Winter Invitational formerly CLU
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello! My name is Utsav and I am a third year Computer Science student at Simon Fraser University. I did participate in debate competitions throughout middle school so I am familiar with such events. I look forward to building my experience as a judge!
Hello, I was a former policy, extemp, and lincoln douglas debater during my high school days. It's been a while though.
Extemp: please provide as many sources as you can. I prioritize evidence over eloquence.
I don't particularly care for kritiks and theory; I prefer the standard counterplan/disad/ style of debate. Solvency is a dealbreaker for me, and I judge by the traditional policy-making paradigm.
Lincoln Douglas: Value criterions are number one for me and qualify as the standard through which I will judge the round.
Last note: I will take points off if you're a jerk or unnecessarily mean. It degrades the round and yourself, and I speak from experience. Have fun and don't stress.
hello! my name is tim, and you can refer to me as judge or just by my name! i mostly competed in public forum in high school and some lincoln-douglas (c/o 2020), and i currently compete in college parli for johns hopkins university, where i study neuroscience.
notes to all:
--- always remember to warrant, mechanize, and weigh; don’t ever give me bare statements. be comparative, add layers and depth to your rebuttals, and always be explicit rather than implicit.
--- i can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. i will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, i will flow what i can and whatever i cannot will be missed.
--- if you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible.
--- if you plan on speaking about econ, please don’t. if you do, then at least go slow and have robust explanations.
--- please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals; if i find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, your speaks will be docked -0.5.
--- i will happily answer questions after the round, but i will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. as much as i love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith.
--- remember to have fun! at the end of the day, debate is, and should always be, an activity that everyone enjoys. let’s have some educational and meaningful debates!
public forum (my favorite event):
--- send your cases and any evidence you all intend to read prior to starting your speeches. yes, this means the ac/nc and rebuttals. if you all opt out of this, speaks will be docked -0.5.
--- i want to see cut cards with proper citations on them; if not, don’t be surprised when your speaks are low.
--- do not make me do extra work. if you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out; if you are going to go for impact calc, delineate everything to me. fail to do so, and i will start to make assumptions and trust me, these assumptions will not help you.
--- i am a pretty straightforward judge when it comes to public forum; i will evaluate you the way you want me to, but just make sure you uphold what i stated above!
--- i really am not picky with this event; i can judge kritikal debates and straight policy strategies/debates as well. just remember to define terms, have robust explanations, maintain a framework, etc. – this will make me a happy judge.
--- same thing as policy.
--- when i judge, speaks always start at a base level of 28. depending on how the round goes, i move up/down. be communicative, have good strategy and in-round choices, be comparative, weigh, impact… you get the point.
--- if you get 29.5+, i am clearing you; if you get 28.5-29, you did well and i believe you can break if you are in a bubble; if you get 26.5-28, you performed as expected; anything below 26.5, you did something terrible and i had no qualms docking you.
--- most importantly, no speaks theory.
My name is Params Kumarasamy. I am a lay parent judge. Please layout the roadmap for rebuttals and speak slowly and clearly.
Wish you Good Luck!
Hi! I'm Alex Martin, a former La Reina High School LD debater based in Denver, CO. I'm currently in my junior year of University.
I competed for 5 years and attended local and national tournaments. I also did some college debate in my freshman year of college.
I'm experienced in flowing both slow and fast rounds. Progressive debate is okay as long as both competitors are comfortable with fast speeches and are willing to share cases.
I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur in the NSDA campus file share but email is okay too as long as you ask. My email is Alex.Martin@du.edu
Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.
Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.
Tournaments: I usually reserve my weekends for debate related gigs/activities. If you are looking for hires, definitely consider me.
I have experience in mainly Lincoln-Douglas Debate, both as a debater and a judge. As a debater I understand the basics of the other categories but may ask a few questions beforehand to make sure I judge properly.
tech > truth (Essentially I will judge only on the information that you provide in round, I may ask for copies of your case to ensure I have all the correct information.)
Be clear when explaining the biggest impacts of your argument; the benefits of your side should be obvious. I don't usually flow during cross-examination but I might consider it for speaking points.
Do not be rude to your opponent. I understand the competitiveness and intensity of debate rounds, but that is never an excuse to be blatantly rude or disrespectful to your opponent.
LD Judging Preferences:
I'm alright with speed during speeches. I may interrupt you to let you know that you are going too fast at any time during the round. However, if you are spreading just to force your opponent out of the debate, that is an immediate drop.
Have clear links and connections, no matter what the card says it has to be proven relevant to the topic at hand or it is not considered in flow.
Framework is crucial, it is the defining factor of LD. Therefore, there is no need to overdo it but you definitely should do you best to mention it.
In terms of Theory and Kritiks, I am not very familiar with these and would suggest avoiding them unless absolutely necessary. If you do end up using them then please be sure to explain each part clearly.
Make sure to give off-time roadmaps when appropriate. Stay organized, especially in rebuttal speeches. SIGN-POSTING IS KEY in order for me to follow your flow and arguments.
When giving your rebuttals and final speeches, I encourage you to use voters to your advantage. Make it extremely clear why I should vote for you.
Voting Criteria: (for all events)
I will do my very best to give a holistic look at the round before making my decision. With that, please note that utilizing voters effectively only helps you.
In terms of arguments and rebuttals, make your defenses and offenses clear. Dropped arguments will hurt you only if they are pointed out, I will not look for what you dropped. Make all links and impacts as clear as you can.
Speaker points are pretty straightforward for me. I give anywhere between 27-29, unless you're perfect I might give you a 30. You'll get a 27 if your speeches are alright but need a bit of work. A 28 is average debating. A 29 is above average debating, eloquent, well-thought out, and easy to follow. I will automatically give you an extra speaker up to 29.5 if you can reference a meme during any of your speeches.
Any rudeness, hate speech, harmfulness, or profane language will have your speaks dropped all the way to the minimum and you will be dropped on the ballot for exactly that.
I look forward to judging you today and hope that you have fun! :)
I am a parent judge and would like debaters to take the following into consideration:
* I will only make decisions on arguments that are understandable to me. So if presenting complex arguments, please try to break them down and explain clearly.
* Please do not speak too fast as it will be harder for me to follow and process your arguments. Speak at a normal conversation pace and keep arguments clear and concise.
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.
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.)
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.
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!
- I'm not picky about arguments and love to hear what ways you go about a topic.
- I prefer off-time road maps (but I do really love road maps!)
- I judge from the flow so please sign post. (if I don't know where to flow something I can't flow it)
- Be polite and respectful especially during CX
- I am a debater but please don't spread.
- I judge on content, performance, and charm (strong speech, pronunciation, and maybe a smile)
- I'll do my best with time signals, but if I miss one please take it as a compliment :)
- Be respectful (attack the points, not the speakers)
- Try not to waste time (don't ask pointless questions)
- High school and middle school Debate (Pofo, Policy, and LD)
- High school Speech (Impromptu and Extemp)
- High school Congress
- Judging (Middle School)
- Speak clearly
- No spreading
- Do NOT be rude
- Have fun!
Last updated: 03-10-2022
I currently am a senior at Milpitas High School where I have competed in LD for the past four years. I primarily do traditional style, however, I do have experience competing circuit. I will state that I trust myself more in evaluating a traditional round, so do with that what you please. My preferences in terms of more progressive arguments are below.
Furthermore, I did compete in Public Forum for a year and in Extemporaneous and Impromptu. As far as knowing the topic goes, I will probably only be well versed in the current Lincoln Douglas topic. Therefore, assume that if the round I am judging is PF or Policy, I have no idea what the topic is.
If it's speech that I am judging, wow me.
TL;DR: Win the flow, have fun, enjoy!
I like seeing well-constructed arguments with clear links and impacts; rebuttals should be well structured. I always vote off the flow and I'm tech>truth. That being said some general things to remember:
 I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for discriminatory debating. Any sort of transphobic, homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, etc. arguments or behaviors are not going to be tolerated and will result in an immediate loss and absolutely terrible speaks. Do better.
 Warrant everything. Do not make a ridiculous claim without sufficient justification. Clearly explained analytical arguments are far more desirable to unexplained cards.
 Signpost. I absolutely love when debaters signpost, it makes me happy, and you want that. Tell me where you are on the flow. Don't be jumping around, that it makes it hard to follow. At a point, I'll give up trying to follow your jumping around, and stop flowing. Structure is important for an effective speech.
 Weigh & Clash.
 Evidence. I won't call for cards. If there is too big of a dispute in terms of a specific card, and you want me to call out for that specific card, state that in your speech and I'll look at it after. Lying about evidence is an automatic loss and super low speaks. Don't compromise the integrity of this activity.
 Presumption. Love presumption arguments. For the affirmative, I expect these to be brought up in your 1AC or not at all. In terms of the negative, solely 1NC.
 2AR. No new arguments in the 2AR, huge pet peeve. I prefer you not to do a line-by-line 2AR, and solely a 3 minute voters speech, but in the end its your choice. Final Focus. This is for PF: everything in final focus must have been said in summary. Translate this to policy and parli times. New arguments in end speeches just aren't it.
 Framing. There has to be a framework debate. I will default to whatever I want if there isn't clash or any specific arguments in relation to this. Without it, watch out, what I decide to be the standard, might not be in your favor.
I despise spreading.
Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - strike me
I reiterate; I despise spreading, don't do it. Fast paced talking is fine, but especially online I would prefer a moderate speed. I'll say clear once, if you still do not fix your speed or comprehensibility, I'm done flowing. I feel online saying 'clear' may me a more difficult measure, so if you prefer me to wave my hand at the camera or something different, please let me know. If your mic gets jumbled as a result of internet connection and it affects your speech, feel free to turn your camera off, not a problem. No spreading. I can't emphasize that enough. I hate it.
As far as speaker points go: There is a fine line between being aggressive and being straight up rude. You most probably won't get a perfect 30 from me, everyone has room for improvement. Don't make anyone uncomfortable, sassy is cool, and clear speaking will get you adequate speaks.
Please let me know if anything that occurred during the round made you feel uncomfortable. You can stop the debate anytime for these types of situations, and I will take the appropriate action required during the round.
Debate jargons are cool.
I honestly don't care about formality. Swearing/jokes are both fine as long as you aren't being rude or using it to criticize an individual/group of individuals.
Take your blazer off, wear something informal, idc.
Let me know if you have questions before the round.