Cal Invitational UC Berkeley
2015
—
CA/US
Individual Events Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Zahra Abadin
Mira Loma High School
None
Nicholas Abbott
Quarry Lane
Last changed on
Sat December 1, 2018 at 7:26 PM PDT
Nick Abbott Paradigm
From Livermore CA with a son who is a Quarry Lane alumni. Have judged over 200 speech and debate rounds in the last four years, mainly Pufo, but pretty much all events except Policy. The main focus of my judging intent is to provide feedback within scope of tournament rules that will provide each student areas of improvement that will benefit them in their post high school public speaking activities. As a result, I take ballot input or RFD to each student very seriously.
Students: this is the best time in your lives to develop world-class speaking and agile/extemporaneous thinking. Go for the trophies, but the real win is the skill set.
Public Forum, LD, and overall guidance:
Speed: there's a trade off between quantity and elucidation. Negative returns if you 'spread'. Enunciate. If a listener can't understand your points, then how can you win an argument?
Offline roadmaps please.
Evidence and card wars: absolutely required to have crystal clear evidence with each of your contentions and subpoints. On the other extreme, card wars that fall into 'quantity' vs relevance, and become card dumping, will hurt the team with that approach. This is pofu, not Pokemon.
Framework and contentions: are they clear, consistent, and comprehensively covered (and attacked by the opposing team)?
Etiquette: lack of it, particularly if I conclude that one team takes the debate to a shouting match, has caused teams with a stronger case to lose the round and/or speak points hit.
I'm open to all logical arguments. I flow but am really a flay judge. E.G. I'm not a policy absolutist about all points being repeated in final focus, for example.
A final note, the students in speech and debate, from my perspective, are inspiring. It's a privilege To help these tournaments happen for the students.
Nayan Agarwal
Leland High School
None
Anjali Ayyappan
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Biju Babu
Archbishop Mitty High School
None
Michael Basanty
Leland High School
None
Noa Baumgarten
Kent Denver
None
Himanshu Baxi
Monta Vista High School
None
Dan Baxter
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Michelle Berlin
Arroyo Grande High School
None
Parul Bhagat
Leland High School
None
Raji Bisht
Monta Vista High School
None
Lily Bolig
San Dieguito Academy
None
Sarah Botsch-McGuinn
Notre Dame San Jose
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:04 AM EDT
Sarah Botsch-McGuinn
email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com
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 16 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 8 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.
Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.
Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!
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.
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:
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.
Blake Boyer
Claremont High School
None
Elsa Bravo
G. Holmes Braddock
None
Suzanne (Joy) Carlson
Spring Creek High School
None
Paul Carroll
Kent Denver
None
LoRainna Carter
University
None
Cass Cass
Denver School of the Arts
Dave Chamberlain
Claremont High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:28 AM PDT
David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.
In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.
In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.
In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.
Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.
Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.
Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.
Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".
Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.
Eugene Chow
Miramonte
None
Dee Crimmel
Rancho Bernardo
None
Oswald D'sa
Monta Vista High School
None
Nicole Dalton
Nova 42
None
Neena Dandia
Archbishop Mitty High School
None
Sangeeta Dange
Archbishop Mitty High School
None
Jason Davidson
Powell HS Independent
None
Mary De Luna
Miramonte
None
Traci Dougherty
Cherry Creek High School
None
Katherine Dureault
Miramonte
None
Howard Ehrenberg
Independent
None
Katie Eichele
Blaine High School
None
Ross Eichele
Blaine High School
None
Donald Etheridge
Mission Vista
None
Lynne Floto
Rancho Bernardo
Last changed on
Mon January 14, 2019 at 4:07 AM PDT
I am a traditional judge. I have judged extensively at high school league Speech and Debate tournaments and States. I value speaks and argumentation in round.
Please do not spread. If I don’t understand your arguments, I will not vote off of them. I appreciate clash in rounds. Directly engage in your opponent’s arguments.
I will vote off of Ks and Theory provided you explain them very very well. I will not vote off of tricks.
I believe that speech and debate is an educational experience. That being said, be respectful to your opponent.
Have fun and enjoy!
Kimberly Fradelis
Monte Vista
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:23 AM PDT
Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience
I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".
I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.
By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?
Brittany Freibott
Redlands High School
None
Anne Fuller
Miramonte
None
Lisa Gallo
Red Mountain High School
None
Michael Gam
Monroe High School
None
Chengyun Gao
Leland 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 MDT
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.
Eldo George
Monta Vista High School
None
Erica Glende
Judge Memorial Catholic High School
None
Garrett Goodenough
Burbank High School
None
Barrett Gough
FSHA (Flintridge)
None
Olivia Haagenson
Clovis East High School
None
Katie Hahn
Northland Christian School
None
Last changed on
Sat February 7, 2015 at 2:57 AM PDT
Hale, David
Instructor at California State University Los Angeles, and East Los Angeles College
Assistant Director of Forensics at La Canada High School (La Canada) since 2014
Assistant Director of Forensics at East Los Angeles College (Los Angeles) since 2014
Coach at Nova42 & Wilshire Academy (Los Angeles) since 2012
Experience
I primarily competed in the realm of interpretation (8 years). However, as a coach my focus has expanded into platform, limited prep, as well as debate (2009 - present). In my time as a debate coach I have had several PuFo teams place at middle school nats. Outside of the activity of speech and debate I have obtained a B.A. and M.A. in Communication Studies. In terms of fields of study I have narrowed my areas of specialization to Rhetoric, Argumentation, and Performance Studies.
General Paradigm
I am a firm believer in the perspective that argumentation is part logic, rhetoric, and dialectic. Specifically I will take into consideration; the logic of the cases presented, whether or not you assessed the available means to persuade me, and lastly if you have attempted to advance the argument by sussing out the most relevant issues. That being said, it is your round and I will do my best to let you determine how you wish me to judge the round -- with the exception of any procedural errors.
Speed/Delivery
In terms of speed I am mildly competent, on a scale of 1-10 I would say my skill is a 6. With regards to delivery, I tend to evaluate what is communicated through the rubric of delivery, arrangement, invention, memory, and style. (If you are unfamiliar with Neo-Aristotelian theory feel free to ask me in round)
Speaker Points
I'll quote from another paradigm that I think best states my view "I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 30 points, second best, 29.5 points, third, 29, and worst, 28.5. I will only give you below a 28.5 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action during the round. I will also deduct an entire point if you are not flowing the majority of the time that you should be. The trend to stop flowing because you are looking at a document (that, mind you, the judge can't see) is gradually excluding us from the rounds....plus, it is creating debates that are more shallow and debaters who think they are "too good" to practice sound debate skills. FLOW THE ROUND." (Megan West)
Technology
Have at it, just make it quick. I won't be forgiving of technological failures.
Sarah Hartman
George Washington CO
None
Silva Hiti
South High- Independent
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 7:58 AM CDT
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. 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 the next president should do the plan or particle accelerators are inevitable so it's try or die to kill billions. 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 will always be important, but the best debates accurately reflect real world discussions at the highest levels.
Jason Hu
San Marino High School
None
Charles Huang
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Thu February 9, 2017 at 5:16 PM EDT
Parent judge, don't speak fast
Bob Ickes
Leland High School
None
Revati Iyer
Monta Vista High School
None
Sunit Jain
Dougherty Valley HS
None
Luciana Joseph
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Amber Justmann
Schurr High School
None
Srinivas Kadiyala
Homestead High School
None
Nitin Khanna
Monta Vista High School
None
Sai Kiran
Monta Vista High School
None
Brandon Knight-Warren
Burbank High School
None
Alex Kuch
Blaine High School
None
Ashok Kumar
Monta Vista High School
None
Andrea Lairson
Bear Creek
None
Andrea Lairson
Bear Creek
None
Robert Lebeda
Chaminade College Preparatory
Last changed on
Tue January 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM PDT
Hello y'all!
It's everyone's favorite time, to read the philosophy of the judge so they can bs their way to winning rounds.
Background:
My background is pretty baller. I did speech for 4 years of high school and was ranked in the state. I did debate for 2 years, mid lay level LD and parli. After I graduated, I started coaching at Chaminade College Prep. To my dismay, they were mostly a policy school. I cried for weeks about this.
I've been the assist head coach there for 2 and half years and now the head coach for the past year. Surprisingly, no one has died. I've now judged rounds of all debate events in California, at almost all levels, except Varsity Policy, because I'm not too masochistic.
Here are some general things, then you can look at event specific things below:
I try my best to not put my beliefs onto the flow. I don't mind any critical arguments, just realize most of you run them wrong/weak links. Don't do that. Be clear and articulate, explain to me how it impacts the round. Don't just say "Dumb judge, I win because of (fancy jargon word)" Explain why you win. If you're going to cross apply, explain how it cross applies. "Cross apply this to all of my contentions because in reality, I have no answers, but want to seem like I didn't drop everything on the flow"
Don't run K's with no clear link. If I feel you've run this K against every aff you've hit, not matter the topic, I won't be happy. Make the link very clear. This comes off as lazy to me.
Speed: I'm alright with speed. Usually by the rebuttal level, I'm fine. I'd say in policy try to go 70% your fastest. LD you can go 80% your fastest. I have yet to have an issue with speed in PF and parli, so don't worry. You'll want to go slower with me, mostly because I tend not to give any indication if I can't understand what you're saying because I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying.
Also, when spreading, there is this thing called enunciating. Do that. I like that.
And in spreading, I know that tends to turn into yelling, try not to do that. As a speech a coach, I feel horrible for your vocal cords that your abusing and misusing. Also, no one likes to be yelled at for an hour.
There's no reason to be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk. Be passionate by all means, but making your opponent cry, or just being a "meanie face" will not make me like you. I will still give you the win in the round, if you won the round, but you can say bye bye speaker award, because your speaks are destroyed. Moral of this story: Win, but let your arguments win, being a jerk doesn't gain you ground on your arguments and it hurts your speaks for me. Being a meanie poo (I'm avoiding curse words, for if some reason my school I work at finds this) isn't educational and won't help you in the real world.
I generally enjoy rounds where the topic and cases are engaged. I'm more of a straight policy/LD person. However, trust me when I say, I'm totally fine with any arguments you want to run, just please make it follow a clear train of logic.
I'm cool with flex prep, if everyone agrees. In the prepared debate events, especially LD and policy, if your opponent is misrepresenting evidence, and you call that out, I love that.
LD:
Yo, LD, I like that event.Since it's LD, I'm a big fan of the values debate. Otherwise just go into policy.
Policy:
If I'm judging a policy round, I'm already crying inside. Don't make those tears turn into a full out sob. Meaning, clearly explain everything, go slow on your tag lines. I won't time "flash" time towards prep, but don't go super slow.
Parli:
I love parli. As a judge, I realize that you've only had 20 minutes of prep. For this reason, unless you cite where you are getting your information, I'll probably assume you're lying.
I'm definitely fine with any critical arguments you want to run. However, I'm not a huge fan of parli in which the topic is ignored entirely. If it's a poorly written topic, call that out, but don't refuse to debate it because you think it's poorly written. If we're getting a resolution on if we need to send aid to the Sahel region, I don't want the aff to come in an talk about how we need to stop oppression in America or an entirely different case for a resolution (unless there is a very clear link to the resolution) Again, if you feel the topic is horribly skewed, explain that in round, but I don't like when the aff comes in with a new topic, It just comes off as lazy and not willing to engage the debate and topic.
Public Forum:
I've never had any issues with speed or anything in Public Forum. Basically, if you're in Public Forum, do you boo. PF you understand me and I love you for that public forum.
Also, because I'm fat, I'm receptive to receiving donuts, cheesecake and fettuccine Alfredo. It won't give you the win, but I'll give me something to cry into during the policy rounds.
Daniel Lee
Leland High School
None
Slawek Ligier
Monta Vista High School
None
Shubhada Limaye
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Gurleen Litt
University
None
Zhilin Liu
Cupertino HS
None
Ashwini Mahajan
Monta Vista High School
None
Bulosan Marievic
American Heritage
None
Anurag Maunder
The Brooks Academy
None
Anne McMurry
Mira Loma High School
None
Paul McNiff
Burbank High School
None
Balasri Mekala
Dougherty Valley HS
None
Scott Mercer
Tahoma Senior High School
None
Preeti Midha
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Wed February 8, 2017 at 7:48 AM PDT
I've been judging lay debate for two years. I'm fluent enough to understand terms like "extend across the flow", but make sure to explain everything when making arguments. I'm fairly competent at flowing, but going too fast means that I'm not able to write everything down. On the topic of speed, please slow down! Speak as you normally would, but anything faster means I either won't be able to understand it or flow it.
Please keep it simple in terms of non-specalized arguments. Reword anything like a DA or K to a contention and make sure to explain it very clearly (if you still think that's the best strategy). Any philosophical debate outside the areas of Util and Deont will need explaining.
Just be a nice person in round. I prefer quality over quantity, so arguments need to be well developed and thoroughly explained in order for me to vote on them. I have no specific argument preference, but anything explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a definite "no-no".
Roadmap: I love roadmaps, but make sure you aren't using too much time that doesn't count towards your speech.
Extensions: Extend arguments yourself. Don't just tell me the card name; explain the specific piece of evidence.
Speed: GO SLOW!
FW: Please have a clear framework that's well explained.
Theory: Don't go here.
Signposting: Do this! It helps me a lot with flowing otherwise arguments just get all jumbled up and mixed together.
Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity.
Prep: Manage your own prep time with your own timer.
Becky Mitchell
Logan High School
None
Bharathi Mohidekar
Lynbrook High School
None
Tenaya Morningstar
Mission Vista
None
Do not do it Moushegian
Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate
None
HongJun Moushegian
Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate
None
Zeque Murillo
Logan High School
None
Srikantan Nagarajan
Cupertino HS
None
Sudha Narayan
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Chris Newcomb
Archbishop Mitty High School
None
Last changed on
Mon October 10, 2016 at 5:44 AM PDT
I love Parli and I love eveverything about Parli. I've been coaching for three years. I coach parli, along with the other debates (except LD). I competed in it all four years of HS. I've been competing in college parli fro two years.
That being said, however, I hate college parli. I personally think the way parli is debated in HS is how it should be. So I understand progressive parli but I don't really like it. So if you're going to do that: 1) you need to give me a better than good reason (and not the typical reasons) I should be listening to that style of debate. 2) if you'r opponents so much as say debating like that is abusive, I'm not going to consider the progressive part of the round, even if the other team completely mishandles the argument, its not fair to a team that doesn't understand progressive debate to have to try and debate it (although if you are that team you should still try to debate it, don't just drop it). 3) if both teams understand progressive parli, go for it.
If you're traditional parli debaters, sweet! There's nothing I'm not going to understand, I've been doing this for while.
I'm fine with speed, and me not writing doesn't mean you're going too fast, so don't get discouraged. I've never seen a HS Parli team that was too fast for me, but if you do go fast and I can't get it all (weird) or if you're unclear, I will yell clear.
I enjoy seeing debaters who are having fun with the debate but also still being professional and serious. I feel that having fun is the next level, so don't come in too serious, this is something you should enjoy, enjoy it. Good luck!
Svasti Patel-Patrawala
Los Altos High School
None
Durgadevi Pisharam
Lowell HS
None
Kumar Ramaiyer
Monta Vista High School
None
Kim Randlett
Miramonte
None
Gita Rao-Prasad
Cupertino HS
None
John Recker
Los Altos High School
None
John Reuter
Burbank High School
None
Last changed on
Sun February 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM EDT
Competed in College Parliamentary (2 years) and Coaching for 2 years.
I'll go through the more common paradign questions. Feel free to ask questions about judging philosophy before round if any.
TL;DR: Tabula Rasa, for the most part. Good with speed. Care about links > impacts. Clear voters needed.
Speed/Speaks
I'm fine with all speed. Fast, slow, in-between. Trust me, I can follow, and if I can't, I'll yell "Clear" in-round so you know. If you're going to spread, make sure that your diction is still clear.
SIGN POST!
I find double-clutching annoying, but if you do it, okay. If you care about speaks, slow down taglines, Big Picture statements, and VOTERS. Also, you should be using up all your time.
If phone goes off in round, you are rude to me or opponent(s), or you leave >1min on clock, expect low(er) speaks. Any of those in excess will probably = 0.
If you give a topical and/or funny joke that doesn't take up a lot of time (READ: NOT CASE), then you will probably get bonus speaks and a laugh. :)
Theory
If you can make it make sense and it wins on the flow, it wins. I am a firm believer that the judge does not create the rules of the debate. Because of this, I tend to focus on the metaframing, detailed link articulations, impact calculation, and have a high threshold for 2AR/2NR warrant extensions. Often I will lower the priority of an argument if it is merely shadow extended in the last speech. The last thing you want is for me to interpret the debate or your evidence; interpret it for me.
I studied Rhetoric and Philosophy for my undergraduate, so I have a pretty decent grasp of most philosophies. Still don't assume I know anything. Explain it, link it, show me why it's important.
Run a K. Don't run a K. I'm good with whatever. If you run a K, at least understand your K.
I will drop debater on T. I don't vote on RVI (VERY VERY rare). Seriously though, don't run the T if topical. Be clear in Interp and Vio.
Judging Style/Preferences
LINKS. LINKS. LINKS. LINKS. I don't care if X leads to nuclear war and human extinction. You need clear and detailed link articulation. At the same time, it is the obligation of both teams to point out poor links. If not, I must assume X happens. I care more about links BEFORE impacts.
I don't vote on RVIs. Provide clear offense in voters. I like theory debate, I like RW debate, I like all debate. Don't drop arguments, and if your opponents do, point it out.
I WANT CLASH! :)
I don't want to do the work. Do the work for me. I will if I have to, but please don't make me. I.E. Weigh the debate out and give me clear voters. I flow, so don't worry if opponent says "they never responded to this, I win" when you clearly did respond.
Rules
If there are any rules violations that you want to point out, I'll make a note of it, and we continue on the debate. We will deal with it after rd.
Maddie Rocker
University
None
Casey Rosenberg
Green Valley High School
None
Terry Rubin
Kent Denver
None
Brittany Samson
Chaminade College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat December 19, 2020 at 5:15 AM PDT
AFA NIET All American 2008.
8 years coaching I.E. and Congress at the high school level.
Competed 4 years collegiate forensics for Northern Illinois University in the events: DI, DUO, PROSE, POETRY, IMPROMPTU, ADS, INFORMATIVE AND POI.
1 year High School Forensics in HI and RADIO speaking for Prospect High School at Sectionals level.
3 year AFA National qualifier(12 qualifications over 3 years in DI, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Info, POI, Impromptu.)
2 year NFA qualifier.
Graduate Second City comedy school. Groundlings Advanced Program.
Professional Actress/Voice Artist/Stand Up Comic.
Debate: 3+ years experience judging POFO, LD, and PARLI. Values: organization, unique arguments, intelligence(specificity), balance.
*Fine with spread in LD/Pofo. Not comfortable judging policy, so not good with spread in policy.
Sriram Samu
Leland High School
None
Devin Sarno
George Washington CO
None
Forrest Sayrs
Kent Denver
None
Pingping Shao
Monta Vista High School
None
Jonathan Sheu
San Marino High School
None
Victoria Shoushtari
Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate
Last changed on
Mon December 5, 2016 at 1:20 PM PDT
For LD Debate I would prefer to see an emphasis on real world examples and connections.
I would also appreciate if debaters kept a moderate pace when speaking. If you speak too fast, I will stop following your arguments.
The most important thing is to draw a big and clear picture to me.
Benjamin Sigrist
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Jacob Smith
Claremont High School
None
Homestead Speech 1
Homestead High School
None
Homestead Speech 2 OR Farzan Hakami
Homestead High School
None
Bikram Srivastava
Monta Vista High School
None
Jenna Stewart
Burbank High School
None
Shari Streb
Monroe High School
None
Sumana Sur
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Tak Tanaka
Leland High School
None
Madhukar Thakur
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Tyler Tippings
Schurr High School
None
Lucas Tung
James Logan High School
None
Joel Underwood
Seattle Academy
None
Camila Vasquez
Palo Alto High School
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 2:53 PM EDT
have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.
Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.
The main gist:
Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.
More details below:
-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.
-(LD) Value Debate:
I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.
-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.
-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)
I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.
TL;DR for all forms of debate:
I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).
I drop points for rudeness.
Vesantha Veepuri
Dougherty Valley HS
None
Ricardo Velasquez
Velasquez Academy
None
Viji Venkat
Leland High School
None
Sankar Venkatraman
Homestead High School
None
Kahler Verrill
Claremont High School
Last changed on
Mon February 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM PDT
Background:
I attended high school Southern California, where I debated for four years. I experimented with the many styles of debate in high school. In various events I have qualified and placed at some of the most competitive tournaments in California and in the country. I am currently studying Economics and Government at a women’s liberal arts college in California.
In General:
Debaters should feel free to run or argue anything they feel is most advantageous in the round, that being said I cannot stand debates where K/T are not executed properly. I insist on fully developed arguments, I require arguments to have warrant/evidence and impacts. Framework is extremely important, that being said, needless time wasting definition debates make no sense unless the opponent is being abusive in their use of definitions. I try to avoid judge interference, unless I think it is necessary for the round.
FAQ:
Speed: Students should feel free to go as fast as they like; however, students with poor speaking ability (less than satisfactory annunciation, etc.) need not hurt their own chances by making it hard for myself or other judges to understand.
Flow: In high school I was a flow debater and remain a flow judge. I expect students to have an extensive flowing ability, particularly at the varsity level.
Other:
I want debate to be an informative and fun experience for students as it was for me. I encourage students to ask for oral critiques assuming the tournament allows.
Sudha Vuyyuru
Dougherty Valley HS
Last changed on
Tue January 19, 2021 at 9:56 PM EDT
School Affiliations:
Dougherty Valley High School
Judging/Event Type:
Speech Events
How many years have you been judging?
7 years
How will you award speaker points to the debaters?
I will look for fluency and well rounded speech.
What sorts of things make a decision at the end of the debate?
Confidence and clarity of thought, expression and conveying the topic to any one with or without knowledge on the topic.
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?
No
Preferences on the use of evidences?
Make sure that they are recent and credible.
Thoughts on real world impacts on the debate?
It is important to articulate the impact.
How do you judge cross examination?
I have no experience in judging debate events
How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?
If the speaker knows what they are saying about. Both truthful arguments and debate skill are equally important.
Todd Wagner
Redlands High School
None
David Wang
Monta Vista High School
None
Karen Wang
Monta Vista High School
None
Rachel Wang
Monta Vista High School
None
Zhongyan Wang
Dougherty Valley HS
None
Angela Wheeless
Archbishop Mitty High School
None
Sandy Wimsatt
San Dieguito Academy
None
Suzanne Wolf
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Jen Woodley
Kent Denver
None
Jill Wu
Monta Vista High School
None
Maria Yang
Leland High School
None
Eddie Young
Kent Denver
None
Don Zehnder
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Wei Zhang
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Victoria Zielinski
Sierra Canyon School
None