Tabroom.com

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2025 — Berkeley, CA/US

JV LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sanjay Adhikesaven Pleasanton Independent 2 rounds

Anees Ahmed Dougherty Valley Bridge 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 2, 2024 at 11:55 AM PDT

Hello Speech and Debate enthusiasts -

I am a parent judge and have been judging Speech (primarily) and Debate events for the past 4+ years.

Summary:: When judging any event, my philosophy for ranking students high or low is subject to the rules / guidelines that are relevant to that event. Aside from that I am listening to your flow, observing your body language and most importantly your attitude towards fellow competitors, judge and audience.

Debate:

Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals.
During rebuttal speeches, do not bring the earlier points, bring something fresh to the debate.
I prefer to listen to the debate framework and evaluate your warrants and evidence.
I am not too big on “spreading” (fast speaking), it is hard enough to process your arguments so make sure to slow down and enunciate. I will stop if I fail to understand you.
A key element of judging debate for me is how you differentiate yourself from the opponent.
Providing a roadmap will help as well.
It helps if you tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for.

My judging experience is mostly within speech and when judging debate, my preference is quality over quantity.

Speech:

For Speech, I am looking and hearing you as a Speaker not only as a judge but also as a member of the audience. As an audience member, you do not connect to me, then your speech lacked a certain element - this could vary. So in order to connect, you need to have Clarity, Pace, Organization and Engagement.

Delivery--I am evaluating you on content, delivery, speed of delivery, diction, and speed of delivery. As a speaker, I want to evaluate if you demonstrate poise and effective body language that fits well with your speech. It helps if you are able to relate to the mood and the emotions of the topic, character.

Overall, I want you to have fun and know that you will rank higher if you follow rules, are able to keep me engaged through your delivery and are respectful of everyone.

Shagorica Basu Palo Alto High School 4 rounds

Amina Boubezari Cupertino Independent 2 rounds

Lawrence Bragen Able2Shine 2 rounds None

Amber Brooks Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 11, 2024 at 11:01 PM PDT

Please refer to everyone involved in the round gender-neutrally unless otherwise stated by a participant or judge.

CX Teams: Aff starts the email chain ASAP.
Yes, include me. My email is: amber@lamdl.org

high school debate: crenshaw high school ( policy )
college debate: st. john's university ( BP )
currently: i'm usually running tournaments, as such, i'm not really keeping up with current arguments, authors, strats etc. anymore. assume i'm used to your evidence at your own risk.

hi i'm amber (they/them) and i want you to have fun and learn new things. debates are for learning, not for whoever gets to nuclear war fastest. tech issues aren't considered prep,

I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND MONOTONE READERS.if you're spreading you need to enunciate the tags at least. please ask for clarification on this.

general stuff:

you as the debater have 1 job: tell me, the judge, how to vote. i value impact calcs, world comparisons, and depth over breadth on all flows. if you're running framework, keep it alive till the end of the debate because i love an easy vote. keep your args and flows organized so that by the 2AR/2NR you have a clear flight path for your future ballot.
if you're non-black and running black args as gotchas, i'm going to break tabroom giving you extremely low speaks.
nearly all spreading speeds are fine, but i will always value clarity over reading a bunch of stuff, especially if you're unable to speak clearly, or get quieter as you spread.
on that, neg teams that read 17 half assed args (CP with no plan text, K with no alt, DA with no impacts etc) are wasting their time, the other team's time, and most importantly, my time. don't do it, you will not get my ballot.
i dock speaks for being rude to your partner or opponents. the competition is never serious enough to warrant actual malice or bad vibes in or out of a round.
i'm not a very technical judge. the last thing i want to do at the end of a round is pull evidence and spend 10 minutes going back and forth with myself. to coaches: if you have novice or jv debaters who are on the cusp of transition into a higher division, i'm the judge for them.

Holden Carrillo Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 17, 2024 at 4:40 AM PDT

Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26

Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu

In high school I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an average career. I've competed in NPDA in college for 3 years, winning NPTE and a few other tournaments. I coached LD at James Logan and parli at Campolindo last year, and currently coach parli at Piedmont.

Public Forum

TL;DR: I'm a few years removed from the circuit so be aware that I may be unaware of newer norms. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and good weighing are musts. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you.

Front-Half:

Speed: Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in the first four speeches, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 300 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
Evidence: While I paraphrased in HS, I'm not super proud of it. While I'm not a huge stickler for paraphrasing/reading cards, paraphrasing is a bad norm and I'm down to vote for paraphrasing theory if it's run correctly and won.
Cross: I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.
Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.

Back-Half:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions are very very very low. I think that extensions are a silly concept and uneducational (especially in PF). As long as you talk about the argument, it's considered extended. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.
Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If nobody weighs then I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).
Final Focus: I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.

Progressive Debate:

Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. For accessibility reasons, if no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs.
Kritiks: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli (i.e. I still don't know if proper alts outside of "vote neg" are allowed in PF, a lot of rules around K's are cloudy for me). There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo.
Tricks: I'm a fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. With that being said, if you're hitting an unexperienced team, my threshold for responses are low, but feel free to run tricks.

Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this in PF and it makes my ballot hard.

Other:

I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
Big fan of TKO's
Big fan of content warnings
Big fan of tag-teaming
Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

+ 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
+ 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
+ 0.5 for a Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
+ 0.1 for every CX skipped
+ 0.1 for every swear word
- 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, CC good, wipeout, or any other fun impact turn
Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
Instant 30's if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive

If I'm missing anything specific, feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

Parliamentary

TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm cool with anything and chill with most things that go in round. Here’s a bunch of random thoughts abt parli:

Case: Love it, I'm a case debater primarily. Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Tell me why your impact matters, go the extra step during prep. I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns, you can be weird. Go for turns. Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are. If 2 weighing mechanisms are equally competing with no metaweighing, I'll default to the first one read. If there’s no weighing, I will have to intervene to the least responded argument, then the highest magnitude impact (pls do not make me do this). Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I’m pretty simple and cool with

Theory: I’m probably the most comfortable with my decisions here, run whatever. MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won’t vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it’s a super violent violation. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. RVI’s can be chill! In college they’re frowned upon, but I will absolutely evaluate a good RVI debate. Defaults: CI's > reasonability, DTA > DTD, text > spirit, potential abuse > actual abuse (but as with all defaults, win an argument on the flow and my mind changes).

Kritiks: I’m cool with them, but also there’s probably a lot of lit I haven’t read. From competing, I’m most familiar with any kind of cap, semiocap, Buddhism, and Foucault, any kind of K with a good link should be fine tho as long as you explain it. While it’s not necessary, try not to take the easy way out, write some non-generic links! For FW, I find myself aligning with materialism > epistemology > ontology, but I haven’t judged enough K rounds to determine how biased this makes me. I feel a lot more comfortable judging K’s vs. case/T-FW/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don’t care what you run, that’s where I’ll feel most confident with my decision).

Other:

If you take away one part of my paradigm it's this: I have a very low threshold for MO responses to the aff. I believe that all neg responses to case should be in the LOC, and while I'll evaluate responses read in the MO, I usually find myself erring aff.

Speed is cool (top speed like 250-275 depending on how clear you are), but if I say slow and you don't slow then I'll stop flowing.
Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
I'll evaluate any cheaty CP unless someone runs a shell telling me it's bad.
If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
Condo's good, but you can convince me that condo's bad.
Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
Big fan of content warnings
Big fan of tag-teaming
Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.
Collapse. Please.
Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
Repeat your texts or say them slowly please!

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

+ 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
+ 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
+ 0.1 for every swear word
- 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)

As I'm writing this, I feel like I'm missing something, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

For LD/Policy:

I have literally zero policy experience and limited LD experience. I know enough to be a decent enough judge, but may be unaware with specific norms on the circuit. Check my parli paradigm for my general thoughts on things!

Quick Prefs:

1 - LARP

1 - Theory

3 - Tricks

3 - K v. Case/T-FW

4 - K v. K

5 (Strike) - Phil

Deven Cooper The Harker School 5 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.

Israel Dominguez Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 5:39 AM PDT

About Me: UPDATED FEB - 2025

I currently do College policy Debate as a Freshman at Cal State Fullerton and Debated Policy in high school at Elizabeth Learning Center for Three Years. I've debated 2021-2022 HS CX Water Topic, 2022-2023 HS CX NATO Topic, Last year's 2023-2024 HS CX Economic Inequality Topic, Judged this year's IP Topic, and currently debate the CX College Decarbonization Topic.

I also love CSULB DB8, and their best debater Aless!

Bottom Line - I am okay with most arguments (K-affs and such) as long as they are intelligible and that you can adequately explain them to me. ESPECIALLY WITH PERFORMANCE because more often than not I will lean toward a more practical and policy-oriented approach. *THIS DOESN'T MEAN I DONT LIKE K's* I love K's I run one myself Please just give me an in-depth explanation and plenty of judging instruction. Thank you!

* FOR LD EVERYTHING IS APPLICABLE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MY EMAIL*

Judge Cheat-Sheet

Any other questions can be forwarded to my email: domisraeldebate11@gmail.com

I highly cater my judging style towards a technical approach. I will evaluate any arguments as long as they hold warrants behind them.
Line-by-line debates KEY. Not only does it help organize the flow which makes better decision-making, but it also helps YOU manage the order of your constructives/rebuttals.
USE ALL prep/speech time to its best effort. If you have remaining time don't concede it, find a way to use that time. There is always an argument to make. If you concede any time you have and are dropping any arguments, it will drop your speaker Points.
REBUTTALS WITH AN OVERVIEW. At the top of your rebuttals, it is key to outline to your judge why you are winning this round, or why specifically your opponents are losing. In most cases, you can't extend every argument you have made throughout this round,(especially that 1AR) so you must isolate what arguments are most important and evaluate what arguments you are winning and which you are losing. Especially in the 2NR/2AR, you must shut every door that can lead to a potential loss. Do yourself a favor and keep it organized with an Overview.
SPREADING. As someone who spreads in all speeches, I have no problem with it. But it will always be clarity over speed. When reading your evidence slow down for your tags, and then speed up on the rest of the evidence. Especially for rebuttals, these are the last speeches you get. But they don't matter if I can't understand them. If you're spreading so intelligibly without regard for what you read, I don't care if you know the evidence like the back of your hand I won't evaluate the evidence at all. I will warn you no more than two times to clear, after a third time I will just stop flowing altogether. Never sacrifice clarity for speed
Cross Ex. USE Cross-ex to open the doors to new arguments that will win you the round. Ask questions and build them into arguments. AVOID Ad Hominem type of questions. Remember you should be targeting your opponent's arguments, not the opponents themselves. Insulting or outright criticizing the ability of another debater gives you no competitive edge and more often than not just comes off as snarky, and rude. TLDR, if your cross-ex consists of demeaning others, Stop. Thx.

GENERAL TIP

Never give up. No matter what, if you dropped an argument, have nothing more to say, or are even just overwhelmed, fight your way out. Even if you know you are losing don't give your opponents the easy win, make them work for it. Regardless of speed, confidence, and experience, everyone has the capacity to win and be the best. As long as you have the grit to claw your way through you can be a phenomenal debater.

SPEAKER POINTS,

How do you get high speaks?

What I see from a debater who earned a 29-30, is someone who executes strategy WITH their partner equally, maintains great speed, volume, and clarity within all instances of their speech.
28-27, Made strategic choices in the round but failed to execute properly. Maintains adequate speed, volume, and clarity within most of their speeches, Is well on their own but needs to work with their partner more. Doesn't use or explain evidence to its maximum potential.
26, and under. Debater actively sacrifices the speed, volume, and clarity of their speeches for "competitiveness" sake. Fails to work competently with their partner. Fails to constantly uphold at least one solid argument within this round. OR Gives up.

You made it to the end, thanks for reading, just one last thing before you go. I'm writing this as a graduated high schooler from LAMDL and I know how hard this activity can get combined with everything you got at home and the rest of school. For the betterment of you and the betterment of those around you, don't forget that you are a person with feelings, with needs, and valid wants. Take a break and don't ever lose yourself. Enjoy this activity and remember why you are here.

BTW Give me a brisk iced tea and u get 29 ig JK not Jk????

Giovanni Fernandez Notre Dame San Jose 5 rounds

I am an independent judge with over 5 years of forensics experience in competing and coaching.

EXPERIENCE:

college:

San Joaquin Delta (EXT/IMP, IPDA. DI, Prose, POI, ADS, CA) - NFA qual for all events 2016-2018, PRP IMP Bronze, NCFA Imp/Ext champ 2017-2018

CSU Chico (EXT/IMP, DI, Prose, POI, ADS, Poetry) - AFA qual for all events 2018-2020, NFA OCT ADS

I have coached on the high school level for all NSDA style individual events, parliamentary debate, public forum, and Lincoln Douglas. Having a more limited competitive debate experience (IPDA), I tend to judge primarily on the flow. That being said, I do not do the work for you when an argument/card is dropped by your opponent; you must address it. I can also often be a stickler for framework being upheld in the round. I was on a very competitive collegiate Parli & LD team so although I have not competed in those much myself, I am very familiar with all jargon and can follow spreading fairly well. However, if you spread I would like you to share your cards with me & your opponent. I’m fascinated with kritiks when done creatively and made topical. That being said, I also love to see a topicality argument properly run as many experimental cases tend to stretch the resolution a bit.

[I need to see a fully formed shell with proper standards for me to vote on T. Stating something is not topical is great and I can often acknowledge that on my own, so I need a full T shell structured to flow that into the debate.]

Most of my competitive experience is in individual events, so I focus a lot of my judgement on presentation as well. Please ask me as many questions as you have and I hope I can impart some wisdom from my experience or at least provide a perspective from my time in NFA & AFA-NIET style competition.

Experience:

I competed in and qualified all 11 AFA-NIET style events throughout college. I believe introductions are incredibly vital to the magnitude of your interp’s impact in the round, so I will gladly give notes on making that more significant. Besides that, I look for character distinction and an ability to convey a range of emotions (even in HI, comedic timing requires levels). For public address, I mainly focus on professional delivery, source recency/validity, and opportunities for writing changes. Limited prep can often be very formulaic, so I tend to have a similar judging philosophy to PA speeches delivery-wise. However, I love to see creativity in these rounds. I have competed in countless rounds of Impromptu and Extemp, so seeing someone stray from the typical format successfully is always very impressive.

Above all else, please be yourself and have fun! I hope to make the round feel like a safe space and am always available for questions about how you can improve as a forensicator!

Jay-Z Flores The Harker School 5 rounds

Swarupa Gadiraju Folsom High School 2 rounds

Alexandria Gift New Roads School 5 rounds None

Kristopher Good San Marino High School 2 rounds

Nanda Gopalabhatla Leigh High School 4 rounds None

Lina Guo Northwood High School 4 rounds

Sruthi Ilangovan Northland Christian School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 9:20 AM CDT

I did policy debate on the national circuit for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA High School) before graduating in 2020. I now coach and judge for LASA (in policy) and Northland Christian High School (in LD).

If there’s an email chain, add me at i.sruthi13@gmail.com

…

TLDR:

Do what you do best. I would rather listen to you debating the arguments you are most comfortable with than you adapting to my preferences. Having said that, I’m most comfortable judging technical CP + DA debates, since that is the literature base I know best. Write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me what I’m voting on. Your speaks will thank you. Tech > Truth.

For novices: The most important thing is to have fun! It’s important to remember that debate is a process, not a product. Focus on learning as much as you can from these debates, instead of focusing on the results. If you have any questions at all, don’t hesitate to ask me or send me an email. I promise I’m not scary!! Yes, I’m okay with speed (as long as you are clear). No, emailing is not prep (unless it’s excessive). Yes, I’m okay with open CX.

For LD: I have been coaching and judging LD since 2020. Since my background is in policy debate, I’m most comfortable judging LARP and kritiks (to a lesser extent). I’m probably not the judge for you if you specialize in phil/theory/tricks. That being said, I’ll evaluate and vote on any coherent argument.

…

Framework:

I went for framework a LOT. This means I subconsciously look at these debates through the lens of a 2N. I went for fairness as an impact, and I can definitely be persuaded to vote on it as such. Too many K affs forget impact calculus. It’s not enough to extend the impact of the aff on the case page. Explain how it implicates T-USFG/Framework and why it outweighs the Limits DA (or whatever the negative team goes for). In that same vein, make sure you are not just extending arguments. Explain the broader implication of winning that argument and why it means you win the debate. "I find it really hard to explain why the act of reading framework in and of itself is violent or bad." -- Mason Marriott-Voss. Retweet.

…

Topicality:

I love highly technical topicality debates. These debates always come down to the execution of your standards. Quality of your definition matters, especially if you are going for a precision or predictability impact.

“Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.” -- Yao Yao Chen. Retweet. Topicality is a question of models of debate, not THIS debate.

…

Kritiks:

I have very little expertise in critical literature, so be clear with your explanations. The more case-specific your link is, the more likely you are to get my ballot. If your 2NR/2AR strategy relies on winning framework, explain what winning framework gets you in terms of the rest of the debate. Floating PIKs should be clearly made in the 2NC. If your strategy relies on busting one out in the 2NR, I’m probably not a great judge for you.

…

Counterplans:

Theory debates are fantastic if executed well. I probably lean affirmative on process CPs (consult, delay, etc.) and probably learn negative on PICs. I am neutral about conditionality, 50 state fiat, and international fiat.

…

Disadvantages:

Evidence quality matters a lot more than evidence quantity, especially in politics debates and impact turn debates. Evidence comparison is under-utilized.

…

Be a good person and meet your opponents’ accessibility needs. I will not vote on any argument that endorses racism, sexism, homophobia, or other offensive ideologies. I will also not listen to any arguments that endorse self-harm, suicide, or purposeful death. I will vote you down, and it will be completely on you for not reading this paradigm.

Monika Jain Dougherty Valley Bridge 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 2, 2024 at 9:48 AM PDT

There is a first time for everything. This is my first time participating in a speech and debate competition as a judge. As a judge for speech and debate competitions, my primary goal is to create a fair and supportive environment where young students can develop their communication and critical thinking skills. Here's an overview of my judging paradigm:

Fairness: Fairness is paramount in any competition. I will evaluate each participant objectively, considering their performance against the established criteria for the event. I will not show favoritism or bias towards any participant or school.
Clarity and Organization: I value speeches and debates that are clear, well-organized, and easy to follow. I will pay attention to the structure of speeches and debates, as well as the coherence of the arguments presented.
Content and Argumentation: Substance matters. I will look for persuasive arguments that are backed by facts and logic.
Delivery and Presentation: Effective communication involves more than just the words spoken; it also encompasses delivery and presentation. I will evaluate participants on their vocal delivery and overall presentation.
Respect and Sportsmanship: Respect for fellow competitors, judges, and audience members is non-negotiable. I expect all participants to demonstrate good sportsmanship throughout the competition, whether they win or lose. Disrespectful behavior towards others will not be tolerated.
Feedback: Feedback is essential for growth. I will provide constructive feedback to participants, highlighting their strengths and offering suggestions for improvement. I aim to help students develop their skills and become better communicators and debaters.
Learning Opportunity: Above all, I see speech and debate competitions as valuable learning opportunities for students. Regardless of the outcome, participation in these events helps students build confidence, critical thinking skills, and the ability to articulate their ideas effectively. My role as a judge is to facilitate this learning process in a supportive and encouraging environment.

Overall, I approach judging with a commitment to fairness, respect, and the educational value of speech and debate activities. I look forward to watching students showcase their talents and grow as communicators and thinkers.

Emily Jang Milpitas 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 6:15 AM PDT

Hello there. (Congrats if you get that reference)

Here's my email for the email chain or evidence doc: ej82669@gmail.com

I'm a sophomore UIUC debater who debated PF in high school.

If you’re here for speech, jump all the way down to the bottom. I’m sorry :((

There's sections for debate, PF, LD, and speech.

DEBATE

As a judge, consider me tech over truth. However, I coach middle schoolers and believe that debate is an educational event. Good research is a big part of that, so I won’t buy problematic arguments that seem to have no basis or understanding of the current situation. (eg US should increase military intervention for orientalist reasons) Otherwise, clean voters and collapses will always win me over. If this doesn’t happen, I will pick apart the flow (against my will), and no one is ever happy when the judge is forced to intervene.

That being said, I am also a debater, so I’ll vote on dropped arguments, dropped weighing, dropped framing, dropped whatever. I’ve always been a second speaker and love listening to rebuttals dumping 7 warranted responses to every single contention (it would be hypocritical for me not to). If there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.

Lastly, if you run a T or K in a JV or novice division, unless it is a T against blatant abuse in the round, I will immediately drop you and your speaks.

Evidence: Know the NSDA and CHSSA rules on evidence.

NSDA Evidence Rules

CHSSA Debate Rules and Regulations

If the opponents call you out on a card you definitely cut 30 seconds ago, I will allow evidence challenges or for them to clown you in all the rest of the speeches for bad evidence. I consider preventing access to a requested card as nonexistent evidence and will absolutely rules in favor of an evidence challenge in that context. I have no tolerance for distortion of the card or dates. Regardless of a challenge, I will drop the card on my flow.

General Points (that I will potentially drop your speaks for):

- Time: Time yourself. If you make the mistake of using a timer and start talking over the ringing, I will drop your speaks, because not only do you know you are going over time, you are consciously choosing to ignore it. Otherwise, I will be running a stopwatch and will put up my phone when you are going over. I will allow you to finish your point, but will not flow any new points.

- Speed: I can handle and almost prefer moderate speed. I can handle spreading, but you must be CLEAR and ENUNCIATE. Otherwise, expect to send me and your opponents a speech doc. If I catch you manipulating it, I will drop your speaks faster than you call your opponents for dropped arguments you didn’t actually make.

- Organization: Off-time roadmaps are great, but if its “I will start on my opponent’s first contention on small businesses, extend the turn, refute their second contention on policing, address the framework…” then no, they aren’t great. Signposting is a MUST. If I lose you on the flow, then good luck extending arguments that I can’t find.

- Clash: If you don’t clash, don’t expect speaks. Debate is the speaking event where opponents actually interact with each other, so I would like to see interaction.

- Weigh: Weigh…please, especially if you have a framework. Saying timeframe, magnitude, and scope is not enough. You can just choose one, and explain why it matters + how it links in to your opponent’s impacts. (eg If mass extinction occurs, you can’t have an economy.)

- Crossfire/Cross-Examination: I don’t flow crossfire/cross-examination. If something important happens, bring it up in your speech. That being said, I don’t tolerate aggressively speaking over the person or using cross as speech time. Cross can get heated, but there’s a difference between yelling at the other person.

I get this is a lot, but the tl;dr is be respectful to your opponent and me. The common courtesies in debate are to make it fun for everyone. For those of you who like being mean >:(, I give out low-speak wins pretty frequently anyway.

Public Forum: (my favorite :D )

Chances are, I have thoroughly researched and debated the topic you are doing, so I will know if you don’t have links or are making things up. That being said, I have a lot higher tolerance for “analysis” or “general knowledge”. I apologize ahead of time if you get an entire paragraph of rfd. I’ve primarily competed in PF, so I will definitely have opinions.

Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, here are a few things I look for:

- Collapsing: While my fatal flaw is going for all of the 6 contentions on both sides of the flow, I’d rather you consolidate and do voters, especially in FF. Most of the time, I just vote off the later speeches. I will silently cry if you go line-by-line in FF.

- Frontlining: I expected second rebuttal to frontline. I believe defense is sticky, but a brief extension of it every time is best.

- Weighing: Weighing slaps. Enough said.

- New Arguments/Responses: That’s a no-no in 2^nd summary and FF. I will not flow it.

- Progressive Arguments: I am a sucker for topical Ks. I believe Ts are to prevent abuse and improve the debate space, but will not vote on friv T. Because of this, if you run friv T to win a round in JV/novice on a new non-circuit debater, I am not voting for that.
(I love the Robert Chen K though)

- Plans: No…I will drop them.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm only getting used to college LD, but I work with novice LDers so I will also know if your arguments are very strange, to a lesser degree. Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, I have stolen the following things from my coach’s paradigm (thanks schletz):

- New Arguments/Responses: No new arguments in 1NR and 2AR. I will not flow it. I'm fine with evidence though.

- Theory: Theory works, but I won’t vote on frivolous theory used to avoid responding to your opponent’s argument (especially not if you unabashedly break norms yourself). I view theory as a way of preventing abuse in the debate space and that it should only be used as such. I believe in RVIs so feel free to run them in response.

- Frameworks/VC: They slap. If you provide and defend one but don’t use it, I will evaluate it based on what vague instruction you’ve given me on how to evaluate using the framework…which probably won’t end well. I cannot emphasize enough: YOUR IMPACTS SHOULD ALIGN WITH YOUR FRAMEWORK.

- Kritiks + Phil:I love and appreciate them. Please slow down a bit if it’s super dense.

Speech

I love you guys…I promise. Most of my friends do speech.

A few warnings:

- Respectfulness: I don’t tolerate horsing around or loudly speaking during other competitors’ speeches. Whispering is okay, but do anything more disruptive and I will drop your speaks.

- Timing: Please time yourself. While I will be running a stopwatch, I am terrible at giving time signals. I will allow a stopwatch or someone else’s phone. Having a friend give time signals works too. Refer to tournament rules on grace periods.

- My instinct is to take notes while you’re speaking, so if I don’t look at you, I am so sorry. If I am judging you for IX or NX, your content will be scrutinized because I have a little too much background knowledge on politics.

If you’ve made it to the bottom, have fun and be a cool person. :)

Feel free to ask me questions. I like those.

Feng Jin Harvests Park Independent 2 rounds

Adam Joy Loyola High School 5 rounds None

Srinivasan Kannan Ramarao Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Charuni Karavati Dougherty Valley High School 3 rounds

Anupama Koneru Dougherty Valley High School 1 rounds

Gordon Krauss Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Emmelyne Lay Immaculate Heart High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 10:55 PM PDT

Info

Hi! My name is Emme and I am currently a freshman at UCSD.

she/her

Contact

I prefer the Tab file share or SpeechDrop ... but email chain works if that's what you're most comfortable with :)

Email: elay2024@ihs.immaculateheart.org

Preferences/Misc.

I debated for Immaculate Heart for 3 years (2021-2024).

I mostly read policy arguments but am pretty good for Ks and phil if you actually know what you’re reading and can handle CX/explain what you read well. I love good, clever weighing. Mostly tech>truth but can be persuaded either way. I think truth is super important but I need the debater to bring up truth in order for it to outweigh tech OTHERWISE I feel too interventionist as a judge.

I can evaluate all common args but I really do not like tricks or hidden ASPEC or anything like that. Look at other Immaculate Heart judges for more on this - while I will flow these args I will probably not vote on them unless severely mishandled (i.e. If they’re dropped I’ll vote on them but don’t read them as a cheap shot to win against a novice).

Please be clear! <3 I am decent at flowing but if you are incoherent I will not be able to properly get down all your args. Clarity and quality over quantity of args read - but if you can read 8 off and still be clear I support that. I only ever flowed on paper when competing if that can give you any idea of my flowing ability... (I'll more focused on what you say rather than what's in the doc, so don't go crazy fast in non-constructive speeches).

CX is binding. I love a good CX exchange BUT be kind to your opponent. I really respect debaters who can get their opponent to give them the answers/links they need in CX while being cordial and not condescending.

Be nice in round and out! Being nice will def boost your speaks in front of me. Don’t be rude/try to intimidate new debaters. Debate should be fun! So try and make it an enjoyable and educational experience for both you and your opponent.

I think disclosure is good! And conditionality... most of the time.

Sowmya L Mamdur Dougherty Valley Bridge 2 rounds

Sujatha Mandharthi Dougherty Valley Bridge 2 rounds

Subra Manuguri Joaquin Miller Middle School 3 rounds None

Juan Moreno Mt Pleasant 2 rounds

Brendan ONeil Loyola High School 5 rounds None

Isai Ortega Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 6:52 AM PDT

Background Info:

ELC '21-debated for 4 years (cx)

USC '25

Add me to the email chain: Isaiortega28@gmail.com

General stuff

Be clear when spreading

Tech>truth even tho truth frames how I should evaluate args

I'm open to any type of argument, as long as it isnt problematic, so go crazy lol. None of the preferences I'll list below will override what team did the better debating so do what you do best, I'm comfortable judging all types and styles of debate. BUT, if you do adjust your strat a bit based on my specific preferences, you'll likely have a better chance in winning my ballot and get better speaks.

As for a general preference (or what you might look for when ranking judges): I’m mostly a K debater but I’m also cool with judging any type of debate style.

Line by line is great.

Tag teaming is cool.

No new args in the rebuttal part of the debate will be evaluated.

Don't clip

Usually flow straight down so lmk if I need to switch something up when giving me the order of the speech.

If you display any form of racism, sexism, etc., I'll automatically vote you down so be respectful and if at some point you feel uncomfortable in the debate, lmk

lastly, have fun! Debate is a pretty cool activity (even tho its pretty stressful at times) so try to enjoy yourselves.

Specifics

Aff:

In high school, I was often reading soft left affs so I sorta prefer these debates. But don't let this stop you from running any big imp affs! As long as you debate it properly and handle the framing/imp framing, you should be good.

-If you're reading a K-Aff, give me a reasonable and good explanation of your solvency. Tell me what the ballot means and why it's important (and if you imp turn, tell me why your analysis comes first). I recommend imp turning fw even tho a counter interp can help limit or minimize neg offense. And if you're debating fw, I prefer imp turns bc its pretty clear that you're not debating according to the rez (depends on the k-aff)so you might as well tell me why your form of debate is better and list your standards and impacts well throughout the debate and why your analysis comes first.

Neg: Throughout high school, I usually read kritiks more than any other thing. I usually read a lot of Set col but I'm open to other Kritiks as well (Biopolitics is kinda cool ngl--read this a few times but didnt really add it to my strat) and I think I have a good understanding for most kritiks except maybe some high theory stuff (Deleuze, somewhat Baudrillard, etc.). However, you should assume I know nothing about your kritik and explain it in a good manner that doesnt lead me to assuming a ton of jargon and literature. I'm cool with voting for DA and CP's as long as you have a good Link/imp scenario and a good net benefit. But plz have a good Internal link...i get frustrated when the link is pretty dope but has no correlation to the imp so give me a good scenario

DA: Plz do impact calc. it does a lot for you and the debate and is a good way to evaluate args and impacts. Make sure to have a good Internal Link and do good on the link work. Also, make sure your evidence is pretty relevant to the DA so dont give me a politics disad with evidence from an year ago.

CP: Make sure the DA and the CP exist in the same world and explain the process of the cp. I won't judge kick cp, do it yourself. Make sure the cp has a net benefit and is actually competitive. And when answering perms, dont group em all together as one perm.

K: I think I've mentioned some stuff about the K already but when debating a kritik, explain it to me like I'm unfamiliar with the kritik and know nothing about it. Don't assume I'm familiar with the lit and impact your args out. Though I may know a lot of the jargon you're referencing, it's important that your ov and blocks arent heavy in terms of lit bc then its just rambling. Though ov's are great and whatnot, often times ppl are to block reliant so that eliminates any actual line by line debating so try to minimize being block reliant.

I love a good fw debate but I will say that I tend to allow the aff getting to weigh the aff.

As for the links, try to have as many case specific links as possible and make sure you carry the links throughout the debate. I also need you to impact out your links and explain to me why the aff's actions make the sq uniquely worse. With this link story, I also need a good alt debate and an analysis of why the alt solves for the issues of the K

T: T debates are pretty cool. I tend to like education impacts more so contextualizing and being specific are important for me. I also think that in order to win, your interp needs to show me a definition more predictable and that the literature (evidence of the interp) needs to be in context of the rez, not some simple webster def stuff.

Theory (procedural): I'm just eh about it tbh. It's not my strongest area but I understand some stuff. Make a good arg and do a lot of imp comparison and show how the other team essentially skews the round by going forward with their strat. Do this and you should be fine.

Stuff that might boost your speaks:

- if you bring me a snack or a drink (xxtra hot cheetos is the move, gatorade, idk something cool)

Ritesh Pandya Dougherty Valley Bridge None

Aalap Parikh Stratford Osgood 2 rounds

Felicity Park Immaculate Heart High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 12:12 PM PDT

Immaculate Heart '21, Berkeley '25

I am an assistant coach at Immaculate Heart

felicitypark@berkeley.edu

Do not clip or cheat in general eg; scrolling ahead in the doc, stealing prep, etc. I take accusations seriously for both parties, so you should be willing to stake the debate on a cheating violation.

Please read the arguments you feel most comfortable with - I will listen to and vote on arguments with both claims and warrants regardless of my argumentative preferences.

I will not vote on arguments that I do not have on my flow - I don’t flow off of the doc and expect you to be clear.

As a debater, my favorite affirmatives were ones with plans and big-stick advantages. Being knowledgeable about your affirmative is invaluable perceptually and strategically.

I enjoy NCs that include counterplans and DAs. I think that case debate is important and should be utilized far more.

Smart impact calculus and turns case arguments win debates - don’t rely on your prewritten overview.

Arguments in debate are probabilistic. I rarely vote on presumption because I think there’s almost always a risk.

CP:

I will kick the counterplan if you tell me to. Condo is good but more than 2 is pushing it. (This just means that >2 is when condo becomes a real argument for me not that I am inclined to vote on it.)

I like smart competition arguments and permutations. Competition evidence should be in the NC.

I think that K link walls must be read in the NC; 2NR is too late

K framework arguments are usually under-warranted and too reliant on winning the K's theory. You should have to win offense for why your model is better.

I lean heavily neg on T-FW debates. I think that the aff should defend a plan and I find fairness impacts the most compelling. However, I read a non-T aff in high school and don't consider myself a hack for this argument at all.

Theory:

Generally I am sympathetic to reasonability and not a fan of silly theory arguments.

If a debater makes a good-faith effort to open source, I am unlikely to vote on an arbitrary disclosure shell.

I am not a fan of Nebel T. I find most shells to be 'plans bad' in disguise, which is a hard sell for me. I think the Aff’s PICs argument is true and very compelling.

I don’t like tricks and believe that you must win truth testing for them to be a reason you win the debate.

Philosophy:

I like well-constructed NCs and framework arguments. I think framework should be a reason why your impacts matter, not a preclusive impact filter.

Misc:

Inserting rehighlighting is fine.

Asking questions about what was read/not read is prep.

A "marked" doc simply shows where cards were cut -- it is not a transcript of what was said. You do not need to delete cards you did not read wholly. If you opponent wants this, they should take prep.

Simone Pisarik Immaculate Heart High School 5 rounds

Arthur Qin Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Scott Schuster Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 2:10 AM PDT

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

Update from Cal Invitational 2025

If you are in MLK Pauley Ballroom please be louder. You are competing with 50 other people to be heard so it is to your benefit to be loud and clear.

it is the job of the aff to make the email chain before the round has started. pls be prepared to do so.

Disclosure needs screenshots to prove necessary. I’ll vote on otherwise but if it is contested I’ll side with the team that didn’t read disclosure.

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

Updates NPDI 2024

I love weighing please do it. You probably won't win unless you weigh. Link/internal link weighing is really good and you should be doing that.

No neg perms will auto drop you if you read them and lowest speaks possible.

Im probably not convinced by disclosure in parli. you can try but like idk how that even works or what it looks like to disclose

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

Updates from NPDI 2023

Read the perm. if you go slow know that I will fall asleep. Im down for goodcase debate but sad because no one knows how to write new DAs. Like pls read my paradigm lol i.e. Policy affs 2 (applies to neg as well I guess).

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

I am a current student at UC Berkeley’26 and compete for PDB.

In high school, I competed for Flintridge Prep in parli, policy, and a few tournaments in LD. I was coached by Khamani Griffin (my thoughts about debate were influenced by him but are not the same). I was a flex team in HS: policy aff, tech neg, but I also read DAs and CPs bc my district was lay.

TLDR: I read pretty much anything and am down to vote on almost anything.

Send me speech docs scott.schuster@berkeley.edu

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

General

I generally don't care what you read unless it is clearly problematic. You still have to justify what you read. (tab judge: tech>>>>Truth)
I can hang with most speed (if online slow down a bit 70-80% top speed). I'll slow if I can't understand you. You don't have to slow unless slowed. Don't spread out novices unless both teams are chill.
I'll try to protect the flow. Still call Point of Orders
Speaks are fake. I'll default 28-29.
I shouldn’t have to say this, but some members of the community need to hear this: don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. if you make these arguments, I will drop you instantly, give lowest speaks, and have a nice conversation with your coach. Also if you cite, read, or defend in any way a Nazi, someone who the Nazi’s used to justify their theory, or someone who was generally related to them I will do the same.
If you say genocide is bad then don't defend genocidal actors

Parli/Policy/TOC LD

Policy affs:

I am down to evaluate these.
Pls make these interesting. Don’t just paste in generic back-file advantages. I would prefer you to read something I have never heard before than the standard heg or Econ adv you read every round.
I will still evaluate generics, but not happily (your speaks and my evaluation won't be changed I'll just be sad).

DAs/CPs

I went for these quite a bit. Similar to policy affs section, don’t read generic DAs If you can.
I am down for PICs or cheater CPs.
I don’t have a way I lean on condo yet. I’ll vote on condo, but I probably won’t vote on n-1 interps where n is the number of CPs they read.

Theory/Topicality

I have read both of these extensively in parli.
I am down to listen to MG theory, loc theory. Tell me which I should evaluate first.
I’ll vote on anything that is not Shoes T. I haven't heard water or Inshallah yet so read at your own risk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I have a high threshold for speed t. Unless you have an access need, I probably won’t vote on speed t.
If you read disclosure and are a big/well-funded school, I probably will be very unlikely to vote for you. If I think they just straight drop the arg, I'll vote on it, I probably tank speaks.

K/K-affs

These have been my main strategy for the past few years. I am learning more of them and probably will like these debates a lot.
My main lit base is Mao. I have heard debates on a few other Ks. I.e. I won’t know your lit base, so pls explain it well.
I like FW debates for the K-aff but am also down to hear k v k debates.
I will not hack for Ks

WSD

If I am judging you in WSD, I will treat it like any other debate round. I don't care about any of the nonsense point systems. At the end of the day, Worlds is a debate event and all debate events have standard things I am looking for. Warrant your claims. I have yet to see a worlds debater do that. I will not vote on any arguments that rely on warrantless claims.

PF ONLY (If you are in another event I will not eval in this way)

Pf is not policy-lite. Don't treat it as such.

Probably best to strike me if you do any of the things below. I am 100% down for tech when it is read correctly. However, if you read tech and don't know how to deal with it, I will eval it to the best of my ability but tank speaks (i.e. 25s). This includes the K, K-Aff, T, Theory, T-FW, FW (kritical sense). i.e. literally anything that came from LD/Policy/Parli. If you read a K that follows the pattern of "I am some ______ (*insert demographic here*) and I should win for that" without reading any lit I will eval but tank speaks. If I have heard the same aff word for word I will tank speaks. pls write your own cases especially if your team has more than 2 teams.

I have been told PF is starting to read theory from LD/Policy. If this is your shell and you don't have the 4 parts of a shell, I will tank speaks. You need to have an Interp, Vio, Standards, and Voters. No paragraph T for PF.I have also heard you have been reading these positions in the wrong way like you took the name and went a very different direction. If I see this and your T shell is garbage I will have a hard time evaluating it.

If both sides read any of the previously mentioned arguments and do it so poorly I can't eval the debate/ anger me enough I will flip a coin.

If you spread in a manner that is trying to mirror other forms of debate but you can't spread I will tank speaks. Pls just speak how you would in any normal conversation. Don't double breath if you don't put a word in between the breaths.

Speech docs should be sent on time. prep doesn't stop until you hit send. Don't send speech docs unless going like 250+ WPM. I will call for card docs at the end of the round. Analytics are not nice to put in, they are a must. You have 3 mins + any unused prep time to send the doc after the round or I will drop you and tank speaks. I take evidence ethics in PF EXTREMELY seriously. I will drop if everything is not provided.

I am not the happiest with PF right now, so don’t test me. You can ignore my paradigm, but don’t get mad when I drop you and tank speaks.

Ashish Shah Notre Dame San Jose 3 rounds

Santosh Shilimkar Leigh High School 4 rounds None

Ryan Skolnick Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 30, 2022 at 1:54 AM PDT

TL;DR: Flow judge. Debate is a game. Anything goes.

Add me to the email chain: ryneskdebate@proton.me

More in depth about me as a judge, keeping in mind everything that follows is simply my preference, you can ignore every single one of these and still win the round if you actually outdebate your opponent, I judge the round in front of me, not the round I want to see.

That being said, I also believe that there is no such thing as a truly tabula rasa judge, and I believe that we owe it to debaters to be clear about our in-round biases so they don't get penalized for something they couldn't have been prepared for. With all that in mind...

1.) I'm Ryan. Former college Parli and NFA-LD debater. Coached HS LD and Parli for a while. Been judging Parli, LD, PF, and Policy for over a decade.

2.) I reward speaks based on how organized your prepared constructives are, how well you remain organized during your line-by-line refutation, and how effectively you do weighing/collapsing in your rebuttals. To me, speaks have nothing to do with how nice you are to listen to, whether you sit or stand, etc, that's for events, not debate. Staying organized throughout the round is your ticket to maximizing your speaks, if that matters to you.

3.) Tech over Truth.

4.) I like alternative strategies. PICs, process CPs, kritiks, performance cases, other alt frameworks, etc, are all fine.

5.) Theory is good, but it needs to be weighed like any other argument. I think very few arguments are truly a priori, so if you're claiming your theory argument is a priori, I'm going to need a good warrant for that.

6.) LD debaters: Plan texts and other policy debate elements are fine. I encourage them: I find policy debate a lot more engaging than value debate. Note: do not use plan texts if a tournament explicitly forbids them, my preferences do not override tournament rules.

7.) I've had debaters tell me they didn't make certain arguments that would likely have won them the round because they didn't have cards to support them. So let me be clear on that front: I do not believe that every single argument/refutation needs a card (outside of your prepared aff case/neg offcase arguments in your constructives, those should always be carded) Sometimes common sense still prevails: if an argument flagrantly does not make sense, doesn't actually address the topic, etc, say that. Well done analytics can have just as much impact as a carded response, though in a clash between carded evidence and an analytic with all else being equal, carded evidence will be a tiebreaker.

8.) Speed is fine but please slow for tags

9.) Debates get intense sometimes, and that is totally fine. Keep a baseline of decorum and respect. I have no tolerance for bullying, harassment, or brazen disrespect. Don't play games with that. Be competitors, not bullies.

10.) I have no bias on the condo debate, and I enjoy listening to it. Tell me what side I should take in the round if it becomes an issue.

11.) Despite the current trend, I have a slight bias towards probability over scale, though I will vote otherwise if extinction wins on the flow. If you're going end of the world, make sure your link story is really strong.

12.) Parli debaters: outside of extremely flagrant violations of the rules in the rebuttal speeches that have the potential to sway the round, all points of order will be taken under consideration, and almost certainly will not impact the ballot. If a new argument that could prove absolutely decisive is raised, that's a different story, though I do have prerogative as a judge to protect against new arguments made in the final rebuttals, and I typically use that prerogative. This is also true for other forms of debate, so don't think you can be sneaky and try to raise new arguments after your opponent's last chance to respond. I typically will not flow those arguments.

13.) The single most important thing to know for my ballot: voters matter. The team that does the better job in their closing wins my ballot the majority of the time. Take your weighing seriously. Be strategic with collapsing and weighing in your final speeches.

Susan Skolnick Harvard-Westlake School 3 rounds

Katherine Steger Fort Collins High School 5 rounds

Fardeen Syed Dougherty Valley Bridge 2 rounds

Indumathi Thiyagarajan Dougherty Valley Bridge 3 rounds

Todd Tran Dougherty Valley Bridge 3 rounds

Manjunath Vasishta Joaquin Miller Middle School 1 rounds

Deeya Viradia The Harker School 5 rounds

Alice Waters The Harker School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 28, 2024 at 5:22 AM CDT

She/Her

alice.debatedocs@gmail.com

Affiliations: Heights '23, Coaching Harker LD

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

TL;DR

My two goals when I judge are to (1) ensure that the space is safe for everyone and (2) evaluate the debate in front of me as neutrally as possible so long as it is not one of the 7 things below.

I strongly dislike intervention, but also think that, to some degree, it is inevitable regardless of the judge. I have tried to structure this paradigm to explain how to predict when/what intervention may occur + how to prevent it/overcome my natural intuitions.

I believe that debate is a research AND communication acitivity. This means I want to understand your arguments as you are reading them, I want you to tell me how I should be evaluating parts of the debate and evidence, and I do not want to (and will not) read documents to help me understand what is going on in the round.

Debate should be fun!!! :)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

PF Update (Bellaire):

Please do not paraphrase evidence. Additionally, please make sure to have the full information available when citing a source in a speech (see below for evidence ethics).

Send each other evidence at the beginning of speeches, NOT between speeches during an untimed period.

I have not judged PF before and my background is only in LD and Policy, therefore I will not understand many structural things.

Kritiks, CPs, and theory do not make much sense to me in PF unless they are reasons the resolution are true/false.

If you want me to evaluate something it MUST be in a final speech. Additionally, you must answer arguments following the speech they are originally made. The only exception is the first two constructive speeches since I believe the norm in these speeches is you can introduce new arguments and are not required to contest arguments directly in the speech before. If your opponent does not extend offense in the speech following your defense against it, you do not have to extend the defense because I will stop evaluating the offense.

In PF, I understand the affirmative burden to prove the resolution true and the negative to prove the resolution false. The "burden of rejoinder" for the negative does not make sense because sometimes the negative goes first and I am not sure how you predict the aff plan and then rejoin it if you do not know what it is?

Non topical affirmatives for the reason above are a non-starter in PF.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Will not evaluate:

(1) ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you talk to a coach)

(2) any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) The round will end.

(3) eval after [x] speech

(4) give me/my opponent [x] speaks

(5) no aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument.

(6) arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

(7) anything I did not flow and understand the implication of in the original speech. This means if you HIDE arguments you run a HIGH risk of them not being evaluated. Even if I do catch them, speaks will be lowered because I will be annoyed by your unwillingness to fully read and defend your arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

General Thoughts:

(1) When I make decisions I first think about the following things in the following order to determine what piece of offense I am voting on: (a) the highest layer based on arguments in the round, (b) the winning framework, and (c) the winning offense under that framework.

(2) If you talk to me like I know nothing/very little you will be happier with my rfd. Not only does this increase the likeliness that I understand each of your arguments, but it also increases the likeliness that the round breaks down/is evaluated in a similiar way to how you thought about it.

(3) I will vote for any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact/implication (so long as it is not something on the list above). Obviously true arguments have a lower threshold to win than obviously false arguments simply because the burden to warrant the argument is much lower if it is already something I believe. To clarify: when I say "obviously true" arguments I do not mean arguments I personally believe, but arguments that a majority of people generally agree on as fact, such as "the sky is blue".

Here is a list of arguments that if evenly debated will be hard to convince me of. I understand it is kind of unclear what "even debating" is, but you can minimize the risk that I think something is evenly debated by doing judge instruction or explicit evidence comparison, which I will use even if it goes against my intuitions:

- the aff cannot weigh case
- extinction does not matter at all (especially vs phil positions that seem to care about preventing bad consequences to some degree)
- the affirmative cannot read plans
- the best model of debate is not one where the aff is at least tangentially related to the resolution
- 2nr/2ar theory is legit

(4) It greatly annoys me when debaters read arguments they misrepresent. For example: (see the explanation of what indexicals actually are)This does not mean that I will vote against arguments that you misrepresent, but know that you are responsible for warranting every part of the argument and cannot just rely on name-dropping the argument, literature base, or author in place of a warrant. Additionally, I reward well researched and properly represented arguments with better speaks.

(5) I WON'T flow off the doc and will only pull it up in constructives to check randomly and make sure you aren't clipping. I have gotten very comfortable recently "clearing" people and that is because debaters have gotten particularly unclear during long analyic blocks and the bodies of cards. I understand going faster during the text of cards BUT you should not become mumbly/unflowable. I am not reading off the document and want to understand the warrants of your arguments/evidence as you read them.

(6) I will only go back to read evidence once the entire debate is over if (a) I need to because there is a lack of comparison or (b) you tell me to (which you should do if your evidence is very good or your opponents is worse!). If I have to read evidence because of (a) I will likely be upset because I will feel like I had to intervene somewhere to determine what the better arguement was. Additionally, if you are telling me to read evidence, it is in your best interest to tell me what part of the evidence is really good or why the evidence is better to increase the likelihood I view the evidence in the same way you do.

(7) Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as I can understand the specific implication of the rehighlighting from listening to your speech. For example: "[x card] concludes [explanation of different conclusion from original argument], INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is okay, "they are wrong, INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is not.

(8) The following is a list of "defaults" I have about debate. I think that every default on this list can change as a result of the debate and there should not be an instance when I need to use a "default" because you should be warranting these arguments in the round if they are relevant.
- presumtion negates unless the negative reads a cp, in which case it affirms

- permissibility negates

- comparative worlds

- I will NOT judge kick unless I am told to. Preferably you would do more than say the words "judge kick" and also justify why it is good.

- competing interps, dta, no rvi on theory

^ Note: I still think terminal defense is possible vs an interp... ie even if you win competing interps, theres no counter-interp, but the other side wins an "i-meet" I will not vote for the shell because an "i-meet" is terminal defense since the shell no longer has a violation.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Disclosure

The disclosure norms in debate are out of hand. I think disclosure is good. That does not mean you have to disclose if I am judging you but know if you are shifty, lie, or avoid questions I have no problem (a) tanking your speaks (<27) or (b) if you lied, automatically voting against you. Lying is unethical in a similar way to evidence ethics are and I have no problem voting against you if you lie. If you are shifty/avoid questions I will vote on the flow but know your speaks will be ruined and I will be sympathetic to the shell.

- I have judged 5+ debates in the past month where someone makes the argument “screenshots are unverifiable.” If someone says this the answer should not take more than 5 seconds and should just be “they are verifiable in the same way evidence is”. Along these lines – I have added a screenshots section to evidence ethics.

- You should be disclosing over some form of messages. If someone insists on disclosing in person/refuses to over messages, you should still ask over messages and screenshot them not answering. I don’t care if you then went and disclosed in person, send it over messages or you are not getting the I-meet.

- If you don’t want to disclose you should just say you aren’t disclosing and be willing to defend that model of debate. Don’t do things like say the aff is new when it isn’t, say you will disclose and then not, lie about which aff is being read, be unclear what is changing in the aff, etc.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Evidence Ethics

- I think that evidence ethics are a stop round issue, though if you want to just read it as a shell that's fine too and I’ll evaluate it on the flow. If you want it to be a stop round issue say something along the lines of “I want to make an evidence ethics claim, here is what happened” If you are correct W, if you are wrong L with lowest speaks

- Screenshots should not be fabricated. If a screenshot is fabricated, you should treat it as evidence ethics, and it is a stop round issue. I will verify screenshots the same way evidence is verified—by going to the source. This can be one of two things depending on the fabrication a) checking the laptops of the email or b) checking the wiki website

- The following are things I will vote on as a stop-round issue

* clipping (this includes verbally cutting your cards in a different place than your updated doc indicates… I will flow where you say “cut”)

* Citations that are missing or incorrect in one or more of the following parts (given that the information is available): Author name, year, article/book title, URL

* deleting text from the middle of the card/article (this includes replacing it with ellipsis)

* not including full paragraphs/ only having cards with partial paragraphs

* brackets that change the meaning of the text

* including/adding text into the card not from the original article

- If I catch one of these things but no one else does, I won't vote against you, I'll just lower your speaks.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Speaker Points

- I'll start at a 28.5 and work up/down from there. 28.5 is average.

- I find myself bumping speaks for: being particularly nice in round/to your opponent, reading an argument/a strategy I haven't seen in a while/ever, creative 2nr/2ars, giving a winning 2nr/2ar I did not think of during prep, rehighlighting evidence, efficiency.

- You will lose speaks for: being overly rude/aggressive, splitting 2nr/2ars unnecessarily, going for the incorrect 2nr/2ar, misexplaining arguments, an unstrategic cx, reading bad arguments (1 line tricks!), poor time allocation, if I feel like I have to intervene because of lack of evidence comparison/weighing.

- I try to base speaks primarily on strategy & execution.

Jay Yan The Golden State Academy 5 rounds

Fang Yang The Golden State Academy 5 rounds

James Zucker Loyola High School 5 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2025 — Berkeley, CA/US

JV LD Paradigm List

Judges