Tabroom.com

38th Annual Stanford Invitational

2024 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

World Schools Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Adel Ahmed LearningLeaders Online

Rafay Ahmed Arctic Independent None

Ebenezer Appiah Hire

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 7:51 AM CST

Hey, I'm Ebenezer Appiah, I go by he/him/his pronouns and I competed for Alief Elsik School School from 2019-2023 where I had a couple of standout achievements World Schools wise.

TL;DR: I vote on the best remaining offensive material at the level at which it is proven. Typically this just means choosing the clash/material you are winning and using existing and (sufficient) warranting to access an impact that you can realistically weigh out your opponent with. If you prove your argument at the specific level at which you want it to operate ur chillin. I almost always auto-70 a speech that lacks terminal argument development so doing this will for sure raise speaks even if you lose the round.

Things that make my job hard:

Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents
Not proving your arguments (I don't buy things in a vacuum - reasons must be explicit and proven to a point where they meet some burden(s) of proof)

In framing debates, I expect warranted reasons for why I should prefer one interpretation over another. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening. For the sake of a clean round and the least intervening decision possible, I highly recommend you do this

In debates where things are not explicitly proven, I'll assume the most relevant arguments for both sides are true and make the comparison of what argument wins (pre-requisite, scale of impact, duration of impact, etc.)

Things that make my job easy:

Identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those areas.
Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more/ are more likely to occur in contrast to your opposition, especially in debates where there are shared impacts which tends to happen a lot
Weigh impacts if they are differentiated. Note that weighing at the impact level must concede the warrant level (so the argument does happen) and instead engage in the end result of the argument. Rarely do I see impact weighing or even link/warrant level weighing, instead I tend to see rebuttal on the warrant level (often not sufficient enough rebuttal) and neglect for the impact level.
Be strategic. I'd likely caution against extending an unwarranted framing debate for example especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that left field, I'll buy the ref as soon as it is introduced in the round. It doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning toward it. Don't overcompensate! Good judge instruction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side.
General rule of thumb: always fill in gaps for why and how something happens. I must know why a claim is true, why it is exclusive to your side, and quantifiably why that thing is good or bad or morally why that thing is good or bad.

A combination of the stuff mentioned above is the best way to get a decision you agree with. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that we all never like but is necessary if the work isn't done in round

I'm not at all authoritarian when it comes to style. As a competitor who spoke a bit quicker than the norm in WSD, I understand how an overbearing focus on style can have an unattended effect of discrediting good argumentation. If I can flow it and you signpost, you'll do fine. Arg quality> rhetoric. Ideally, the best speeches have all three, but my pivot is more toward content and strategy.

Principled arguments are fun to see but they need to be both extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll have a spot on my flow of a principle that may have been well established but was poorly leveraged against other arguments. Another thing principle-wise, if the principle stops at proving a moral benefit of the motion without prescribing the moral necessity of the motion, I’m probably not going to buy it because that’s just a utilitarian argument in disguise. The principle needs to set a framework for moral evaluation and then explain why violating that framework produces moral injury.

All and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun!

If you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com or eappiah@regis.edu

Brett Banks Dripping Springs High School

Petiho Beatrice— Upper Canada Debate None

Kieran Bergh Artemis Debate None

Tamara Brooks Miller Hire

Diego Castillo Hire

Shusen Chen Tompkins High School None

Kyle Chien Tierra Linda Middle School

Jennifer Chung West Los Angeles Violet Academy

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:15 AM PST

Updated for NSDA WSDC 2024:

I adhere to the rules of WSDC, which means 40% content (what you say), 40% style (how you say it), and 20% strategy (why you say it). My evaluation of content includes good analysis (logical, relevant, important, tracking evolution), quality of examples, and thorough rebuttal. Debate in good faith, without straw-manning the other team's arguments. Style includes appropriate word choice, eye contact, body movement/hand gestures, voice projection and control, speed/variation of delivery. Strategy would be the choices made in motion interpretation, time allocation, prioritization, speech structuring, correct identification of issues in the debate, taking adequate POIs, weighing and use of comparisons, and relevance of material to the debate.

Proposition has the burden of proof and has to define the motion, being clear and fair to both sides. They should describe their characterization of the status quo and present substantive arguments in favor of their case, and where appropriate, present a solution to the identified problem. The opposition should oppose the prop's motion and probably have their own substantives. No new constructive material or POIs in the reply.

There are only 3 people on the bench for each side. Non-speaking team members and other spectators must not make signs or signals to debaters on the bench and must maintain room decorum. I keep track of time, and at the 1-minute mark and 7-minute mark, I will knock on the table, opening the speech for POI's (which should be brief and no more than 15 seconds), for the first 6 speeches.

Older paradigm below:

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

Gianna Colby Tierra Linda Middle School

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 4:53 AM EST

Hello! My name is Gi Colby. I have been on the speech and debate circuit for over 7 years, both as a competitor and as a coach. As a competitor, I competed in Extemp and Congress at national tournaments in high school, and now I compete in IPDA at the college level. I am currently an assistant coach at Tierra Linda Middle School in California, and I work under Marty De to coach events like PF, Parli, Congress, World Schools, and Informative events. My former school affiliation was Western High School, and my current university that I attend is the University of Florida.

But enough about my debate career, I would like to emphasize what I like in specific events.

For Interpretation events such as HI and Duo, I like to be entertained. I am not so much of a technical judge with these events as I do not have much experience with them, but I do know the basics. In general, I just want a well-polished piece that makes me feel something, and a speaker who is great as using gestures and their body language to put a piece together. I do not coach in these events, so I am not as experienced in judging them, but I will try my best to give a good score to those who deserve it.

With Informative and OO, which I do coach in, I like a piece that is meaningful and has a topic with depth. I also value organization and excellent speaking; in fact, I would go as far as to say that I value speaker quality over topic choice. I want you to change my opinion on something or teach me something new; that is the point of these events.

With Impromptu, Extemp, and Parli, I like a speaker who can think on the fly and is casual about it. All of these events are centered around a lay judge, meaning that the judge has no clue what you are talking about, so I want you to be able to convey and explain the topic and its points effectively. I want to go out of a round as a judge and understand what you are saying. Specifically with Parli, I value a team that can "have a conversation" with the other teams' points, meaning that they refute all of the other team's points while staying clear and concise. Again, I value a good speaker in all events, but in general, I will rank high if you are put together, speak well, and have excellent linkage.

For Congress, SPAR, and PF, the topics that I know the most about, I value refutation. These are called debate events for a reason; if you debate well, have clash, and interact with other speeches in the round well, you have my vote. If you are the first negation in Congress, I expect you to have a basic refutation if you are on the high school level. I want a person who can argue well but also remain collected and composed. I will drop you if you yell at someone else in round. Specifically for Congress, I do not give the winning rank to POs, however, I do respect them enough to give an in-between rank. For PF, I want a well-structured Final Focus, excellent clash, and specifically in this event, I will consider individual performance as well as team performance.

For World Schools (as it is an exception to everything here),I do tend to value the things that you are judged on, like style, content, and strategy. I like a team that is put together, and works well together as a unit, but also has great refutation and a solid framework to the round. I also value speaking more here than other events because a team that enunciates and has pauses in the right areas is a team for me that speaks great. But overall, if you speak clearly, have great points that go with my flow, and you all work cohesively as a team, you have my ballot.

In general, what I value is a good speaker who is polite and fair, but also suited to their event, meaning debate events can argue well, informative events inform me as a judge, etc. I am more of a flow judge when it comes to debate events and I value clash and refutation heavily. Also, I don't particularly appreciate spreading in any event, so I will not tolerate that, as I cannot flow your points effectively if you speak too fast. I am not scared to drop you if you are rude because regardless of the event, everyone should have respect for each other as basic human beings. I have dropped teams for being rude in the past, and am willing to do it again. But, just to wrap things up, I want you to be passionate about what you are talking about and convey that passion to me. Best of luck!

Mia Cui INSPIRA

Lorenz De Claro Dialogy None

Camille Downey Texas

Mattias Durán Speechtopia

Jomi Epoyun Hire

Sierra Erdman-Luntz The Blake School

Reginald Fajardo FDT Academy (HS) None

Kendrick Foster Hire

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 2:05 PM EST

Background: I debated at Memorial High School in Houston for 3 years, graduating in 2018. I mainly competed in extemp in high school, and I qualified for TFA State in FX and the TOC in Extemp and Informative. I also qualified for Nationals in World Schools debate twice and reached the quarterfinals of World Schools in 2018. My main debate events were Public Forum and Congress, which I did on and off for the most part.

I have judged on the TFA circuit in Texas since I graduated high school in 2018, judging disproportionately many tournaments in 2020-21 and then nearly every weekend in the 2022-23 school year. I consider myself most proficient at judging World Schools Debate, Congress, and public speaking events.

My email for any email chains is knfjudges@gmail.com.

WSD: Remember that WSD is not LD or PF, and I will not be "voting on the flow" the way that LD and PF judges do. I will generally try to stick to the 68-72 range for each speaker, although I've found myself going under that range more often than I've gone over. Of course, this means that you might not like my decision at the end of the day. To lessen the odds of that happening, here are some tips to maximize the chances of winning my ballot:

For content: "The House" is understood to be the whole world unless specified otherwise. Therefore, your content score will not go above 28 unless you bring solid international examples to the table. Generally, the more empirical and the less hypothetical evidence you bring to the table, the better you'll tend to do.
For style: I would say the easiest way to improve style points on my ballot is with speeches that have personality. Obviously, this will differ from speaker to speaker, but I have rewarded speakers who depart somewhat from the "clean speech without fluency errors" kind of model and bring humor, personal connections to the topic, anecdotes, etc. to the table.
For strategy: Teams that are consistent down the bench, especially teams that have a consistent team line, will tend to do better in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here; generally, teams should take 2 POIs, usually at the transition between points that were elaborated on during the roadmap.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is the prevailing international style of debate, where the debate changes every round, concerns issues on a global rather than a national scale, and invites teams to clash on the central set of issues presented at conversational pace rather than trying to win with tricks or arcane points.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I generally prefer to flow on paper with different colors of pens representing the two teams, although in a pinch, I will flow on Excel on my computer.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I would say that, generally, a principled argument would carry my ballot - at the end of the day, if the team argues that I should care about the principle regardless of the practical effects, then I will probably buy that argument. That being said, I do not have any trouble discarding a principle argument where this type of framing is not employed. If a team advances a principle argument through the reply, but impacts it out to a practical impact, then I probably would not prefer the principle argument just because it is labeled a principled argument. If both teams advance principle arguments through to the reply, I would tend to evaluate the competing principle arguments first.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Essentially, the question of strategy is whether the debater addressed the main arguments in the round. If they focus too much on dropped or irrelevant arguments, they would have a deduction in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here - if there is a lack of engagement in POIs, this category would be negatively impacted, whereas if a debater does particularly well with POIs, they might have this category bolstered. Finally, the team line also figures in my calculation here - a team with a consistent bench will do well in strategy, whereas a team with three speakers who feel like they're making separate and distinct speeches would not do well in strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

Style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

I tend to rely heavily on warrants and examples; a warranted argument will outweigh an unwarranted argument, and I will generally prefer advocacy with solid international examples rather than merely hypothetical points. Of course, the examples must support the point, rather than just being examples for their own sake.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

I tend to adopt a broad view - did the OPP's quibbles with the PROP's model successfully challenge their advocacy of the motion as a whole, or did the Prop's use of the model nonetheless prove the truth of the resolution despite the OPP quibbling with it? Frankly, I see a "quibble" as seeing the forest for the trees - in my mind, OPP teams should play hardball with the model proposed by the PROP.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I would take a comparative worlds approach, but ultimately, look to whether either side either upholds or defeats the motion as a whole. The model vs. countermodel debate is not supposed to end up about the models - all models should be in service of each team's broader burden.

PF Debate: I want to see a clear claim/warrant/impact structure with clear weighing at the end of the day; I've frequently found myself wanting some brief framing analysis or meta-weighing throughout the round as well (especially on evidence quality and strength of link). I am not receptive to theory or kritikal arguments in PF (this includes disclosure theory, etc.). The more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you. Defense is not sticky (please carry it through the flow). Finally, please remember that this is public forum debate, not "shorter policy," so please avoid spreading, and touches of rhetoric are always welcome (and will be reflected in your speaker points).

LD Debate: I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (I do not consider myself a traditional LD judge), but I simply ask that you explain your arguments well. If I cannot explain your argument in the RFD on the ballot, I will not vote for that argument. For Ks, make sure that the link is specific to the case and that the alt makes sense. I will warn you that I have heard many bad Ks in my life, and while I have voted for Ks in the past, that doesn't mean I automatically like every K that I hear. In addition, it's really no fun for anyone to hear rounds where the AFF has never heard of the K, and their only response is "the NEG doesn't have a value and a criterion so we should win." So try to remain respectful of your opponents as well.

Repeated from PF but... I really appreciate good meta-weighing (especially on evidence quality and strength of link), and the more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you.

Congress: I would say that I prefer content over presentation. When evaluating content, I look to the type of speech being given (constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization) and my expectations for each type of speech... Unfortunately, I have found that there are many constructive speeches given later and later in the chamber, and many so-called rebuttal or crystallization speeches that neither rebut nor crystallize. Please, please, please remember that this is congressional DEBATE and not congressional soapbox. I love clash and I hate repetitious arguments.

Relatedly, I really detest when chambers need to take in-house recesses at the beginning of items because nobody is prepared to debate. I believe that I have somewhat contributed to this problem by stating that I prefer well elucidated speeches over speeches that were extemped in the chamber. To be fair, I don't want to hear these speeches for the sake of giving a speech, but I am now of the belief that I should reward the representatives who are actually prepared to debate in my rankings. So do with that what you will.

Public Speaking: In extemp, make sure you answer the question in a well structured manner. Sources are also important to me; I read both foreign and domestic news on a regular basis, and BSing a speech is not the way to win my ballot. (For the record: I have checked sources that sounded fishy, and I have tanked speakers who have egregiously misrepresented sources. Misremembered the date or the publication for a source? Fine, I've done that before, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt! Told me that Boko Haram has attacked Egypt or that a New York Times editorial praised El Salvador's Bitcoin experiment when, in fact, it panned it? Not OK!)

For all events, I enjoy humor; for the two platform events, I also like to hear a personal connection to the topic throughout the speech, as well as unique takes on common topics. Please elucidate the stakes for your speech so we know why it's important that we listen to you for 10 minutes about a given topic.

Interp: Contestants should not try to change their pieces for my ballot, but here are a few things. For all events: Does the introduction adequately contextualize the piece, and does it lay out the societal critique the piece brings to the table? Does the cutting have a clear narrative arc? Does the teaser adequately tease the piece? For DI: Do you have a range of emotions (positive)? Do you yell as a substitute for other emotions (negative)? For HI: Is the piece funny? Does the piece add to a societal conversation about its topic, or is it just comedy? For POI: Does the program's narrative make sense? Are the characters adequately distinguished from each other, and do the transitions make sense?

Jason Fu GE-Elite

Joy Hadome Calgary Crawdaddies and Co.

Rubick Bricsela Hernandez Hire

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 9:09 PM EST

Hiii!!! My name is Rubick (or Rubi for short) and I really enjoy judging speech and debate rounds. I am more of a debater but I also enjoy a good speech/interp round. I did debate all four years of high school and mainly focused on WSD (with a side of extemp), so that is what I am the most comfortable with. If I am judging a round, there are a few things that I am looking for;

In World Schools Debate

1. Which team proves and justifies their side the most? Making sure you prove your arguments to be true is highly important as it gives me an idea of what your side looks like. It also proves that you are able to defend your side and outweigh your arguments.

2. Provide framework and characterization for your side. It helps to know what to look for in your arguments and case.

3. If you have a principle argument, explain why your argument is true and how it can be fulfilled. If you have a practical argument, make sure to give links to your argument and clear impacts. You should be able to use your arguments and compare them to your opponents. Don't tell me their argument is non-unique without telling me why. Or don't tell me your arguments are better than your opponents without telling me why. Keep in mind that there is always a WHY to an argument. Always make sure to weigh your arguments!

4. If your speech is organized and there is clear signposting then it is easy for me to follow what you are saying. With that being said, it doesn't mean I will prioritize style over content but it can help you get more points. Make sure to sound conversational and not like you are reading off a paper. Try to engage with your opponents during refutation or during POIs. It should feel consistent throughout the bench and like every speaker is doing what they are supposed to do. Should not be like speaker 3 bringing up information to salvage the round that should have been brought by speaker 2 which by then might be too late and wouldn't really count anymore.

5. Your POIs should be strategic. Make sure to try to ask POIs during every speech and try to take 1-2 throughout your speeches. A lack of POIs can look like a lack of engagement with your opponents. This doesn't mean you should be barricading your opponents with POIs, you must always be considerate.

Overall, make sure to have fun and enjoy the debate. I expect everyone to be nice and respectful during the round at all times.

In PF/LF

Although I am no expert, I have a couple of years of experience judging and a few times participating in either event.

PF: I like to see argumentation. Which side best utilizes the most to respond to their opponents? It also means having well-developed arguments that have warrants and impact. I also look to see if there is interaction or clash. How can you explicitly respond to an argument made by your opponent? Otherwise, the unaddressed argument will take the higher ground. Keep in mind how you respond to an argument and how you discredit your opponent’s arguments. This will help me see who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round. Since this is a team event, I also look for team balance. Make sure team effort between partners is noticeable. There should be consistency between the two, make sure both bring the same rebuttal or almost the same. I should not hear new arguments during the last few speeches. Lastly, I would prefer no spreading, but if you normally talk fast, just try your best to ensure that whatever you say is understandable.

LD: I will vote based on the debater most successful in protecting their side. Regarding the structure of argumentation, I look for who is the better debater by advancing ideas while also engaging in their opponent’s argument. I enjoy good delivery, warrant, and impact. When it comes to framework-level argumentation, I want to know why your framework makes you win, and respond to the framework always; What do you value? What is your value criterion? Which framework is best to evaluate the arguments? I want you to make sure you explain your side and engage with your opponents as much as possible. At the end of the round, I am voting for the right side because of how much you tried to persuade me and how much you showed me your side outweighs the other.

In Speech/Interp events:

Extemp: Although I know you only have 30 minutes to research and memorize a speech and it can be very challenging for some, (trust me, I struggled with this event too) I want you to try your best to inform me or persuade me of whatever it is that you are speaking about. Your speech should be easy to follow. Have a beginning, middle, and end. I love a good intro that makes me want to listen to more, even better if you can tie it up with your conclusion and your arguments should help you answer the question you are given. After your speech, I want to feel like I just learned something new even if it is about an event that has been talked about for years now. First and foremost, be confident! Nothing else matters if you yourself don't feel good about what you are doing.

Others: Have fun while you are sharing a story. Make sure to feel confident and know you gave it your all. I might not know much but I know these might be stories from real-life people and you should make sure you are not just telling a story but teaching your audience why this story or moment is important. Most importantly, be yourself and stay true to who you are.

Regardless of the event, I will always enjoy a good round. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to my personal email at rubickhernandez@gmail.com

Linxuan (Lily) Jiang Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy

Nancy Jin J.N. Burnett

Sashank Joshi FDT Academy (HS) None

Krishaang Kohli AugLi

Loukya Kotla Tompkins High School None

Mark LaBarge La Canada High School

Akifuzzaman Labib VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Chinh Le Texas

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 11:17 AM EST

Hii! I’m currently a second-year at Columbia University majoring in Political Science-Economics (at least I hope so haha). I competed primarily in World Schools, with a side hustle in Extemp that flopped harder than Katy Perry's Witness Era. I was ranked #10 in the nation for worlds and was part of Team Texas

WSD

I’ve competed in every speaker position so I understand most norms/expectations in this format. With that being said, these are what I value in the round:

Clear argumentation and impact (i.e. link chain, warranting, examples are all reasonable and well-explained). Do not assume why your argument is important. Explicitly explain why I should care. I also need rational reasoning as to why your argument is realistic and applicable to the world. However, this doesn’t mean an excess reliance on examples. You just need to explain why actors/stakeholders usually act that way.
Sign-posting (Organization is a crucial element in elevating your style and content. Signpost makes sure that we’re both on the same page.
Crystallization and Weighing. The hardest part of the RFD is deciding the winner (in most cases). To make my job easier, you must engage with your opponent’s argumentation (through refutation or clash). When weighing, you must be charitable (i.e. you can’t compare your highest ground to their lowest ground; it doesn’t help my decision). The latter half of the debate should be spent on crystalizing clashes and explaining why your side outweighs them.
Consistent Narrative. Crafting a central narrative around your bench is crucial to elevating your content and strategy. Please do not contradict/throw your teammates under the bus. Make sure you guys communicate team strategy before the round.
Engagement in the debate. This isn’t just offering POIs and accepting them. It’s being respectful towards everyone in the debate. I also encourage bench communication (but don’t be excessively loud).

On the other hand, I will dock speaks/get very annoyed at any of these:

Framing debates. Models and definition disagreements should be resolved by the second speech at the latest. I am a rational judge and will accept the fairest interpretations for both sides.
Barricading with POIs.
Unengagement. Please make sure you clash with your opponents. Also treading the middle ground to co-op your opponents’ arguments makes the debate incredibly hard to adjudicate and doesn’t lead to fruitful discourse. There are some instances where the middle ground can be used, but I will need explicit clarification on what is your uniqueness.

Speech:

In platform events, I’ll always value content over delivery

Your utmost priority should be topic selection, evidence, analysis, and a cohesive narrative. I want to see your passion and the techniques you utilize to convey such messages. I’m also a big proponent of structure and organization, so please ensure your speech reflects thoughtful organization.
However, that doesn’t mean delivery should be ignored. I value enunciation, pacing, your position in the room, etc. You should use the delivery as a way to enhance your content.

In Interp events, I’m not the most well-verse (and I’m sorry if you have me as a judge). I think delivery and content still go hand-in-hand here. Just make sure you have all of the components and deliver it confidently.

PF/LD/Policy:

I’m least educated in these events given my background (besides competing in LD once and judging a few PF/Policy rounds). However, that doesn’t mean you are allowed to lie or make up rules when I’m judging. Here’s what I look for

Argumentation (link chain, evidence, extension of argument)
Strategic use of time (during questioning, speech, or cooperation with teammate if present)
I can’t handle spreading. Please speak at a reasonable pace (I can tolerate speaking a tad fast but not outright)

Besides that, have fun and be nice to each other. My email is chinh.le@columbia.edu if you have any questions.

Eric Lee Welearn Academy

Chenfei Li Alannah Debates

Alyssa Lu Debate Go None

Laura Mao Orion None

Tim E. McHugh Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy None

Jonathan McNamee Harvard-Westlake School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:56 PM CST

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

Geremy Napitupulu SD Academy

Rhys Nickersoon Welearn Academy

Grace Nolan Branksome Hall None

Olamide Esther Olayinka Codex Debate

Gerson Ademir Oviedo Soto Arctic Independent

Last changed on Tue September 24, 2024 at 4:21 PM EST

I'm Gerson Oviedo Soto, a 21-year-old college student from Lima University and I've been interested/involved in judging Speech and Debate since I started my career as a debater (2 years and a half ago) and specially focused on BP and WSDC tournaments to provide all the feedback I can to school students in strategy, style and to remain motivated to continue participating in these wonderful sports that give us a unique opportunity to raise our voices around all the world, to all the circuits, even the LatAm circuit which I come from.

What I'm looking for in a debate:

Under any condition I'll let students attack or discriminate others and I'll reach to an equity officer as soon as possible, it's truly important to maintain the order and respect all the time, we all can win a debate and continue the discussion free of anger, with no reason to attack the person instead of the argument. Equity is important to learn, not to punish, no one should ever fear to talk to the Equity team, so in case someone has to approach to Equity or talk to them, is not to penalize your behavior, but instead to improve it and avoid it as well.

I am very unwilling to accept or believe in an argument that contains misogynistic, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or any other kind of premises that threaten the integrity of people's protected identity or attributes. For me, such arguments tend to be very unpersuasive.

Speaking fast is okay, but please ensure that it does not reach to the point of being completely unintelligible, not because I'm going to give you an automatic loss, but instead I'm going to be uncapable of taking notes and that means nuances or some explanations might be missed.

Style is considered important, although I do believe that the most valuable part of an speech is the argument and its content, so for me the style is not a criteria to define a winning team/speaker, I take style as an implicit benefit to demonstrate an argument.

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time, so I can prioritize taking notes.

Dawn Paciotti Harvard-Westlake School

Last changed on Mon September 9, 2024 at 10:11 AM CST

*Paradigm Updated 9/9/24 with preferences for each event.

ALL DEBATE: Welcome to my ten second tutorial, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

**PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK IMPOSSIBLY FAST. If you’re talking like you’ve had too many Dr. Peppers, we’re fine, but if you blur words together and start double breathing, I can’t understand you. It’s a disability issue. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed. I also feel you should check with your opponent before EVERY round to discuss what their threshold for speed is to make sure you are both on the same page and that the debate space will be inclusive. That’s key to keeping people in this activity. Please don’t chase out people who can only compete sometimes. Be better. Do better.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS: I will consider anything that isn't offensive, but you have to give me a reasonable explanation for why it applies in this debate. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

THEORY: I am open to any theory arguments critiquing your opponent’s rhetoric, behavior, or advocacy. I am NOT open to resolutional critiques, because in that instance you’re basically critiquing the wording committee. We have to have an agreed upon resolution to have a fair debate. It may not be your favorite resolution. It may not be my favorite resolution, either. However, it’s the resolution we’ve all walked into the round to engage with, so do me a solid and actually engage with it. For disclosure theory, show me the receipts. How is it the norm in this event, this tournament, how many times did you reach out to your opponent, etc.

WEIGHING: I don’t need you to use the words probability, timeframe, reversibility, etc. So long as you compare your argument with your opponent’s and tell me why your argument makes your world comparatively better than theirs, I’m good.

BEHAVIOR: Be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Firstly, although I have judged this event for five years or so, I am not necessarily aware of every norm in the activity. If you feel your opponent is using debate norms from other events and they aren’t in line with world norms, tell me why their position should be disregarded. Secondly, I like to see a lot of worlds comparison in either the 3^rd or Final speech. What happens if we pass the motion? What happens if we fail it? What are the implications of that action across broader populations and through time? Especially with impromptu topics, I think it’s important to figure out what the effects are of voting either way. I’m not going to want to make a decision about a subset of the motion taken in one snapshot in time. I want to look at precedents the motion might start, or how the motion may change perceptions across the globe. Think BIG. Thirdly, don’t ask incredibly long POI’s just to waste opponent time. Your POI’s should be strategic in terms of their content.

PUBLIC FORUM: Firstly, do not make arguments in cross. Ask questions of your opponent. Weaken their link chains, make them explain warrants and evidence. Please let your opponent have a reasonable amount of time to answer, and only interrupt if they are being purposefully obtuse. Take turns asking. If you have a follow-up, it should be able to be answered with one sentence, or it is a second question. Secondly, I do not believe that policy and LD norms automatically apply in PF rounds. If you would like to access another debate event’s norms, you need to give me a reasonable explanation as to why your interpretation is best. Thirdly, I like to see incentive analysis done that helps me to see why certain policies might be preferred over others. This can be from a government perspective, a societal perspective, or even individual perspectives, depending on the argument. Fourthly, you have to give me more than the argument name to count as an extension, and arguments need to be extended in every speech if they end up in Final Focus. Give me the evidence, the warrant, the way that argument outweighs the opponent’s argument – I’m flexible, but give me something to extend other than a word. Fifthly, be realistic about what you can do in a four minute constructive. You will not be able to go into massive depth with any of your arguments. Low probability, high impact arguments require a pretty strong link chain, and that’s probably not something you have time for in PF. Stick with what you can defend. Then defend it. Sixthly, be smart about evidence sharing. Have your evidence immediately accessible and shareable. Better yet, send the cards either right before or right after the speech so everyone can see them. I do not want to have to police both teams while searching and copying and pasting and refreshing emails. I also really, really do not want to see teams using evidence challenge as a way to get more time to mentally prep. PF debate should not take a lifetime. It should take less than an hour.

LD: I’m not judging much LD anymore because the activity is becoming less enjoyable for me. I’m not a tech happy judge, and I won’t vote on flow tricks. I will vote on comparative benefit in the overall aff and neg position. I would prefer you take prep time before the NC so that you are responsive to your opponent’s rhetoric and arguments. If your entire NC is cards that you don’t bother applying directly to opponent arguments, I’m probably not going to vote for you. Clash is key, and clash requires being in the moment of this particular debate with these particular people. Every debate should be different. If you’re making them all the same, you’re probably going to get the L from me every time, too.

POLICY: I judge policy only when tabrooms really, really need me to, or for UIL Texas debate where speed is not the norm. I recognize that on most circuits, speed is the norm, and I simply can’t keep up. If tab needs me to take one for the team, though, please read your taglines more slowly. I don’t understand all of the intricacies of policy debate norms, so if you want me to judge off something more obscure, explain it to me. My favorite thing in Policy to hear about is the solvency debate, so points there if you dig in deep.

To finish it off, this activity should be something all of us enjoy. If you’re miserable during the round, we probably will be, too. Find a way to make each debate interesting, unique, challenging. Stretch your world, and make your opponents and judges think in new ways. Being in debate should inspire you. If it doesn’t, there’s probably a better activity for you, and I hope you can find that joy elsewhere. We’re all spending a day or weekend together, so let’s all try to make it pleasant.

Rashrvin Pillay ROGA None

Lamia Nur Rahman VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Maliha Rahman FDT Academy (HS) None

Angela Ren Arcadia High School

Angelique Ronald Isidore Newman School

William Ryan George Washington HS

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 6:55 PM EST

Current Coach at University HS Charter, former competitor at George Washington High School. NSDA national finalist, semifinalist, top speaker.

General:

Flow Judge. Will do flow judge things. Add me to the email chain, willryan@g.ucla.edu (or preferably, use speechdrop.net)

Generally tech>truth, but I have my limits. I will vote on truth before voting on presumption unless a team explicitly goes for a presumption warrant.

Fine with speed, keep it reasonable. This is an oral communication activity, understanding what you are saying is still very important. I accept speech docs for evidence, but won't flow off of them. I'll call clear if you are too fast.

I presume to whoever doesn't have the burden of proof. Explain why that's you if you want to win on presumption.

Debate is good and fairness is an intrinsic impact, and I am incredibly unlikely to pick up K teams that argue otherwise. These are views which I am highly unlikely to change.

LD:

Consider me a moderately prog judge. I vastly prefer a smaller number of well warranted positions to a high number of blippy positions, so I'm much more likely to vote for 1NC strategies that focus on 1-2 offs max if you are going for the K or theory, or 3-4 offs if you factor in DAs. That's not a hard limit or anything, but be aware of the risks of me missing something for going for more than that.

I quite enjoy Phil Affs and Negs, especially on value topics, since I both think it is more educational and engages with an area of philosophy that I personally know a lot about.

T is a part of the game, be prepared to hit it. I'd prefer it is reserved for instances of genuinely unfair 1ACs, but given that I am about 40 years behind the curve of T being read as a time suck I doubt that will ever happen.

Tricks/a prioris… not a fan of these kinds of arguments. Highly sympathetic to 1AR Theory responses. Read at your own risk.

I'm inherently incredibly skeptical of the solvency of most Kritiks, but in principle I don't have any objections to them. Read at your own risk.

Trichotomy is a voting issue that I am shocked more teams don't go for. If you run policy arguments on a value topic I'm highly sympathetic to T/Trichot responses.

PF:

Weigh.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

See LD for opinions on Kritiks and Theory. TLDR: Sure, why not.

IVI's seem very silly to me. Read a full theory shell if you want me to vote on some kind of procedural issue.

Please share speech docs before or after a speech so that we don't have to go through the burdensome process of calling for a dozen specific cards. If more than a single piece of evidence is called for please just share an entire doc of all of the cards you read in your speech.

UPDATE: I don't want to be one of those sanctimonious judges who yells at clouds on their paradigm, but evidence ethics has become unacceptably terrible in PF. I reserve the right to unconditionally drop a team if their evidence falls below the standards set in the NSDA unified comprehensive manual. This includes: egregious powertagging, fabricating warrants with bracketed text or miscuts, obviously fictitious evidence from Medium articles, etc. I have noticed this is especially bad with impact evidence. You've been warned.

WSD:

WSD is my favorite format so I will hold debaters to a high standard of performance. I will be very happy if I can see a nuanced debate and will likely award high points.

My stance on number of POIs is that 1st Prop sets the tone for the debate. So if 1st Prop takes 2 POIs, all other speeches should follow that trend. Same if 1st Prop only takes 1. I expect Opp teams to reciprocate at whatever level 1st Prop sets.

I marginally prefer all speeches to take 2 POIs, as I feel it makes the round more interactive and gives more clash during the Opp Bloc Speeches, but I will accommodate whatever the competitors set.

The prop should defend a reasonable interpretation of the motion and the opp should defend a reasonable inverse. Countermodels that are just "the model plus" are abusive and I will vote them down. Conversely, prop models that are just "we fiat the most perfect version of this policy ever because we said so" are very silly and I will likely not buy them.

Huge points for creative and unique argumentation. I hate when debates are stale and predictable, so unique stances can definitely give you a strategic edge. If you are willing to commit from 1st speeches to a creative position, you are likely to get major credit.

A good laugh is never unappreciated, and will bump style. Even a cringe worthy joke is likely going to be endearing, we are all nerds doing politics for fun, after all, so why not go for it :). (That said obviously know context, a super serious motion may not be the best time to crack a joke. All I'm saying is when applicable, try to have fun.)

Rijan Shrestha Nepal Red (DNN) None

Remasankar Sivasankaran Nair Tompkins High School None

Rohan Subagaran LearningLeaders Online

Fairooj Rushmila Suhita VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Amberley Tanner Hire

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:54 AM CST

I am a diamond level coach, who has been judging over 25 years. My background has intersected with most events throughout my experiences. I started competing on the college circuit in policy debate in the 90's and from there moved into Lincoln Douglas. After a year and a half I made the switch to platform events and I am nationally recognized in Duo, Dramatic, Poetry, Prose, POI, and After Dinner Speaking. TIFA which is the college version of TFA, I have been two time back to back Duo State Champion, as well as state Champion in Poetry.

In Debate:

Good debate is just good debate, so make sure you are clear, give weighing mechanism, link into the resolution, K's are fine but make them clear and understandable if you are going to include them. Speed is ok, just know when you need to slow down at times to solidify your case and make sure you are clear. Be assertive, not aggressive there is a line and make sure you know the difference. I also like purpose behind arguments, so please do not waste time just to run something because you think it is cool, trendy, or funny, as some adult may not share your thoughts on the choice. Debate is a wonderful event, that we have some many amazing tools to use, so please be respectful of this from of discourse.

World Schools is a great crossover event and it is one that I have been supporting at the national level for sometime, and very excited to see the growth of this event. That being said, I am a purist and I want it to stay World School Debate. I am looking for strong substantives, clear burdens, and for the model to be used properly and effectively, if you choose to provide one. Further, make sure you protect and defend the model. Please use POI's likewise be sure to give POI's, at least one to two. Use the key areas strategy, delivery, and content to ensure that you have left no points behind in the debate. You are building a narrative that must compel me to prefer your world view and meet your burden. Clash is crucial, so good coverage is essential down the bench.

Congress: I like well constructed speeches that are not read to me, referring to speech is fine, leave room for clash as this is debate, so I want to see you engage with the chamber. Stay active, the round is long so keep pressure with good questioning to stay relevant in the debate. I also welcome humor, if tasteful and done well.

Platform Speaking: (Extemporaneous, OO, Info, Imp)

I expect to solid speech structure with full introduction, transitions in body, and conclusion. The analysis should have some depth and should make a strong connection to your topic. Fluency should be smooth and if you have the occasional break, just work to not make it a big deal. I know being online can be difficult and there may be things that distract you where you are performing remotely, so that is understandable. Engage with the audience, your speech is for them, whether OO or Extemporaneous, you created a speech to tell it to us, so don't forget that. I know in Extemporaneous it can be tempting to have your speech on your screen, just know when you read a speech it is different and that connection with your audience can be lost, so I would rather have you perform to me, than read. Also, in Extemporaneous you need sources to ground your analysis, I also like a variety of good and challenging sources as opposed to the easiest finds. Pacing yourself is important, so is time management as you move through your points and finally do not rush. Three key things for me:

*Solid and fluent Delivery

*Clear Structure that supports your topic and adherence to time management throughout that structure

*Variety of sources, preference at least 5 as it is important to document and ground your analysis

Interpretation:

Interpretation is a personal favorite. I am open to all innovation and ways to bring your story to life. I do want to see a strong cutting that allows for you to build and reach a climax that will change your character in some way. If you are weaving POI, poetry, or Prose, make sure you structure your weave to give your program a climax that is clear. I have been a theatre director for over 20 years, so I love blocking and characterization as they are a part of breathing life into your interpretation. I like specificity and nuance, the text gives us so much as performers to work with. I like to see your performances as a collection of choices that ultimately allow the audience to experience the authenticity of your piece. I like purposeful gestures and mime work, but not just because it looked cool. I love moments, so make sure to be thoughtful in creating them, but hold them so we do not miss them whether in recording or live performance. At the end of the day, I am one of your biggest fans, so perform for me...allow me to get to know your character, to laugh, to cry, and most of all to experience why you chose to tell this story.

Interp Specifics:

Author's Intent-I am a writer and I believe it is important that the intent of the author is considered and respected. I do not mind if it a piece is cut, just that it doesn't violate the overall message of the author.

Introductions-I like to see purpose driven intros, that have pertinent information I need to know. I do not like introductions to exceed 30-45 seconds, or to become a performance art piece themselves. If I should know about conditions, flashbacks, time elapse that would help better inform my experience, then it should be in the introductions. If you choose to do an intro for humor only, and do not give us any information then I hope it is really funny, because you sacrificed the time you could have educated your audience. I am ok with humor in HI.

Blocking-Yes! Dream big and block bigger....I am ready for whatever you have come up with please engage us, build environments, and use your space in ALL events.

Binder work-Yes! See above, I love it! I want you to explore, so nothing is too much as long as well executed.

Characterization-I believe the story is paramount in any event. Please be thoughtful and authentic, organic over technical any day of the week. I like to be in the moment with you, so challenge yourself and your audience through believable and honest performance.

Adam Taylor Artemis Debate

Madeline Tsao Hire

Diggory Waddle Welearn Academy

Dan Walsh Cogito Tutoring

Mimi Wu Artemis Debate None

Alannah Zhou Alannah Debates

Login to Tabroom

38th Annual Stanford Invitational

2024 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

World Schools Paradigm List

Judges