Tabroom.com

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2015 — CA/US

JV Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Trevor Anderson Saint Joseph Notre Dame HS 5 rounds None

Christina Arias Saint Joseph Notre Dame HS 4 rounds None

Giovanni Ayala Rose city 6 rounds None

Fauja Bariana Milpitas 3 rounds None

Julie Boettner C.K. McClatchy High School 6 rounds None

James Bushman University 6 rounds

Jonica Bushman University 6 rounds None

Jesus Caro Cypress Bay High School 6 rounds None

Olivia Casey Palo Verde High School 3 rounds None

Kevin Cheng Lynbrook High School 3 rounds None

Niki Commins College Prep 6 rounds None

Troy Cummins Milpitas 6 rounds None

Lyn Davies Denver School of the Arts 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 7:44 PM UTC

Hi all. Thanks for reading my paradigm. I started and coached the Speech and Debate team at Denver School of the Arts (Denver Public Schools) from 2007 to 2020 and have been judging mostly policy debate since 1984. I would like to think I have embraced the authenticity of all debate and endorse the student driven evolution of the events.

For 2023 Nationals, I've been hired to judge World Schools Debate. I have watched two practice rounds and viewed two national finals online. I like this event and want to judge it fairly in a way that supports debaters. That said, I still plan to flow heavily because it is what I know. My CX/LD paradigm information is below. I realize WS does not use the same terms, but it seems that those terms have been replaced with things that mean basically the same thing such as substantives, layers, models and burdens. I appreciate clear burdens (which I understand as framework) and models (which I understand as plans or criterions). If you bring these up, please thread them throughout the round and signpost when you are referencing them. Anything that tells me how you want me to evaluate the round is super helpful. Even though this type of debate seems less heavy on evidence and sources, I still need warrants. It is very hard for me to vote on arguments that fail to really go past the claim level. I appreciate a good, clean performance. I don't think anything is ever lost in showing respect for your opponents. You all deserve that from me and from each other.

I appreciate any high school student who is taking their weekends to engage in discourse so before the round begins you have my utmost respect.

Topicality: Feel free to run this though I rarely vote on it unless I think a particular aff is abusive in its treatment of the topic. Even if your case is more narrative in nature, the narrative should in some way acknowledge the topic.

If you run a narrative or Kritik, run it as a one off (perhaps with brief topicality but nothing else) and give me a lot of specificity. Tell me how your position functions, link it to the aff or neg and the alt needs to be clear and well thought out-not just a do nothing or reject all instances.

I'll listen to anything within reason. I also enjoy straight up policy rounds. When debaters execute well, I've found myself voting for arguments and positions I never thought I could consider. That means I'm here to listen to you and will try to set my own political biases aside as long as your advocacy is not lacking in humanity.

Debate is ultimately a performance to me, so make sure that your arguments and ethos are in harmony-please don't run polar opposite positions on neg. I'm not a fan of disembodied arguments; I think you should believe what you argue.

Clear speed is OK, but kind of silly. If you are going to make a complex argument to me, why would you self undermine it by making it so quickly it can't be processed by someone with four college degrees? Give me words and I'll flow everything the best I can. No, I won't yell clear, but your partner can.

Feel free to ask me questions prior to the round.

Jon Denzler Kent Denver 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 5, 2015 at 4:34 AM EDT

I have 10+ years of policy debate experience as a competitor, coach, and judge. My own view of debate have changed as I started as a CP/Da debater and am now very appreicate of innovative affirmatives and negatives. Without being too cheesy debate is about education and critical thinking meaning that the debate space is a safe space. I believe that the debate space is a space where change can occur, and think that debaters have an obligation to push the social justice agenda. I don't define what this is, but allow you to work on your own engagement on the issues that matter to you.

Having spent time in other formats as a coach and judge I tend to prefer "manner" more than other judges, not necessarily in the speech but how you present yourself in round. This means that I'm not judging you on if you wore a tie or not, but rather how did you engage with your opposition. Presentation of an argument affects how I engage with it.

AFF - I am open to "K affs" but may be a bit more skeptical at first with a case I have not heard yet. Not saying don't run it but don't assume I am where you are on this topic. On this I am more familair with class issues as opposed to race/gender so be willing to give me a framework or treat me as you would a high school freshman on your team.

NEG - anything goes

I am open to any arguments as long as they were well represented within the speeches, or are clear enough to make it onto the flow. Other than that there is little to say, and I consider myself a "tabula rasa" judge, but if no other weighting criterion is offered by either team I defalt to a policy making framework.

Only other notes:

Ts must prove in round abuse. Out of round is not enough of a voter.

Ks need to be explained outside the cards and in the own debaters voice. I.e a surface level knowledge will not be enought to persaude me. I dont do work for debaters and will decide based on the flow.

Speed - fine with speed, will yell "clear" if I can't understand. Does not happen often but be warned.

Brandon Dixon The Harker School 6 rounds

Jacob Droeger College Prep 6 rounds None

Katherine Everitt Vashon 6 rounds

Glenda Ferguson Coppell High School 4 rounds None

Aly Fiebrantz Cypress Bay High School 6 rounds

Gabriel Gangoso Skyline 6 rounds

Brandon Garcia C.K. McClatchy High School 6 rounds

Bryan Gaston Heritage Hall School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 9:11 AM CDT

*Updated for 2024*
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I have decided to try and give you as much information about my tendencies to assist with MPJ and adaptation.

**NEW NOTE, I may be old but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL, some teams are reading cards with such few things highlighted it is amazing they actually got away with claiming the evidence as tagged. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. If you didn't read it in a speech I will not read the unhighlighted sections and give you the full weight of the evidence--you get credit for what you actually say in the speech, and what you actually read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting point it out, and make an argument about it---if the highlighting is really bad I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But, you can still beat framework with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs --good (better to have a solvency advocate than not), process CPs a bit different. It is a very debatable thing for me but topic-specific justifications go a long way with me.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Email Chain access please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

9. The debate should be a fun and competitive activity, be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy if you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But I get it, sometimes you have to run a process CP or a more generic K.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach, who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue and one of the things I will be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking and while flowing I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 20 years if HS judging they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like it. Negative teams typically underutilize this. I believe well planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, it's all good.

Topicality/FW: I tend to think competing interpretations are good unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I tend to evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each teams theory impacts and impact defense. The interpretation debate is very important to evaluating theory for me. For a team to drop the round on theory you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing-- it's pretty important, especially in a round where you have a soft-left Aff with a big framing page vs a typical neg util based framing strat.

Have fun debating!

Chris Glaittli Bingham 6 rounds

Trevor Greenan Hire

Last changed on Wed October 20, 2021 at 9:32 AM PDT

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.
The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.
I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.
Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.
I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.
I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.
I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?
This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.
As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.
I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.
I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.
I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.
I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.
I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.
I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.
I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.
Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.
I default to fiat being durable.

Please give me specific texts.
Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.
I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.
I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.
Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.
I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.
I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.
Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).
What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.
All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Kushal Haran Hire 6 rounds

Haley Hayashi College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 20, 2015 at 1:50 AM PDT

Hi all, I’m Haley Hayashi.

Edison High School '14

UC Berkeley '18

Rounds judged on ocean topic: 16

I have only judged a few tournaments on the oceans topic so please explain acronyms and other arguments that aren’t central to the topic.

I debated for 3 years in high school at a public school with little to no debate funding. Because of this I had minimal exposure to circuit debate in high school. What I may lack in circuit training and experience, I try to make up for in focus and how much I do care about being a good judge. I had some dabblings reading ks in hs but I was no expert which means if you do want to read critical arguments you need to go heavy on the explanations.

-Speed is fine. If I cannot understand you I will say clear and you won't see me flowing what you are saying.

-I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument, but it is impossible for me to be 100% impartial to every argument. I will do my best to not bring my own opinions into the debate.

-Try to be amicable to each other. Excessive rudeness will not only annoy me, but will cost you speaker points.

-I don’t count flashing as prep, but don’t abuse that.

-I think Kritiks can be interesting and lead to good debates but I am not an expert so you will need to go heavy on explanations and light on jargon.

-Speed is fine but I am not the fastest flower. If I can’t understand you I’ll say clear. If you want me to listen to your argument, make sure I can understand you. So signposts are greatly appreciated.

-overviews are great

Ts, CPs, and Das: All good arguments to run in front of me. To win on T you need to prove in round abuse.

Theory/FW: Needs to be contextualized and clearly articulated why it is important enough to vote on and what the other team did wrong.

Ks: As I said above, be sure to clarify and explain a lot, especially if it is a more obscure k.

-The team with the best analysis and explanation is much more likely to win.

If there is something you would like clarification on or if you have questions, feel free to ask me.

Chad Hayden Clovis North High School 6 rounds None

Judith Hill-Weld Nevada Union 3 rounds

Alex Ho Rowland Hall St Marks 6 rounds None

Albert Hsiung Hire None

Alice Huang Kamiak High School 3 rounds

Ruochen Huang University of California, Berkeley None

Daniela Iftimie Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate 6 rounds None

Arman Jaffer Hire

Last changed on Sun October 29, 2017 at 5:14 AM PDT

2017 Parli Update: lol I did Parli at Cal. Policy, K's, performances, speed, etc it's all good.

-----------------------------

2013:

I debated circuit LD for Mountain View High School, graduating in 2013. I am conflicted with Mountain View and Los Altos High School.

The following is a pretty concise, hastily put-together version of my paradigm, so if you have any questions at all, I encourage you to ask me questions prior to your round.

First and foremost, please debate how you are comfortable debating. A good debate is a good debate, whether it’s theory, larp or on the standards level. I do not aim to impose my debate views on you.

Speed is fine, but I was never the best flower, so PLEASE slow down on tag lines and card names. Reading tags at conversational speed will make me love you. I will yell “clear” or “slow” if needed.

I default to truth-testing, but will evaluate the debate with what ever paradigm is won. I don’t mind a deviation from the value criteria model of evaluating arguments, but I need some sort of link to the ballot (whether it be an a priori, K, theory or something else.)

For theory, I default to competing interpretations. If you run reasonability, please give me a threshold on what is reasonable. I will vote on frivolous theory and understand its strategic value, but if you can win without it, I'd prefer if you did so.

In general, I am open to most kinds of arguments, so long as they have a claim, warrant and impact. I debated the standards a lot in high school, so if you want to run metaethics/epistemology/ontology/etc arguments, I'm probably a good judge for that.

I try to gage speaker points on how much each debater contributed to creating a debate that I actually want to watch. If I'm cringing because you don't understand your case or are making key drops, you probably won't get high speaks. Taking risks and making clever responses will get you high speaker points. Also being nice kind of works too.

Erik Johannes Oregon Episcopal School (OES) 6 rounds

Nathan Johnston Trinity Valley 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 4:24 AM EDT

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

natassija jordan oliver University of California, Berkeley None

Satveer Kler James Logan High School 3 rounds

Daniel Lee Leland High School None

Jessica Lee St. Vincent de Paul 6 rounds None

Shannon Lin June Jordan 6 rounds None

Mark Little Oregon Episcopal School (OES) 6 rounds

Louinn Lota Chaminade College Preparatory 3 rounds None

Amber Manning Tigard High School 6 rounds

Annie Marple Milpitas 6 rounds None

Melanie Miller Timberline High School 6 rounds None

Iqraz Nanji Barstow School 6 rounds

Michael Nguyen Westview High School 6 rounds None

Harrison Noah Emery 3 rounds None

Srikar Pami Coppell High School 6 rounds

Sandy Patrick Cheyenne East High School 3 rounds

Adam Pramono Bellarmine College Preparatory 5 rounds None

De'ray Preston The Harker School 6 rounds

Andy Ridgeway Boise High School 6 rounds

Keenan Rodewald San Dieguito Academy 6 rounds

Nancy Romo Alliance Stern Math and Science School 6 rounds

Robyn Rose Lake Oswego Senior High School 6 rounds

Alan Santos Wallenberg 6 rounds

Carey Scanlon Nevada Union 3 rounds None

Mike Shackelford Rowland Hall St Marks

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:48 AM MDT

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Khalid Sharif University of California, Berkeley 6 rounds

Daniel Shatzkin Cypress Bay High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 15, 2024 at 6:22 AM MDT

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

Victoria Shoushtari Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate 6 rounds

Kimberly St. Julian Crosby High School 4 rounds

Stephen Sulyma University of California, Berkeley 6 rounds None

Jon Sussman University of Chicago Lab Schools 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 29, 2016 at 1:48 PM EDT

Jon Sussman

New Trier '13

University of Chicago '17

TOC Debater my senior year, around 4 or 5 bids if I remember correctly. During my first year in college I was one of the two head coaches of the UCLab Academy debate team.

Overall note: asymptotically approaching tabula rasa is a goal, but as some of my peers have pointed out, I have notable preferences:

Affirmatives: Don't need a plan, but even if you are critical I'd like to see an advocacy or central thesis of some sort. I ran non-plan affirmatives in my debate career but always found it easier to tow the line on the framework debate. That being said, framework is a question of topicality, and I much prefer that interpretation to debates about consequentialism and what not. I don't believe a plan is necessary to be topical, although in a lot of cases is sufficient.

Critiques: Read them and make your link and turns case arguments specific. Sure, there are three stock arguments to make against the permutation, but without specific links I am sympathetic to a well explained permutation. Affirmatives shouldn't drop tricks because, as it is my first (now second) year, I am predisposed to vote on technical concessions that I can trace through the debate (even more so now that I am less involved).

Counter-plan: I detest 50 state fiat, but if you must, go for it. Anything else is up for debate, although I have a very high threshold (hopefully this answers ever GBN novices question about theory) for plan inclusive CPs. This includes mandate PICs unless you get a cross ex concession. That being said, I also have a relatively high threshold for conditionality. If you draw a line in the sand and have good impact calculus, you should be good, but make sure it doesn't look like you got cornered into going for it.

Disadvantages: my favorite part of debate past a good case turn.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, and you are normally better off if you are on the side of truth but that doesn't have to be the case. My partner was a T hack so I am semi-up-to-date on the technicalities of certain standards debates. Not my favorite debates to watch but if done well are some of the most rewarding.

Do a lot of case debate, turn the affirmative on different levels and do specific warrant comparison. You will be rewarded, I promise.

My email is jondsussman@gmail.com and I am willing to respond to emails about debates in which I have judged you.

A lot of the older jokes on this page seemed irrelevant so I deleted them. If you have any specific questions let me know, and I will answer to the best of my ability.

D'mani Thomas University of California, Berkeley

Last changed on Sun February 17, 2019 at 11:26 PM PDT

I have been doing policy debate for about 6 years now. Did 2 years in high school, debated for 1 semester at UC-Berkeley, and then ended up coaching for 4 years in college. I have a lot of experience with K debate, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for a T violation or a fire framework debate.

For evaluating K debates - Please make sure you contextualize your arguments into the world of the affirmative. ( my theory says this which implicates the affs ability to do x) Read whatever you want, but just make it clear why and how I should vote.

* amendment as of february 17th * : read whatever you want, but make sure you can contextualize your theory into a real world example. I'm totally down to theorize outside of current realities/ mindsets/ whatever, but if the debate becomes too theoretical

( deleuze v deleuze) or even afro pess v afro pess then i'll get lost. I'm not the judge in the back that knows everything. This becomes an issue when teams try and re read authors against folks in order to win super intricate links... which of course - only make sense if you are really deep into the literature or it gets really explained in the block. These concrete examples help me latch onto to your argument and better evaluate.

For evaluating T/Framework debates - Blippy violation extensions are intimidating and will end up on the flow, but if you don't impact them out in front of me, then I can't really do much for you when it comes time for an RFD. Predictability might make it to the end of the debate, but if you haven't done work on why the debate was hurt then why vote neg?

Policy vs K debates

These may come down to " extinction on the physical plane vs death on some sort of identity axis". If the policy aff beats the k in explaining why their framing comes first or outweighs - i'll vote aff. Please do the work of winning why yours comes first ( for either side) like how pusha T did to Drake - it just makes it really easy for me once rfd time comes.

Policy heavy debates --> you need to explain scenario stories very explicitly in rebuttals if that is your specific reason for winning. Easy way to get my ballot is to slow down for a second and break down the internal links between your argument. If you don't have a " HELLO - judge wtf" moment in your rebuttal ( especially for LD) , then these can be hard to judge debates for me.

If i'm ever giving an RFD, and stop mid sentence. Then it means I've worked through some random argument and am now changing my mind about how I feel usually. Or i'm just awkwardly re framing something. I may end up "re nigging" on my decision especially when tournament staff is being pushy/ forcing us out of rooms/ threatening folks with tournament fees if they don't submit a ballot or evacuate a space in time. So, yes to the few who I had to force out of rooms sorry. I try to hold myself and others to a high standard of theorization and sometimes that just takes longer than we have.

Van Anh To The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 25, 2017 at 6:09 AM GMT

*disclaimer: some of this has been "borrowed" from other judges' philosophies as to not reinvent the wheel*

BACKGROUND:

I competed in policy debate in high school with the Southern California Urban Debate League. During that time, my skill-set and argumentation repertoire tended to lean towards more traditional forms of policy debate. I have a masters in Education and taught English at Crenshaw High School and coached their debate team for 6 years. I am currently a public defender/trial attorney for the Orange County Public Defender's Office. I have judged many high school rounds at all different levels since 2002 and very few college debate rounds. I have been judging very rarely in the last couple of years however.

General Philosophy

Don’t feel like you’re obligated to change your strategy because of me. Debate shouldn’t be about the judges and people who have since been done with the activity, but about the current debaters; I enjoy a good politix/xo debate just as much as a one off k debate any day. However, I do feel that the round should at least be remotely connected to the topic in one way or another and I feel that debaters should be free to think of how they can connect what they want to talk about to the topic.

SPECIFICS:

Traditional AFF’s: Run em. Love big economy/hege impacts. Have solid link/internal link chains and come decked out with overviews for each speech that extend/explain your case.
Critical AFF’S: Love em. One thing I will say, though, is I usually prefer a critical affirmative which has at least some relation to the resolution, meaning: if you’re going to run a critical AFF (whatever variation of), try not to just get up and read something completely random. Instead, read critical affirmatives that criticize the topic, have specific topic links, as well as solid reasons which merit justifying a critical affirmative. Be creative - you don't need a plan - just some connections, even tangential ones, engages the topic and makes the rounds more interesting.
Framework: I’m a little iffy about framework debates. This is mostly because it usually becomes a bunch of blocks read back and forth without much explanation. If you really want to engage a framework debate please make sure to explain it in depth to me and really explore the merits behind how you think the debate should be framed.
Disadvantages: Run em. Make sure you have a central overview for each speech and can keep up with the line-by-line. I have a special place in my heart for good politics debates or debates where the DA in question accompanies a good CP.
Counterplans: CP’s are pretty great. I’m down with Agent Cps, Timeframe CPs, Advantage CPs, but love a good word PIC or solvency PIC.
Kritiks: Make sure you have clear links/impacts and an alt for your K. Overviews can’t hurt you, either. Something I’ve noticed about high school debaters running the K is that they often have a hard time in big k debates like cap k debates where the 2AC pummels the k flow with perms and impact turns. My advice is as follows: if they K is going to be the argument you’re going for in the 2NR (if you’re a one off K team), split the block strategically. That is, the 2N reads an overview and handles the link/impact debate while the 1NR handles the alt/perm debate. (Note: Please see Paragraph 2 of Final Thoughts for specific K information).
Theory: If you’re gonna debate theory, debate it well. Again, try not to just read opposite blocks without making connections. Keep up with the line by line, impact out the theory flow. I tend to err neg on theory but should the neg drop theory, don’t be afraid to go all in – I’ll def sign the ballot your way.

PAPERLESS DEBATE:

Paperless debate did not exist when I was a debater although I appreciate the efficiency it provides. However, I have found that as a judge, I get extremely annoyed with bad paperless debate, and as a result I’ve established a few paperless guidelines:

If you need to flash, then you need prep: Prep time does not stop when you’re ready to start flashing evidence, it stops when the other team has the flash drive in their hands.

Paperless/Paperless debates: in the event of a paperless team debating a paper team, I defer the responsibility of having a viewing computer to the paperless team. If the other team carries around tubs full of tangible paper evidence for you to hold and see, the least you could do is make sure they can see the evidence you use against them.

Failure to adhere to the above paperless debate guidelines will result in the docking of your speaker points beginning from a tenth and increasing after the failure of adhering to the first warning. Nobody wants to sit and waste time they could possibly be judging an amazing and engaging debate round staring at a debater struggle to open a file you didn’t save in the correct format.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

I'm comfortable with admitting my limitations and embracing my shortcoming. That being said, I should probably mention that while i don't often run into this problem, I have judged rounds where I had a very hard time flowing arguments being delivered at a very high speed. This by no means is me telling you you can't spread; instead, spread but be CLEAR and conscious that if you are going TOO fast, I might not catch some of what your saying (a clear sign of this is when you jump from one flow to another and it takes me a little while to finish writing the argument on the current flow before jumping onto the new flow).

Another thing I should include is that while I love hearing interesting K's, I'm not as well versed on all of the rez-to-rez debate philosophers (aside from the usual suspects like Nietzsche, Foucault, Heidegger) but that doesn't mean I won't be able to judge them. Just be aware that since I started working and going to law school I do not have the privilege of siting around reading philosophy and delving into the trendiest K authors. If you think I'm struggling with your argument, include an overview with a clear summation of the argument and do extra detailed link and impact work on the line by line. I promise you I am trying my best to understand your arguments and I am not dumb but you will need to put in the work if your argument is especially complicated. To me, the quality and value of an argument is not increased based on how few people understand what it means.

In conclusion: explain, connect, and extend. Tell me the story of the round by connecting your arguments together. Be competitive, be powerful, be passionate.

Wyllene Turner Oakland Tech 6 rounds

Luis Valle Lowell HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 1, 2022 at 2:36 AM PDT

Hello! I am Luis and I debated 4 years in high school for Lowell (2010-2014) and graduated from Berkeley in 2018. Given I've been out of the game for a bit please slow down (especially on the tags) and be extra clear. Also keep in mind I'm not an expert on the topic as you all debating are so don't assume I know all the acronyms/common affs for the year.

Nontraditional: I strongly believe that the affirmative must defend they hypothetical implementation of a topical plan by the United States federal government. It will be difficult to convince me otherwise and a mildly competent extension of framework will be sufficient for me to vote against a non-traditional affirmative.
Translation: Strike me

Topicality: I don’t have any strong feelings here. Specificity of a case-list and exactly what their interpretation allows are appreciated.

Theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team except in the case of condo, unless I am told otherwise. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed.

Critiques are either really good or really bad. The better they link, the better and the higher your odds of success. This also means you're going to have to explain more. I read big Ks in high school and pretty familiar with them but if you're reading something less common you might have to do a bit more work.

Disadvantages are good. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch. Impact calc impact calc impact calc.

Counter plan debates are fun. Even though cheater counter plans (earmarks, recommendation, xo, etc.) were my bread and butter in high school I really do not enjoy these debates although I understand their strategic benefit. That said, if you find an aff-specific solvency advocate for any of these I will be very impressed and think you’re pretty shielded from theory if you say it’s grounded in the literature base.

Case is essential. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the 1ac bioterror impact card is Ochs and the neg reads 3 cards that there is no motive and the 2ac says “extend Ochs, bioterror causes extinction”, they do not have an advantage. If the 1nc reads some cards on misallocation/cronyism/etc dooming federal projects and the 2ac extends that their tech is feasible there is zero risk of solvency when this is impacted properly. While impact defense is good, internal link/solvency presses are even better.

Cross-X is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or something. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.

I don’t call for many cards so if their link ev is terrible you need to say that

I’ll yell clear three times, then I stop flowing you and do my own work.

How to get better speaker points in front of me:
-I like to reward hard working debaters and case specific neg strats/hyper-specific link turns showcase this to me a lot more than XO/Ptx
-Be clear
-Be smart
-Compare evidence
-A little snarkiness never hurt (and is encouraged) but don’t be mean
-Exploit their contradictions! If they read neolib and a trade da concede the trade impact and you only need half as many neolib answers!

If you can tell whose wiki I stole +speaks.

Leah Villanueva Los Angeles Leadership Academy 6 rounds None

Rachel Wear University of California, Berkeley 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.

Kyle Weber Clovis North High School 6 rounds None

Kevin Woodruff Balboa 3 rounds

Kevin Woodruff Lionel Wilson 3 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2015 — CA/US

JV Policy Paradigm List

Judges