Tabroom.com

Western JV Novice Championship

2024 — Bay Area, CA/US

In Person PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Oliver Alferness The Nueva School 1 rounds

Raquel Arambula Stratagem Learning 5 rounds

Sanjana Bajaj The Quarry Lane School 4 rounds

Claire Beamer Palo Alto High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 10:34 AM PDT

Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).

How I judge PF:

Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.

Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.

Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.

I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.

I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.

I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).

How I give speaker points:

1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.

2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.

How I judge anything else:

Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.

Kuldeep Bhandari Foothill High School 1 rounds

Stephan Brooks Brooks Debate Institute 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

Carlos Carrasco Able2Shine 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 8:44 AM PDT

I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice

I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both

Keep me on the chain por favor – ccarrasco244@gmail.com

If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back

general -

- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms

- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it

- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far

———- some more specifics ———-

I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well

Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too

On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.

On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.

Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically

on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible

Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.

Bibhu Chaudhury Foothill High School 3 rounds

Songting Chen Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy 2 rounds

Isabelle Cho Milpitas High School 6 rounds

Alpesh Chokshi Brooks Debate Institute 4 rounds

William Chui College Prep 1 rounds

Deven Cooper The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 8:23 AM PDT

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

Vu Doan Brooks Debate Institute 1 rounds

Ahmad Elassaad College Prep 6 rounds

Ritu Ganguly The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Cayman Giordano College Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 1:00 PM EDT

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament. Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

Policy and LD since 1998
Parli and PF since 2002
WSDC and WUDC since 2009
Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

CX:

Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.

L-D:

The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.

PF:

I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters. If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech. If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech,
SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture. My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.

Parliamentary:

Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
"but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.

I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.

If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.

Limited-Prep

Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.

Interp/Platforms/Congress

How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Deepna Gupta The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Terry He Joaquin Miller Middle School 4 rounds None

John Helgeson Taipei American School MS 6 rounds

Jung Yeun Hong Joaquin Miller Middle School 1 rounds None

Ian Hopkins Taipei American School MS 6 rounds

Charu Jain Joaquin Miller Middle School 4 rounds

Jiao Jiao Joaquin Miller Middle School 4 rounds

Sky Juinio The Nueva School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 2:00 PM PDT

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Bhavana karnik Stratagem Learning 5 rounds None

Tanish Katkar Milpitas High School 4 rounds

Emily La Hire 3 rounds None

Radhika Lanka Milpitas High School 4 rounds

Emily Lee Castro Valley High School 4 rounds

Vivian Leung Palo Alto High School 4 rounds

Lifeng Li Joaquin Miller Middle School 1 rounds

Richard Li Foothill High School 4 rounds

Eve Luo Brooks Debate Institute 6 rounds

Krishiv Manyam The Quarry Lane School 2 rounds

Kylie Nguyen Milpitas High School 5 rounds

Sachi Patel The Quarry Lane School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 11:11 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Sachi (she/her) and I did Public Forum at Quarry Lane for 4 years on the national circuit. I am now a freshman in college and coach for Quarry Lane. Add me to the email chain: spatel0275@gmail.com

-- UPDATE FOR JV POLICY, GBX/BERK --

I'm familiar with policy but don't have a super extensive background in it. I recommend using my PF paradigm below to understand my judging preferences -- the main principles are the same (weigh well, extend properly, send evidence promptly/adhere to prep time, etc.). For specifics, see the first half of this paradigm.

-- Public Forum --

**Send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal BEFORE the speech. I have more tolerance for less experienced debaters, but if you're in JV/varsity and aren't doing this, your speaks will most likely be getting docked.

Tech > Truth

Good with speed as long as it's clear, if you’re going >250 wpm just send a doc. And please SIGNPOST.

Frontline in second rebuttal → If you don’t frontline defense on an argument you’re going for and your opponents extend that defense, I will evaluate it as conceded.

WEIGH!! very very very important. Make it comparative + the earlier the better, I look to the weighing debate first when evaluating rounds. Hearing smart, well-warranted weighing (clever link-ins, prereqs, short circuits, etc.) makes me happy.

Collapse if it is strategic (most of the time it is). This means collapsing on your own contentions/case args but also collapsing on responses on your opponent's case (Quality > Quantity). Note** I am fine with you dropping case and going for turns on their case. It's fun if you can pull it off well (please weigh).

GOOD EXTENSIONS MATTER. Fully extend case args w/ uniqueness, links, impacts, etc. and responses should be well implicated. This can be as simple as pre-writing case extensions and reading them in the back-half, but for some reason it is still poorly done, which is sad :(

Any offense you’re going for in final focus must be in summary. Defense is not sticky.

I don't really listen to cross, won't evaluate anything from cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

Feel free to postround me -- I think it's educational and am more than happy to elaborate on any part of my decision.

Progressive Args:

I will try my best! Generally lean towards disclosure good, paraphrasing bad but I won’t hack for either. I can probably evaluate a decent theory debate … anything outside of that realm run at your own risk.

Speaks:

Strategic round decisions = good speaks !

Not sending speech docs, stealing prep, being disrespectful = bad speaks :(

Finally, this goes without saying but don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped.

Have fun!!!

Sid Pedaballi Brooks Debate Institute 2 rounds

Samba Pedapalli Brooks Debate Institute 4 rounds

SHU PENG Milpitas High School 4 rounds

Les Phillips The Nueva School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM PDT

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Reba Prabhakhar Milpitas High School 6 rounds

Xiaolei Qiu Stratagem Learning 5 rounds None

Haricharan Ramachandra Brooks Debate Institute 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 2:14 PM PDT

Hello! I'm Hari Ramachandra, and I'm looking forward to judging your debates. My goal as a judge is to create an environment where debaters feel challenged and supported, enabling them to showcase their skills and knowledge.

General Philosophy
I believe debate is not only about the strength of your arguments but also how you present them. Clarity, logic, and persuasiveness are key. I value debaters who can clearly articulate their positions, engage directly with their opponents' arguments, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic.

Case Construction
I prefer cases that are well-structured and clearly articulated. Signposting and roadmapping help me follow your arguments more effectively. Your evidence should be current and credible, and I appreciate when debaters can explain the relevance and impact of their evidence in the context of their argument.

Cross-Examination
Cross-examination periods should be used to clarify, challenge, and highlight weaknesses in your opponent's arguments. Respectful and strategic questioning is important. I am not in favor of overly aggressive or disrespectful behavior during cross-ex.

Rebuttals
Rebuttals should directly address your opponents' arguments, pointing out logical inconsistencies, lack of evidence, or why your case stands stronger. I appreciate when debaters can synthesize the debate round and clearly explain why they should win.

Speaking Style
While I value clear and persuasive speech, speed should not come at the expense of understandability. Please speak at a pace where arguments can be easily followed and evidence can be understood. I believe in the importance of both verbal and non-verbal communication in persuasiveness.

Decision Making
My decision will be based on the strength and consistency of your arguments, how well you engage with your opponents' case, and your overall effectiveness in communication. I value debaters who can make strategic choices in their arguments and adapt to the flow of the debate.

Feedback
I am committed to providing constructive feedback to help you grow as a debater. I will focus on both strengths and areas for improvement, with specific examples from the round.

Preferences and Taboos
I do not have a strong preference between policy and value debates but appreciate when the style is appropriate for the resolution.
I don't prefer spreading (speaking extremely fast) if it sacrifices clarity and engagement.
Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior towards opponents or judges will negatively impact your score.

Conclusion
Thank you for reading my paradigm. I look forward to seeing your hard work, critical thinking, and passion for debate. Best of luck, and let's have a great tournament!

Bala Ponnulakshmi Ramakrishnan Brooks Debate Institute 1 rounds

Arnav Ratna College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 1:43 AM PDT

hey yall, im a current senior at college prep and have been doing pf for a few years now

email: aratna2@college-prep.org

add me to the chain, i'd prefer if you don't use google docs to share evidence, but your choice

dont be racist/sexist/homophobic/any -ist or -phobic, i will intervene, debate should be safe before all else

read the underlined stuff if you're in a rush

Novices

Ignore the entirety of this paradigm — try your best to give concise, good speeches, and don't worry about messing up, debate's a fun activity and yall are so cool for having the courage to try it out, if you have any questions feel free to ask before, in-round, or after

I won't care about small technicalities either — if you don't extend your argument, that's fine! (and if you don't know what "extending" means, that's also fine! my role in novice rounds is to be an educator, so ask/clarify anything)

General

tech >>> truth (literally read whatever you want)

Signpost, collapse, and weigh, it makes everyone's lives so much easier

Feel free to postround, it's a good norm

Pls read trigger warnings on graphic arguments

My decision

I evaluate weighing --> argument winning weighing --> argument losing weighing --> presumption,* in that order (more on this in weighing section)

*I presume neg on policy topics, and 1st on benefits v harms topics (feel free to make your own presumption warrants though)

In round

I can follow speed, but a lot of this comes down to clarity — sometimes I'm able to understand someone going 275 wpm if they enunciate clearly, other times I can't understand someone going 250 wpm — as a guideline, I'd say if you're going over 250 wpm, send a doc (I'd prefer you send a doc regardless though)

If I can't understand you, I'll yell "CLEAR" — after 3 times, I won't intervene, and you'll have to hope I understand what you're saying

Second rebuttal has to frontline all offense and has to frontline any defense on whatever argument they're going for (this is non-negotiable — if you don't frontline in second rebuttal I'm basically signing my ballot for the other team)

If you wanna frontline everything in second rebuttal, go ahead, I personally think it's smart if you can pull it off (but don't read blippy frontlines that can be backlined in two seconds)

I won't flow anything overtime (if it's an online tournament, then I'll flow two seconds over to account for lag, and then I'll stop)

I'm not flowing cross, probably won't listen to it that much, if something important is said bring it up in speech or else it's not in my ballot — this also means please don't be rude in cross, it isn't the end of the world if they get the last word

You can skip grand if you want to take 1 min of prep instead

Open cross is fine

Flex prep is fine

Going for a turn is very cool and will make me happy (as long as you weigh it)

Extending stuff

Defense is not sticky, even if you make an argument why it is, I'm not buying it — if I'm evaluating it in final, it has to be in summary

(a mini rant on extensions — PLEASE READ COMPLETELY)

I personally think case extensions are useless — they're just a waste of time and honestly I don't need to hear your argument again, I just need to know what you're going for — that being said, extensions are the norm, SO, for case extensions, extending a semblance of UQ, link, and impact, is ENOUGH — you do NOT need to extend all internal links* — e.g. nuclear war causing extinction through famine — if they were uncontested**

*note: don't take this as a sign that you can get away without extending arguments, I still need you to extend your argument, but I don't care how blippy it is as long as its there

**i still need to be able to tell which argument you're going for i.e. if you read an argument with two links, it needs to be clear which link you're going for

Example: Syria sells captagon for their civil war, affirming solves via a name-and-shame campaign, else it spills over and causes extinction (that's literally enough for me, ASSUMING ALL THE INTERNAL LINKS TO EXTINCTION WERE CONCEDED — if they weren't, either extend them on the extension or extend them while frontlining, just extend them somewhere if they were contested)

Evidence

You need to have cards — if you send a link for the other team to ctrl-f in, your speaks are plummeting, and a simple "this skews us out of the round blah blah" is gonna be an uphill battle for you to beat back

Please don't misconstrue, if it's bad enough I'll vote off it if the other team brings it up

If you take more than a minute to find evidence, either call it an analytic or take prep to find it

Substance

General

I'll vote on anything(spark, climate change good, etc) as long as you're winning the argument

Squirrelly/blippy arguments are fine with me, but I won't be too happy if you blow up a 1 sentence turn from rebuttal into 30 seconds of summary

Weighing

PLEASE weigh, it makes my decision 10x easier (metaweighing is also highly appreciated)

Carded weighing is pretty cool (especially for metaweighing)

I go prereqs/short-circuits* > link-ins > magnitude/scope** > timeframe > probability > other mechs (clarity, s/ol, etc) if I have no way to adjudicate between mechanisms (which is not nice and I don't like doing that)

*these are the same to me (mini-rant on why: if you read an argument like "war short-circuits economic growth because countries can't focus on their econ etc during a war", that is the EXACT SAME as saying “solving war is a prereq to economic growth because countries can't focus on their econ etc during a war")

**i still have no idea how these are different

If reading a link-in, tell me why I prefer your link-in over their case, otherwise I'll probably default them because they're probably more warranted — this can be super short, such as o/w on scope because it goes global, o/w on timeframe because , etc etc — the possibilities are endless, but just give me something

Pet peeve: pls don't call prereqs link-ins! if its a prereq, it needs to interact with their link

Probability weighing is eh — generally I think if a team is winning their argument they have 100% probability, and at this point people use probability weighing and s/ol synonymously

Please don't read new defense in summary and call it "probability weighing" e.g. reading MAD / hotlines as a reason why nuclear war is unlikely — that's impact defense and should be in rebuttal

New weighing in first and second summary: of course (idk why teams always say "tHiS wEiGhIng iS nEw iN sEcOnD sUmMaRy")

New weighing in first final: only if it's responding to second summary's weighing, or if second rebuttal didn't collapse

New weighing in second final: only if it's responding to first final's new weighing (which should only happen for the exception outlined above), but NO NEW WEIGHING that's your case on their case, that should be in second summary (even if first summary didn't collapse, it doesn't matter, second summary can weigh against two arguments)

Framing

Should be read in constructive (preferable) or rebuttal (at the latest) — if not, I'm not evaluating it, summary is way too late for framing

Read whatever framing you want (extinction, sv, etc)

You don't have to respond to framing in 2nd constructive (unless your opponents read reasons why you do, then either respond to those warrants or to the framing)

Progressive

General

If you read any form of prog in novice or jv (framing is fine), and the other team says "I don't know how to respond," that's sufficient enough of a response for me to kick the argument — if you're good enough to win on the theory/K layer, you're good enough to win on the substance layer (obviously doesn't apply to varsity)

*this is assuming there's a varsity division — if not, then you can read prog stuff in jv BUT NOT IN NOVICE, I genuinely think that it pushes kids out of debate when they get hit with a prog argument at their first or second tournament

A bit unorthodox, but I honestly don't care if you extend your theory/K/whatever in rebuttal (I know some judges care, so do whatever you want, but I won't drop the other team for not extending their stuff in rebuttal)

For theory, topical Ks, and IVIs, these must be read the speech after the violation/link — if your opponents paraphrase in 1st constructive, you can't read a paraphrasing shell in 2nd rebuttal (unless your shell is "Debaters must not paraphrase in rebuttal", then its fine)

Theory

Pretty comfortable evaluating this, I default no RVIs* and competing interps (and drop the debater)

*if you're going for RVIs good, then PLEASE make sure the argument you're going for on the theory layer matches** with the RVI warrant

**Example: the RVI warrant you read is the warrant that "winning a turn on the theory layer is a reason to vote for us just like normal substance", then you go for "counterinterp: teams can paraphrase if they have cut cards" — this CI isn't a turn, an example of stuff that would fall under that warrant would be something like "counterinterp: teams must paraphrase"

Friv theory is fine but my threshold for responses is lower and I'm probably more lenient with reasonability

I defaulttext > spirit, so I'm fine with you reading squirrelly "we meets", etc

I think disclosure is good (OS is slightly better), paraphrasing is bad, trigger warnings are good for graphic arguments (debatable for non-graphic arguments), and round reports are cool (but not amazing) — won't hack for any of these though

I STRONGLY prefer shell format — paragraph format is just a little imprecise and is basically an IVI at that point

The ONLY time 1st summary should have to introduce theory is if 2nd rebuttal paraphrases, otherwise I really don't see a reasonable justification, it just makes the round messy and makes my life a lot harder

Kritiks

General

Please send speech docs regardless of how slow/fast you're going

I default theory/T > K but please do your own weighing

If you read a paraphrased K (why would you ever do this) your speaks are plummeting

Topical Ks

Hit a few, decently comfortable evaluating these but I'm not too familiar with a lot of the literature, so if you're reading high-level stuff, make it really clear to me as a judge (which also means you probably shouldn't spread, at least from rebuttal onwards)

Most comfortable with security and cap, but that shouldn't discourage you from reading other stuff, just be aware that I'm less familiar

Non-topical Ks

Also hit a few, less comfortable here, I know how these function generally but I prefer if you treat me as a lay/flay and make my role as a judge super clear

I've noticed a lot of teams in PF really don't do a good job on the ROTB warrants — I think ballot piks are SUPER strategic when responding to these Ks

Tricks

I used to not like these, but honestly I think these are pretty fun (you probably still won't get good speaks if you read them, but it'll make me smile and I'm totally fine voting for them)

Goes without saying, but tricks must be in constructive

IVIs

These are fine BUT if it's something like a paraphrasing IVI, just please read the shell instead, it makes the round much more precise

Speaks

I'll start at a 28.5-ish and go from there, speaks are super subjective so I hate giving low speaks

In general, your speaks will only go down if you're annoying in cross, or if you do anything else mentioned above in my paradigm (like having URLs instead of cards, etc)

IGNORE BELOW FOR WESTERN

Boring speaks

+0.2 speaks if you send speech docs for constructive

+0.2 speaks if you send speech docs for rebuttal

+0.2 speaks if you disclose (you can just tell me before the round, I'll probably double-check but just to make sure you have a wiki page and there's something there)

+0.2 speaks if you don't paraphrase constructive

+0.2 speaks if you don't paraphrase rebuttal

Fun speaks

+0.5 if you turn when reading a turn

+0.5 if you make a bad pun

+0.5 if you

Other paradigms

This guy knows what he’s saying

Amit Rawlani Brooks Debate Institute 4 rounds

Anne Saxonov College Prep 1 rounds

TaNiyia Smith College Prep 5 rounds

Ajay Srivastava Stratagem Learning 5 rounds None

Kaitlyn Tchang Castro Valley High School 4 rounds

Mansi Tuli The Quarry Lane School 2 rounds

Veena Vaidyanathan Joaquin Miller Middle School 1 rounds None

Ramkumar Venkatesan Brooks Debate Institute 6 rounds

Dinesh Vyas Franklin High School 2 rounds None

Simon Yip Joaquin Miller Middle School 1 rounds None

Ella Yu College Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 6:40 AM PDT

Novice

I'm a flow judge, which means the best way for you to win is to pick your least challenged argument, then explain why it wins you the round by the backhalf.

I know which arguments have been challenged and by how much since I've been flowing, so your job is to do the challenging and explain why you win. Yes, you can and should be very explicit about this! Ideally, final focus should be you writing my RFD for me.

To explain why you win the round, weigh, weigh, weigh. This means telling me why I should prioritize solving for your harm before our opponents' harm. (Note: this is why defending your case from your opponents' challenges is important — I need to believe you can solve your harms before I can prioritize voting for them.)

Prioritization can be for a number of reasons, such as your impact affecting more people or being more urgent/time-sensitive. Weighing needs to be comparative, i.e. tell me not just why your harm is important but also why your opponents' isn't.

If any of this is confusing please ask me about it before round! My job as a judge is to hopefully be educational to you.

**If you're at Western please ignore everything below lol

Nat Circ

tldr: avg tech judge who dislikes intervening with some experience in more progressive styles

Procedural preferences:

Email chain for ev sharing, add eyu@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org
Flex prep and open cross are good with me
Please send speech docs; these don't need to include analytics (I won't flow off them, they just make ev sharing so much quicker)
Sit/stand, whatever makes you more comfortable
If you have an off-time road map keep it short; instead signpost well
Do not spread against someone who has asked you not to

General: I dislike when the round becomes blippy responses that just get recontextualized in each subsequent speech because teams try to win every voter. To not get here, do ballot writing. Collapse and explain why you win the round. To that end, this is why I'm more persuaded by a slower and strategic backhalf.

For me to recognize an arg as a voter, it needs to have:

1] Sufficient warranting/ev

2] Sufficient frontlining

3] Importance in the round through weighing

Extensions: You don't need to extend until backhalf but trust that I will be looking for a uniqueness, link, and impact when you do. There's no need to extend every warrant/internal link if they're conceded.

Evidence: While evidence quality is probably important a warranted card > warranted analytic > unwarranted card. I won't look at ev during the round unless I'm told to, and I only resort to looking at ev as a last resort to resolve clash. That's intervene-y and I don't like doing it, so tell me earlier on why I pref your card.

If your opps' ev is breaking a "norm" (e.g. undisclosed, brackets, etc.), you can run a shell. If your opps break a rule (distorted, non-existent, or clipped ev), you can stake the round and I'll proceed in a typical ev challenge. For you to win the challenge, I need to know the violation was done with malicious intent. I won't hack if it doesn't become an issue in round but if you drop horrendous cards in the email chain I'll drop your speaks.

Speaks: In my mind 30s are given only to novices I really like and kids who innovate and do something creative in debate. If you're just really good I'm sorry but enjoy your 29.9.

Presumption: I default neg on policy-worded resolutions, and first-speaking otherwise.

Theory: I personally find theory debates to be boring but I'm capable of judging them. I default to DTA, no RVIs, CI > reasonability, spirit > text, theory uplayers substance, education > fairness. To make me happy, please ground your standards in the round. I.e. don't read the same predictability stuff every time you read the shell. Instead, explain why your opponent's specific violation is unpredictable. I lwky think friv theory is funny.

Ks: I like Ks because I think they can be very creative and fun to judge. I'm familiar with sec, cap, fem IR, and queer Ks, but if you're running psychoanalysis/deconstruction/postmodern Ks treat me like I'm dumb. Hold my brain in the palm of your hand like an egg because it really is that size and it really is that fragile. If the K debate happens I'll pretend it's policy. Yeah lwky the neg's alt is too counterplanny for pf and yeah lwky aff's perm has too much fiat for pf but if nobody says anything I won't. That being said, I'll prefer Ks being run by neg speaking second, like in policy.

For me to be happy with your K:

1] Have a link that is nuanced and very res/reps specific rather than just "state-action"

2] Actually run framework that is strategic and theoretically justified. The alt is the weakest part of the K, but if you win framework and links to your opp's reps, I don't care about the alt because you probably win. Every time a team runs a K w/o answering framework questions an angel loses its wings.

3] Be very explicit about what the ballot means in the round. At minimum, a ROTB needs to tell me the conditions for deciding who gets the ballot. But I'm most convinced by ROTBs that are clear about my role and what casting the ballot does. Without instruction I default to being a policymaker who compares worlds.

Performance: I'm probably not your judge for this. I have a hard time believing voting for you does something.

Tricks: I'm game to eval paradoxes and skep but not unwarranted blips that rely solely on ur opp missing them. I would like to see more tricks besides these because I honestly think that a "tricky" arg is often js smth very interesting and creative.

Miaoya Zhong The Quarry Lane School 4 rounds

Wei Zhong Joaquin Miller Middle School 6 rounds None

Eric Zhu College Prep 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Western JV Novice Championship

2024 — Bay Area, CA/US

In Person PF Paradigm List

Judges