
Cherry Creek High School
None
Jeffrey Friedman
Miramonte
None
Michael Gam
Monroe High School
None
Ann Gardner
Burbank High School
None
Stacie Gardner
Elko High School Forensics
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:15 AM MST
Be decent humans.
Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?
I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.
Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.
Be decent humans.
Christina Gilbert
Palo Alto High School
None
Billy Glass
Harker School
None
Doug Grimshaw
Burbank High School
None
Pamela Gupta
Mira Loma High School
None
Katie Hahn
Northland Christian School
None
Meredith Hale
Seattle Academy
None
Will Hannon
Montgomery Bell Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:58 AM CST
KRHAMRICK@GMAIL.COM
I've been judging debates for a long time. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. The ideological flavor of your arguments matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do” to win the debate.
At the end of the debate, I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course relative to another. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their course is preferable when compared to the status quo or negative alternatives. That being said, I interpret broadly exactly what constitutes a plan/course of action. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A legitimate permutation is defined as the entirety of the "plan" combined with parts or parts of the alternative. Mere avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or a link of omission, is insufficient: the negative must read win a link and impact in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. The 2AC saying something akin to "Perm - do the plan and all noncompetitive parts of the counterplan/alternative" is merely a template for generating permutation ideas, rather than a permutation in and of itself. It's your job to resolve the link, not mine.
I believe there is an inherent value to the topic/resolution, as the topic serves as the jumping off point for the year's discussion. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately, fairness and ground issues determine how strict an interpretation of the topic that I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller (or the affirmative wishes it bigger, or worded a different way) does not mean that it should be so. An affirmative has to be at its most topical the first time it is run.
I don’t care about any of your SPEC arguments. The affirmative must use the agent specified in the topic wording; subsets are okay. Neither you nor your partner is the United States federal government. The affirmative is stuck with defending the resolutional statement, however I tend to give the affirmative significant leeway as to how they choose to define/defend it. The affirmative is unlikely to persuade me criticisms of advocacy of USFG action should be dismissed as irrelevant to an evaluation of policy efficacy. I believe that switch-side debating is good.
All theory arguments should be contextualized in terms of the topic and the resultant array of affirmative and negative strategies. Reciprocity is a big deal for me, i.e., more negative flex allows for more aff room to maneuver and vice versa). Conditional, topical, and plan inclusive alternatives are presumptively legitimate. A negative strategy reliant on a process counterplan, consultation counterplan, or a vague alternative produces an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate permutations for the affirmative. I’ve long been skeptical of the efficacy of fifty state uniform fiat. Not acting, i.e., the status quo, always remains an option.
Debate itself is up for interrogation within the confines of the round.
I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to privilege the cards identified in the last two rebuttals as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications for your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. Reading longer, more warranted evidence will be rewarded with significantly more consideration in the decision process. Clipping cards is cheating and cardclippers should lose.
I value clash and line-by-line debating. Rarely do I find the massive global last rebuttal overview appealing. Having your opponent's speech document doesn't alleviate the need for you to pay attention to what's actually been said in the debate. Flow and, for god's sake, learn how to efficiently save/jump/email/share your speech document. I generally don't follow the speech doc in real time.
"New affs bad" is dumb; don't waste your time or mine. When debating a new aff, the negative gets maximum flexibility.
I believe that both basic civil rights law as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment.
Ganesh Hariharan
Monta Vista High School
None
Robert Hawkins
South San Francisco
None
Songnian He
Evergreen
None
Amy Hiestand
Miramonte
None
Silva Hiti
South High- Independent
Last changed on
Sun May 26, 2024 at 1:31 PM CST
Tim Wegener
Debated for 8 years at Greenhill '19 and Northwestern '23.
Emails for the chain:
tpwegs3@gmail.com
And if college: debatedocs@googlegroups.com
Assistant coach for Northwestern
I feel strongly that affirmatives should be topical. I am significantly better for a counterinterp + their model bad than impact turns to limits/predictability. I think I am equally good for procedural fairness and clash based offense, but the sooner the neg picks a route and sets up the associated framing questions (ballot solvency, SSD, etc.), the better.
I do not think I am very good for the K as it is generally debated. I think I am fine for more specific Ks that turn/solve the case or utilize more traditional case defense. I am much worse for Ks that rely on framework or ontology arguments to come before the case.
I'm likely to be an okay judge for theoretical objections like conditionality bad, 2NC cps bad, and arguments regarding the legitimacy of fiating certain actors (intl. actor fiat, private actor fiat, 50 state fiat, etc.). I am generally less persuaded by theory arguments that attempt to exclude a particular type of counterplan (process cps, PICs, agent cps, etc.) but I am extremely good for the aff in competition debates against these types of counterplans. Judge kick is up for debate, but it must be set up in the 2NR for me to consider it.
Inserted rehighlightings are fine if they come from your opponents’ cards. If they come from elsewhere in the articles, you should read them.
If you ask for a 30 I will give you a 27. If you go for death good you will lose (yes this includes wipeout). If you threaten other debaters you will lose and get the lowest possible speaks.
I try to adjust speaker points relative to the quality of the tournament/division. A 29 at a major is different than a 29 at a regional tournament or a 29 in the JV division.
Argument quality matters deeply, probably more to me than others. The idea that technical execution is the only thing that matters in debate, at the expense of research and strategy, is absurd. It shouldn't take much to defeat the argument that particle accelerators are inevitable so it's try or die to kill billions or global warming is good. This doesn't mean I won't vote on bad arguments. But the worse the argument the less it takes for the other team to win.
Relatedly, I will reward with speaker points and you are much more likely to win if you demonstrate actual knowledge about the topic and the world through research and strategy. Technical execution is important, but the best debates accurately reflect the real world.
Nina Hoang
Leland High School
None
Dan Hoskins
Miramonte
None
Mehboob Hussaini
Monta Vista High School
None
Brian Hy
San Marino High School
None
Mamdouh Ibrahim
Leland High School
None
Ilene Iseit-Kott
Miramonte
None
Irene Iwan
Arroyo Grande High School
None
Sudha Jagannathan
James Logan High School
None
Hua Ji
Dougherty Valley HS
None
Ashley Johnson
University of California, Berkeley
None
Joshi Joshi
Lynbrook HS
None
Anil Kalbag
Leland High School
None
Susmita Kamat
Leland High School
None
Karen Keefer
Mountain View High School
None
Michael Kelly
Monte Vista
None
Charlene Kemmerer
Palo Alto High School
None
Amita Khare
Mira Loma High School
None
Andy Kim
Leland High School
None
Francis Kinross
Beaver High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:47 AM MST
Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.
Brandon Knight-Warren
Burbank High School
None
Brandon Knight-Warren
Burbank High School
None
John Korbol
Burbank High School
None
Philip Kral
Arroyo Grande High School
None
Dharmendra Kumar
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Mon January 22, 2024 at 1:09 PM PST
Traditional judge / This activity is to prepare for life. It is not a game - Ask me in round.
Chong Lee
Leland High School
None
Cliff Leung
Leland High School
None
Michael Linton
San Marino High School
None
Jinsong Liu
Monta Vista High School
None
Lisa Liu
Monta Vista High School
None
Samuel Liu
Leland High School
None
Jason Lohr
Burbank High School
None
Jack Lundeen
Judge Memorial Catholic High School
None
Leslie Lundin
Miramonte
None
Prakash Madhvapathy
Leland High School
None
Velda Mark
Leland High School
None
Mikendra McCoy
Clovis East High School
I'll flow the round and won't vote for any argument I don't understand.
Anne McMurry
Mira Loma High School
None
Stefan Merz
Leland High School
None
Tim Meyer
Alemany High School
None
Jeremy Miller
Burbank High School
None
Bharathi Mohidekar
Lynbrook HS
None
Sandra Moore
Star Valley High School
None
Malini Nagarajan
Leland High School
None
Jill Nerone
Miramonte
None
Laurie Newton
Burbank High School
None
Andrew Nguyen
San Gabriel High School
None
Minh Nguyen
Leland High School
None
Neal Nuckolls
Mountain View High School
None
Hue Phan
Oxford Academy
None
Patricia Pierry
Saint Francis High School
Last changed on
Sat January 7, 2017 at 4:35 AM PST
St. Francis HS '12
UC Berkeley '16
I debated for four years at St. Francis HS in public forum, as well as competing in oratory. I was a captain of the speech & debate team my senior year. I've judged public forum on the national circuit since 2012, and judged league (read: lay) policy during the 15-16 and 16-17 seasons. I've judged 2 rounds on the current policy topic. I have judged exactly 6 rounds of (slow / lay) LD throughout my judging career.
Policy
Topic Knowledge:
Minimal. I know what the People's Republic of China is, and have a basic understanding of what they are doing/what we are doing. Acronyms or jargon need to be explained further. I have judged two rounds on the China topic.
Too Long; Didn't Read:
I don't understand spreading. However, I am a flow judge, and, provided you are speaking at an intelligible level, I will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. Since I am a former debater, you can speak faster than you would in front of a parent, but, please, do not spread. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up.
Flashing isn't prep unless I feel it's egregious. I'm fine with tag teaming cross-ex as long as the speaker who's not being cross-ex'ed doesn't completely take over.
Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.
Evaluating Rounds:
I default to a stock issue paradigm:
- Topicality: If it's logical and you can show why it's unfair for them to read the aff, I will vote on T.
- Harms: What are the problems in the status quo? Are they significant?
- Inherency: Are steps being taken in the status quo to solve the harms?
- Solvency: How does the plan specifically solve the harms?
- Disadvantage: The disadvantage must outweigh the case. You can use jargon such as uniqueness, internal link, and link, if you explain them clearly.
However, I am comfortable judging the round in other lenses (tabula rasa, offense/defense, game theory) provided the debaters explain how I should evaluate arguments and what those arguments mean.
Please, please, please do impact calculus - explain how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you do not do impact calc, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that.
Circuit Arguments:
Feel free to read arguments like counter-plans, kritiks, or theory - however, you need to explain to me how to evaluate them and how they interact with other arguments. I'm not versed in any literature (but down for counterplans), and again - the no-spreading rule applies.
Speaker Points:
- >29.5 --> Top three speaker
- >29.0 --> High elimination rounds
- >28.5 --> Clearing low
- >28.0 --> Average
- >27.0 --> Not quite ready for this division
- <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)
Aggression is good, rudeness is not. Make me laugh, but don't if you're not funny.
Public Forum
Too Long; Didn't Read:
I am a flow judge and will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. You can speak faster than you would to a parent, but public forum has gotten faster since I graduated, so you should probably go slower than you are able. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up.
Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.
Evaluating Rounds:
- I'm pretty straightforward. I will evaluate framework first, and then look at your contentions and impacts to help me determine who won the round under the framework provided.
- I am looking for clash -- please weigh arguments for me. That means explaining how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you don't, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that.
- Think of your final focus as writing my RFD for me (that is, impact calculus, weighing arguments) -- not as a fourth rebuttal.
- If the tournament allows it, I will call for any evidence I feel is necessary. Please do not turn the round into a back and forth about what the evidence says.
Speaking Notes:
- >29.5 --> Top three speaker
- 28.0 --> Average
- <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)
Adhere to my preferences and make the round easy to evaluate and your speaks can only go up. Aggression is good, rudeness is not. If you make me laugh, plus speaks.
LD
Too Long; Didn't Read:
I don't understand spreading. However, I am a flow judge, and, provided you are speaking at an intelligible level, I will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. Since I am a former debater, you can speak faster than you would in front of a parent, but, please, do not spread. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up.
Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.
Evaluating Rounds:
- I have very limited experience with LD.
- I generally judge rounds by first deciding the value and value criterion debate, and then looking at which debater most met the provided value / value criterion.
- Do not expect me to be familiar with literature or theory. However, I am comfortable with evaluating any arguments you want to run, as long as you explain how I should do so.
-
Please, please, please do impact calculus - explain how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you do not do impact calc, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that.
Speaking Notes:
- >29.5 --> Top three speaker
- 28.0 --> Average
- <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)
Adhere to my preferences and make the round easy to evaluate and your speaks can only go up. Aggression is good, rudeness is not. If you make me laugh, plus speaks.
Bethany Piety
Orono Senior High School
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2014 at 4:37 AM CST
I look for students who are truly interping as opposed to imitating. I want to see my students fingerprint/personality within their pieces. I like a great humor/drama, but I'm becoming increasingly annoyed by an insistence to be dirty/shocking for the sake of trying to outdo others. Make sure everything has a purpose in your piece....don't to for cheap laughs or tears.
As for PA and debate....inspect competitors to be civil with one another. They should address arguments in a responsible and respectable manner. I will notice any and all dropped arguments, and furthermore will not be impressed by "holierthanthou" attitudes. Debates should be clean, well argued, and respectful.
Durgadevi Pisharam
Lowell HS
None
June Qi
Arcadia High School
None
Venky Ramachandran
Monta Vista High School
None
Meena Ramaiyer
Monta Vista High School
None
Ram Ramanan
Leland High School
None
Sujatha Ramanathan
Evergreen
Last changed on
Thu February 7, 2019 at 8:41 AM PST
I am a parent judge with no experience in this event. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing.
Salim Razawi
University of California, Berkeley
None
Karen Riffenburgh
Arroyo Grande High School
None
Ashley Roberts
Green Valley High School
Last changed on
Mon February 10, 2014 at 5:04 AM PST
I'm a simple person and that's what I enjoy watching: a simple debate. I'm not interested in your fake world where Nuclear extinction kills us all and makes the opponent's every argument moot. I like practical harms and practical solutions.
I don't put together pieces for debaters so if something goes unsaid by a team, then I don't take it into consideration, no matter how significant it may be. So don't assume that everything is "common knowledge".
I appreciate a debate with some strong clash and even stronger evidence, but I do not appreciate a strictly evidential debate. Once debaters get too carried away with whose evidence is best, I just drop the point altogether and rarely factor it into my RFD.
Lastly, though I do love the "sassy" debater, I am not fond of the "rude" debater. Watch your tone, word choice when speaking to or about your opponent, and more importantly, your facial expressions even when you think I'm not looking.
Debate is more than evidence, it's about your entire presentation.
Jeanine Robles
Cypress High School
None
Mejan Rostamian
San Marino High School
None
Terry Rubin
Kent Denver
None
Karl Safe
Broken Bow High School
None
Sriram Samu
Leland High School
None
Forrest Sayrs
Kent Denver
None
Roman Scalise
University of California, Berkeley
None
Kathie Schulz
Milpitas
None
Pingping Shao
Monta Vista High School
None
Jonathan Sheu
San Marino High School
None
Hao Shi
San Gabriel High School
None
Barb Shofner
Orono Senior High School
None
Daniel Silberman
Sprague High School
Last changed on
Mon February 9, 2015 at 3:13 PM PST
This is basically for LD only, I have a much more specific philosophy for Parliamentary and Policy. In short: I am an anti-interventionist judge. I will attempt to evaluate every argument made before me in the round, and I will not insert my own views of debate or of the world to interfere with that. I have 6 years of varsity level debating experience and currently do parliamentary debate at the University of Oregon.
SHORT VERSION: Essentially, do what you want. Also, feel free to just call me Daniel, not judge.
1. Theory: feel free to read it in front of me, will vote on it if there are impacts to it.
2. Kritik: feel free to read it in front of me. Read your craziest kritik of all time, I'll listen to it. Break your new K in for the first time against me, I want to hear it. Run your experimental performance about drinking chocolate milk and dancing on the table while reading poetry. As long as you give me a way to evaluate your argument in the round, I WILL listen to it and evaluate it as such.
3. Speed: Im comfortable with any level of speed, I'll be able to flow the round regardless. If I can't understand you, I'll likely shout "CLEAR" really loud at you.
4. Organization: I'm a flow judge through and through. However, subpoints in your 1AC and 1NC are probably a good idea for the sake of the organization of the round as a whole. A lot easier to respond to arguments directly this way and keeps my flow more organized.
More specifically:
Theory: Feel free to read theory in front of me. I am not opposed to voting on theory if the position is not responded to adequately. As long as you give me an interpretation of your theoretical objection, some standards through which to evaluate the position, and impacts as to why it's a voter, theory can be a voting issue for me. Unlike others on this site, I won't list "good" and "bad" theory arguments; I don't think that kind of value judgement is needed in debate. If you read theory, no matter what it is, I'll listen. When responding to theory, always provide a counter-interpretation, and some counter-standards to evaluate your counter-interp through. Your response to a topicality, for example, should be more than "Gut check, judge. Do we seem topical? I think so."
Kritik: I am more than comfortable with the K debate: chances are I have heard of your critical theorist, but in case I'm not, its always smart to offer a thesis statement at the top of your K shell. I'm most DEFINITELY the judge to read your crazy criticism against. Read your new K that you've never read before in front of me. Impact it out fully, clearly explain the ways in which they link. I prefer topic specific links for your K which gives it a little more uniqueness, however generic links are ok so long as they are well-warranted and articulated. Lastly, answer K's with offense. Putting entirely defensive arguments on a K guarantees a good K debater will run you into the floor. Link Turns are the way to go. Multiple, multiple link turns.
Speaker Points: Typically 26-30. You've got to be pretty bad to warrant me giving anything less than a 25. At the same time, you've really got to sparkle in order to get a 30.
In the final speeches: The best way to win in front of me is to clearly explain why you are winning the argument you're going for, and what impact that argument has. Impact weighing with final rebuttals is a must, too many debate rounds nowadays end with odd summaries of the line by line debate that don't fundamentally resolve the key issues in the round. Walk me through the ballot, literally say, "Daniel, you can pull the trigger and sign aff/neg because _____".
Jeanie Sir
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:10 AM PST
I've coached debate at a small private school for several years. I was not a debater myself. I would consider myself a traditional debate judge.
I ultimately judge on my flow, but courtesy and respect are also factors. I tend to favor the debater who educates me and seems to have the best handle on the topic -- both the basics and the nuances. I am more impressed by a case focused on educational value than one explicitly designed to win a debate round.
I like to hear the bio of sources and applaud the debater who has deliberated on what source to use.
I am skeptical of definitions that seem to be simply strategic and avoid the context of the resolution. Same with observations -- I am not enthusiastic about strategic attempts to limit the playing field in a way that puts the spirit of the resolution to the side.
Give me clear voters at the end of the round! I like to hear what choices you've made regarding what you think your reasons for winning are.
Marilyn Smith
Bingham
None
Priya Srinath
Monta Vista High School
None
Aparna Srinivasan
Leland High School
None
Sarah Steinmetz
University of California, Berkeley
None
Shari Streb
Monroe High School
None
Jessica Sturla
University of California, Berkeley
None
Krishna Sudhir
Leland High School
None
Preeti Suppal
Leland High School
None
Vinitha Suresh
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Mon February 10, 2020 at 11:24 PM PST
This is my third year judging Public forum debates.
I like to see good source of reliable evidence during debate.
Please do not speak too fast and be courteous to other team.
Tak Tanaka
Leland High School
None
Seydi Toledo
Monroe High School
None
Hanh Tran
Leland High School
None
Erin Tuttle
Highlands Ranch High School
None
Joel Underwood
Seattle Academy
None
Jose Vasquez
Burbank High School
None
Jerred Vidal
Arroyo Grande High School
None
Courtney Walsh
McMinnville High School
None
Cheyenne Walvatne
Clovis East High School
I'll flow the round and won't vote for any argument I don't understand.
Eddie Wang
Young Genius Academy
None
Justin Wang
Miramonte
None
Heather Warren
University of California, Berkeley
None
Hope Whitehead
Arroyo Grande High School
None
Jen Woodley
Kent Denver
None
Amanda Woods
Longmont High School
None
Bing Xiao
Leland High School
None
Ming Xie
Monta Vista High School
None
Anna Yan
San Marino High School
None
Eddie Young
Kent Denver
None