Tabroom.com

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2025 — Berkeley, CA/US

World Schools (Online) Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Chase Abramson Stockdale High School 3 rounds

Joaquin Arreola Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Brett Banks Dripping Springs High School 3 rounds

Tiya Basilio Academy of Higher Learning 3 rounds

Alexander Christiano Sage Hill School 6 rounds

Joseph Davis St Mary's 3 rounds None

Mateo Diaz Latino College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 2:59 AM PDT

Update 1/25/2025

Add me to the Email Chain: MD16@albion.edu

I debated Policy and LD in high school at CRSJ from 2018-20 through SVUDL.

I have judged a verify of Speech and Debate rounds for Different UDLS.

Currently, I am a judge for SVUDL. I was given the opportunity to debate through a UDL. If you are from a UDL and have questions feel free to ask. Speech and Debate is a space where everyone should feel included while having fun and learning.

Speed:

Please keep spreading to a minimum, if I don't understand you I will say clear, three is my max.

Kritiks:

Ks are always fun and interesting. I am willing to hear the case, however make sure it is clear and understandable. Please don't rely on assumtions because it might hurt your chances.

It is also IMPORTANT to make the connection to the topic: PF, Policy, LD. Ks have meaning to them so understand why you are running.

Topicality:

Running T is always fair game. I will listen and this matters. I'm not a judge that will dismiss T because your opponent has "good" arguments so make it clear. Yes, you can make a K topical.

For Novice, Topicality is basely is your case on topic.

Theory:

Send doc, make it clear and reasonable.

Voters I'm receptive to are Education, Access, or Fairness.

Feel free to try anything though, as long as you explain it well.

I personally don't like Frivolous Theory, but if you run it I have to listen to it. Just know it will take more work in justifying it.

CP:

Counter-plans are always fun to listen to. 2018-19 Policy topic was the best for Counter Plans.

I am always open to it and willing to judge any CP, even if it's like, "[insert country] would do it better."

CX:

Tag-team CX is fine. I don't flow CX. If it is important then bring it up in your speech. No answer to a question call it out.

DA:

Preference is 2-3 solid DAs then 7-8+ that will be dropped.

I am open to anything and will judge no matter what.

I'm surprised you made it this far. This will probably help you more.

Make sure your case is clear, if one person doesn't understand then I probably don't. You don't want me to assume or fill in the gaps for you.

The debate should be Educational/Informative (voter preference). Everyone's voice is valid and has a right to be heard.

Do not discriminate, I don't like paperwork however I take this serious. Inclusivity and accessibility matters! Don't be Racist, Ablist, or Misogynistic!! Don't lie either!!

My favorite Ks of all time are Anzaldua (the poem is the best part) and Afro-futurism, (2018-19 Policy topic, immigration). Use debate as a tool for your advocacy work. Address structural or systematic issues!! Be yourself!! This is a space for everyone, even from marginalized communities!! I will always support my UDL cousins, so ask any questions, ask for advice, ask about K or Case or Performance help, ask what it means to be a POC in this space. I am here for everyone to have an equitable opportunity.

If we are educated, we can find solutions!

Julie Herman The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 18, 2024 at 1:01 AM PDT

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (2023-present). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round (or, in parli, a new argument out of the block). I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think debaters sharing docs with each other increases the likelihood of them trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Stephen Hohs Independence High School 6 rounds

Crystal Huddleston Stockdale High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:31 AM PDT

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

"Off-Time Roadmaps"

Stop. If you signpost and are clear throughout your speeches, I will not need a "brief," off-time roadmap.

If I am flowing DAs, CPs, Ks, Advantages on separate pages, just give me the order (e.g., "The order is Case, DA, CP").

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

Joseline Molina Velásquez Academy 3 rounds None

Sahil Patel Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 11:35 AM CDT

Coppell '24

POLICY/LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

Please add this email to the email chain: this.is.sahilp@gmail.com .

Read paradigm all the way through to have the best chance at winning

WORLD SCHOOLS:

A few accolades:

Top 0.05% Drake listener
Town Hall Level 10 (almost 11)
Banned on hypixel (appealed, lost)
Texas A&M Intramural Basketball Quarterfinalist D league (0-3 division) and averaged 11.2 points per game
Up $20.38 all time in poker
Profit of $1,384.63 dollars on sports betting
Banned on roblox (the website and jailbreak)

Berkeley winner 2024

What I value:

Style 99%

Content 2.467%

Strategy 1.543%

Clash:

of clans - im as i mentioned a town hall 10 i sometimes am inactive for long stretches but my attacks are good and i use golem balloon

royale - 6000 trophies and i use a lava loon deck, not active any more

can you tell me how to judge a wsd round?: Certainly! Here is how to judge a World Schools Debate Round

1. Content

Argument Quality: Clear, logical, relevant arguments.

Rebuttal: Strong engagement with opposing team’s points.

Evidence: Supported by reasoning, examples, or data.

2. Delivery

Clarity: Speaks clearly, at a good pace.

Engagement: Persuasive, confident, and interactive.

Teamwork: Smooth transitions and coordination between speakers.

3. Strategy

Case Construction: Well-structured, focused arguments.

Clash: Active engagement with the opposing team’s points.

Use of the Motion: Proper framing and definition of terms.

4. Overall Decision

Who was more persuasive overall?

Was there a significant strategic or tactical error?

Which team’s arguments had greater impact?

okay people don’t read paradigms anymore so if you actually read this far good for you here is my actual paradigm. If you didn’t and you reported me to your coach/tab that’s really embarrasing for you

jokes aside, actual evaluation:

purely tech I’ll vote off the side who proves to me warranted arguments and weighs it against the other sides warranted arguments

2. I love line by line but honestly covering most/all opponent arguments in any format is fine by me

3. Dropping args is fine to a certain extent jus weigh yours against theirs and don’t just do (outweigh on x) but explain why cuz i got no idea why for instance outweigh on scope is actually important for the round

4. even tho I’m evaluating the round off tech I’ll award speaks taking into consideration delivery

5. calling out opponents for errors they made is a strong way to gain speaks but calling out something they didn’t do is a good way to loose speaks

also refer to kaveen shahs paradigm i agree with his evaluation criteria as well

Maddie Pira Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 3, 2024 at 2:43 AM PDT

top level:

-i did four years of policy at notre dame high school. i was a 2A

-washu 26

-pls explain terms especially on the IPR topic

-if im less familiar with an argument that doesn't mean you should stray away from the obvious strategy. you just need to give me lots of judge instruction and explanation

general things:

-add me to the email chain: maddiepira@gmail.com

-time ur own speeches

-give me judge instruction

-tech > truth

-im policy leaning, but im receptive to ks on the neg

-u must be clear. i will not flow what i can't understand

soft left affs:

-i prefer extinction level impacts

-id rather you answer the disad than do a bunch of framing. that being said securitization framing is more convincing to me

topicality:

-TVAs and case lists are good

-fairness is the best impact

-competing interps > reasonability

disads:

-do impact calc please

-turns case is good

-on a truth level courts don't link to politics but i can be persuaded otherwise

counterplans:

-50 state fiat and PICs are good

-new 2NC planks are usually a voter but can be justified

-tell me to judge kick

Ks:

-i'm familiar with set col, cap, security, gender, etc. anything else you should explain more

-i learned what i know from joshua michael

-i'll let the aff weigh their aff and i'll let the neg weigh links not to the plan unless given a convincing argument as to why not to

-links should (ideally) be to the plan, rehighlighted 1AC ev/lines from 1AC >

-long overviews are bad

-perf con means you get to sever your reps

-floating PIKs are a voter, and vague alts usually aren't (aff should use vagueness to claim no alt solvency)

K affs:

-im neg biased, but i will vote for you

-im skeptical of out-of-round solvency claims but they aren't impossible to win

-i don't get why u should get perms (plan is not topical, so ks and cps dont have to be competitive) but ill give them to u if the other team doesn't explain this or u out debated them

framework:

-i lean neg on framework, but i can be convinced otherwise

-not best for these debates bc limited framework knowledge: i took it in the 1NR a few times

-TVAs are good

if this a K vs K debate i'll probs be confused unless its cap v. something else. explain your theories

theory:

-if u read ur theory blocks at 100% speed i will lower ur speaks

-around 3 condo is probably good

-i'll vote on dropped aspec, but 1ar gets new answers if the block says something completely new

-i'll vote on death good, spark, etc.

+ .1 speaks if you mention club penguin

speech:

-anything you've heard about debaters judging speech is probably also true for me

WSD:

-I have limited experience judging WSD so be clear and make sure things are run smoothly. I'm very much tech > truth, but I place a lot more emphasis on style than I would for policy rounds

Christopher Shoup Notre Dame High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 12:26 AM PDT

I am the Assistant Debate Coach for Notre Dame High School in charge of World School Debate and IPPF (essay writing form of debate). I have extensive public speaking experience, presenting at multiple conferences in front of hundreds, sometimes thousands of people.

I competed in Policy Debate for 3 years in high school at Notre Dame, so my biases tend towards the quality of arguments. As such, most rounds will be won for me in Content, and sometimes in Strategy. Although I will grade Style as an important factor, there is almost no world where a team will win a World School debate round based on Style as the primary factor. Good speaking habits, flow, inflection, and use of creative language can only help you, but it will not determine the round for me. That will be decided primarily on Content and how you address the primary issues of the debate.

Although some judges may frown upon a framework debate (definitions, models, values, burdens, etc.), I welcome them. Give me the framework by which I should judge the round, give me a reason to prefer your overall framework/definitions/values/burdens, and most importantly, explicitly "connect the dots" and explain how you meet those burdens better than the other team. Even if you agree on burdens and definitions, you must still explain how you meet these burdens better than your opponents. Failing to do this (primarily in the 3rd and reply speeches, but can be helpful to begin this discussion as early as the 2nd speech) and leaving it up to me to connect the dots will cost you both Content and Strategy points in your speaker scores, and could lead to some flukey results when I'm left to determine how best to judge the round.

On framework: if you offer a "hard" model as the Prop, you need to make sure it's "topical" and fully meets the motion of the round. I think very few World School debates (especially for impromptu motions) specifically call for or need a "hard" model. This isn't policy debate. I'm willing to grant you a decent amount of leniency on the mechanism(s) for achieving the world of the motion, so a "soft" model will help you. But if you paint yourself into a corner with a "hard" model or "plan," and it doesn't fully meet the motion's requirements, I'm open to hearing that debate from the Opp if they call you out on it.

Additionally, I will apply a reasonable sense of “reality” when judging the debate. In other words, if you make a factually untrue argument or give an blatantly false or mischaracterized example, it’s not gonna hold a lot of water with me, regardless of whether or not the other team calls it out. That said, I will refrain as much as possible from applying any of my own personal opinions or values in the debate. That’s up to you to shape, but be careful about crossing any ethical lines that could be considered disparaging to another group.

On that note, "sportsmanship" is very important to me. Respect the competition, respect your teammates, and respect your opponents. Shake hands, congratulate people, and do not use disparaging language towards any person or group. If you do so, I will absolutely make a note of it in my RFD and you will likely lose speaker points. This is a bare minimum expectation.

That said, debate doesn’t need to be a “stuffy” activity. Feel free to smile, crack a joke, try to make me laugh. The best speeches are the ones that you enjoy delivering and people delight in having heard. At the end of the day, HAVE FUN!

Finally, my RFD notes can take a moment to type out, as I try to walk you through my thought process in how I came to the decision that I did. I will also give my decision directly to debaters after the round, offer individual notes and feedback, and break down why I came to the conclusion I did. This can all take anywhere between 10-30 minutes (from writing the RFD and delivering it), but this is where people can learn and grow the most. I know people are anxious to leave after a debate, but please take the time to learn and respect what I have to say for a few minutes after I listened to you and your team for an hour. I'm an open book, so take the opportunity to ask me questions, request feedback, and I'll do all I can to help.

Best of luck, Debaters!

Hannah Stafford The Blake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 2:08 PM CDT

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its a LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus it makes a a majority of my decisions. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech. Collapsing is important in the summary and final focus. Yes you can go fast if you are clear. I am open to theory and kritical argumentation - just ensure you are clearly warranting everything.

Kate Totz Brentwood School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM CDT

-- LD NOTE FOR 2024--

Speed is completely fine, but if you're going 90% full speed and up I will be a bit more reliant on the doc. I am fine with spreading (especially if it's clear) but am out of practice with flowing top speed LD rounds. I don't have a ton of topic knowledge, as I mostly coach PF now.

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Jeffrey Tu Palo Alto High School 3 rounds

Ricardo Velasquez Velásquez Academy None

Alannah Zhou Alannah Debates 3 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Cal Invitational UC Berkeley

2025 — Berkeley, CA/US

World Schools (Online) Paradigm List

Judges