Tabroom.com

29th Annual Stanford Invitational

2015 — Stanford, CA/US

LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Srilatha Ajjarapu Lynbrook High School 2 rounds

Tim Alderete The Meadows School 4 rounds

Julian Alvarez Lake Highland Preparatory 6 rounds

Amir Amerian Sequoia High School 3 rounds None

Monica Amestoy Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 11, 2021 at 12:25 AM PDT

Update:
I haven't judged since 2018, I dont think my opinions on debate have changed but maybe slow down for me as I get back into this. You definitely should slow down on texts (plant texts, alts, interps etc.) and author names pls. My email is amestoy.monica@gmail.com

Background:
My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year, coached a few debaters who did very well at the TOC and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI. I also debated in college. Overview: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate. Also I haven’t really edited the rest of this paradigm in a while so feel free to ask questions.

Short version: I like policy style arguments, non topical argument, Ks and theory. Read whatever you feel you are best at and when in doubt weigh. I will straight up drop you if you make racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic arguments.

Theory: I really enjoy good theory debates.

Ks:
I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs:
Go for it
Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts. -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot):
1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case)
2. Being really rude
3. Stealing prep
4. Lying
Just have fun and read what makes you happy.

Swami Anantha Cupertino HS 6 rounds None

Jim Anderson Capital 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 10, 2016 at 11:44 PM PDT

Jim Anderson's Policy Debate Paradigm

Experience and Biases:
I have coached LD at Capital High School in Washington state since 2002, so I've learned how Policy debate works as that style of argumentation has filtered into LD, and have had a "crash course" in Policy over the past year, as we're finally fielding a team in the event. If I had to settle on a Policy paradigm, it would most likely be "tabula rasa." I try to bring few preconceptions to the round, and am open to well-warranted topicality or theory arguments, kritikal affs, and other non-stock styles and perspectives. There is one glaring exception, though: I have no idea how to judge a performance. No idea whatsoever.

On Debate Overall
My two overriding concerns are fairness and laziness. Fairness means acknowledging and mitigating my own biases (described above), and voting on fairness when it comes to theory. (But, to be fair, if you can make a theoretical argument based on education or some other voter--give it a go!)

Laziness is for me, not for you; you're doing the bulk of the work in the round, by communicating clearly, making warranted arguments, explaining impacts under whatever framework wins out; giving me time to digest abstruse or obscure ideas. ("Obscure" is relative to me, not you. After all, I'm the rookie in this scenario. So be charitable.)

On Speed:
I can't judge what I can't hear, so I'll give you the benefit and say "clear" once. Ignore that, and you're on your own. Remember that I haven't seen all your cards, so make your taglines especially clear.

On Theory:
Run good theory arguments as needed. I'll vote on an RVI if I have a good reason to. And if you go meta-theory ("debaters who offer RVIs should be dropped!") then we're in for a fun ride.

In Short:
I don't want to intervene.

I do want to enjoy the debate I have the privilege of judging.

Because of my relative inexperience, you'll find that I'm the most careful listener you'll ever meet.

Lee Aptaker American High 5 rounds None

Elizabeth Avunjian Granada Hills High 5 rounds None

Venki Ayalur Cupertino HS None

Vinod Balakrishnan Cupertino HS 3 rounds

Bill Bartels La Reina High School 4 rounds

Mike Bauer Granada Hills High 1 rounds None

Sheelah Bearfoot Delta Charter HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:25 AM PDT

Update: Here's some SetCol lectures and links to hella lit I compiled a while ago:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UzbBrwOK3BDTgMTgV2KNnS14BiLKb4e1

Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.

I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)

Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.

Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.

(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)

^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea

Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.

Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.

Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.

Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.

Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.

RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.

Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.

Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!

Mike Bietz Harvard-Westlake School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:43 AM PDT

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Zachary Borman Rocky Mountain 3 rounds

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn Notre Dame San Jose

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:04 AM EDT

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)

General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.

Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.

I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

Amanda Bryan Mountain View High Schools 5 rounds None

Barbara Bryan Los Altos High School 6 rounds None

Jim Burwell Korea International School 4 rounds None

Edward Camarena Palo Alto High School 3 rounds None

Charlie Cao Hire 6 rounds None

David Chamberlain Claremont High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:28 AM PDT

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Haizhou Chen Palo Alto High School 3 rounds None

Travis Chen Brentwood School 5 rounds None

Shiv Chonnad Young Genius Academy 2 rounds None

James Chung Monta Vista High School 5 rounds None

Becky Conlon Saratoga High School 6 rounds

Chris Coovert Gig Harbor HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:54 AM PDT

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 26 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 20 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years

LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

Kevin Cunanan Granada Hills High 5 rounds None

Geoffrey Curran Citrus Valley High School 4 rounds None

Salim Damerdji Mission San Jose High School 6 rounds None

John Davidson Skyline (SLC) 5 rounds

Brian Davis Valor Christian High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2018 at 1:16 PM MDT

Greetings!

My name is Dr. Brian Davis and I am the Head Speech and Debate Coach at Valor Christian High School in Highlands Ranch Colorado. I have experience judging LD at the local, state, and national level (both TOC and NFL Nationals). I also have extensive experience judging Public Forum Debate. Below, I have listed some things that are helpful for you to know as you prepare to debate in front of me.

LD Judging

I am a traditional LD judge. This means that I want to see an actual debate about the resolution complete with a framework that links to your case and makes actual sense with the resolution.

Spreading - if you are someone who speed reads from a computer screen while only occasionally coming up for air, please be aware that this does not impress me at all. I prefer quality argumentation to sheer volume of arguments. Spreading is a useless life skill unless you plan on being the voice reading terms and conditions at the end of a commercial - I do not teach it or encourage it. If I cannot understand you, I will not vote for you.

Theory and Topicality - Make sure that you are very clear about what you are doing and why I should vote for it. I do not enjoy debates about debate.

Framework - A V/VC framework is always welcome. If you venture into more ontological, meta-ethical, or epistemological waters, please make sure you are very clear about how your framework operates in relation to the resolution.

Policy Arguments, Off Case Positions, and Kritik cases - run them at your own risk - I am less interested in the game of debate and more interested in direct argumentative clash that is centered on the resolution at hand.

Plans and Counter Plans - In the state where I coach, these are illegal. If you try to run them, do not expect me to be super excited to hear them or to necessarily appreciate them.

Evidence - Please remember that when you are busy showing each other cards, I usually do not get to see them. At the end of the round, I may ask to see a card if something is not clear. Also, I will not buy your arguments simply because you have a card for them. The card has to be good (i.e. clear, accurate, relevant, and from a credible source). Do not simply read cards in your debate. Explain them, link them to your arguments, and impact them.

Oral Disclosure - Unless I am required to do so by the tournament, I do not typically give an oral disclosure after a debate. I am a coach and I have found that debaters do not listen to oral critiques well enough to provide their coach with the real substance of what was said. At least with a written critique, your coach will get a clear picture of what I intended to say without having to filter it through your ego and post-debate emotions.

PF Judging

Speed - I am fine with just about any speed in a PF Debate, but spreading does not impress me and I will not flow all of your arguments if I cannot understand them.

Argumentation - I am always looking for good contention and impact clash. Make sure that you make your impact calculus clear and warrant it for me. Clear voters are helpful as well.

Matthew Delateur Palo Alto High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 8:19 AM PDT

Matt DeLateur

Update 1/14/2023: I find the trend of cards (especially in CX) not being cut into full sentences extremely confusing, both theoretically and practically. I continue to reemphasize -- strategic vision and crystallization are drastically underrated. I don't understand why most CX debates only have substantial clash happening in the 1nr and beyond. Most advantage scenarios and disads I hear these days are mostly based on equivocations of language "we help some program that marginally involves AI" --> "runaway AI mech robots on the battlefield goes nuclear" --> "we solve nuke war". A trained leopard seal being offered a meagre amount of sardines could probably articulate why this is terrible logic. I fail to understand why the response I frequently see in situations like this not to point out fundamental leaps in logic, but to read equally badly warranted and tagged cards in a giant block, doing no line-by-line comparison of warrants. Anyway, I'm an old man, who will radically reward you for debating in a way that shows you are listening to your opponent, asking whether they have warrants and whether those warrants make sense.

CHSSA STATE UPDATE 4/24/2021: Please debate at maximum a medium speed, or run the risk of me not following anything you're saying. I think the state tournament should not be a circuit tournament -- you can still go fast, but if I stop understanding what you're saying, due to lack of clarity or explanation, I stop flowing. Strategic tips: if an opponent's link chain is bad, I will give you a lot of credit for pointing that out -- terminal defense on crappy link chains is a thing imo.

UPDATE 10/14/2017: In terms of circuit debate, I am a broken man. LD has left all sense of reason behind and now exists in an abject of state of meaningless noise. I started competing and coaching LD debate because normative ethical philosophy deserves rigorous intellectual engagement. But, though I understand there are other ways to debate, their execution in LD debate makes me want to do anything else but listen. Please, for the future, strike me if you want to read policy back-files and stupid link-chain disads or if you think debating the k without reading a framework is somehow responsive. Also, theory-hacks, please strike me. If you know how to spell philosophy and can articulate why LD is different than policy, I'm your judge. Otherwise, I reluctantly will be physically present in your round but may be more than a little emotionally and spiritually disturbed. Your humble servant, Matt DeLateur.

I debated LD for 4 years in high school and currently coach LD for Bellarmine College Preparatory. I'm open to all argumentation; speed is not an issue. The ultimate guideline behind my decision-making is that I will minimize intervention on the flow as much as possible.

Style Preferences:

Delivery: Speed is not a problem. Clarity is underrated--pauses before and after author names and during theory or analytics are good.

Speaks: Technical skill, strategy, delivery, clarity, and creativity all contribute to speaker points. My speaker points are probably higher than average.

In my view, speaker points are my way to act as an educator without being coercive with the ballot. That means if you run a topic specific plan, counter-plan, cogent D/As, innovative arguments, debate stock arguments in a positional and interesting way (or even-uninterestingly), topic specific or non-topic specific Ks, etc., you need not worry about your argumentative choices influencing your speaker points. If you choose to run any of the following things: hidden a-prioris, generic potential abuse theory shells (this is an arbitrary bright-line--use your gut--if you're running the shell simply to be strategic rather than because there is abuse, you and I probably know it), new 1AR advocacies, or anything else which I feel comfortable saying would significantly diminish the educational potential of the debate round, I reserve the right to influence the shape of the debate community using speaks.

If this seems unfair/mean to you or if any of the things I listed above that I don't like compose crucial parts of your strategy, please strike me. Otherwise, I like to think that if we agree on the above discussion of what creates an educational activity, we'll get along just fine.

LD Argumentative Preferences:

Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.

A-prioris: I don't necessarily find these arguments inherently bad in themselves. For me to vote on them, you need to 1) Win Truth-testing, or impact the implication of the a-priori to a comparative world 2) Win the a-priori. However, for me not to tank your speaks, you need to 1) clearly impact any a-prioris in your constructive speech, meaning that argument must be labeled as an independent reason to vote for you 2) Be absolutely clear and cogent if questioned about the implication/function of these arguments in cross-examination. Failure to do either of the above conditions will not cause me to vote against you, but I will exercise my subjective control over speaks as I see fit. If you meet the above two, I have absolutely no problem voting on these arguments.

Kritiks: I'm well versed in critical literature and by the end of my time in high school I was primarily a critical debater. Feel free to run anything you want. Be sure to understand your case though--nothing is worse than someone completely bastardizing an argument because they a) didn't cut it b) didn't understand it

Theory: I find theory uninteresting. That being said, it isn't my role to tell you how you spend your weekends. I will listen to any theory argument. I default competing interpretations. My thinking on RVIs has changed a touch, I tend to think that if the debater who initiates theory chooses to make theory drop the debater, theory should be an RVI. If theory is drop the argument, theory is not an RVI. If you make this argument, I will be very receptive to it.

Being blatantly offensive (rape good, racism good, patriarchy good) will earn 0 speaker points and a loss. Debate should be an inclusive and safe environment.

James DeRoche Crescenta Valley High School 3 rounds None

Armand Domalewski Monta Vista High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 15, 2017 at 10:29 AM PDT

I debated for four years of college NPDA/NPTE style parli, which, if
you're not familiar with it, is sort of like HS circuit policy without
cards. I was generally a policy making debater, but in my final year I
ran the K quite a lot, so I'm comfortable with it.

I HAVE NOT COMPETED SINCE 2013. While I have been judging on and off, I am somewhat rusty. Just an FYI. The years have made me both modestly less competent (sorry) but also modestly kinder. While I can handle most speed in Parli, LD and Policy probably have to slow down a bit for me. I'll yell clear and will do my best, but please be aware of my limitations.

Here's the tl;dr if you're reading this right before a round:

1. Speed, theory, k's, procedurals are totally fine.

2. Especially important: slow down on tags so I have pen time, indicate clearly to me when you've switched from one
argument to another (numbering is great, but can be confusing because
many arguments have internal numbering, so "next" works well.)

3. Economics and politics probably need less explanation. Philosophy
(framework, especially) needs more.

4. I love a good theory debate, but I find that it's the most perishable skill in debate, so please please please be
clear, be organized, and tell me how theory arguments interact. The easiest way to win my ballot on questions of theory is to prove some theory argument is the internal link to all other theory arguments, for example.

5. I have some competence in debate and I'm reasonably intelligent, but, like most circuit judges, I am not as smart as you think I am and not nearly as smart as I think I am. Keep that in mind.

Here's the long form:

Speed/Communication:

1) If you are clear I will be able to flow you. You will find it very difficult in Parli or PuFo to spread me out, but Policy or LD might need to slow down a bit. Please allow for pen time. Make sure your tags are clear. It's the debater's job to communicate arguments clearly. I know that sucks---I've been on the receiving end of enough "judge told me to make the argument I actually did make" decisions for three debate careers, but it's the only way we can play the game.

2) I will yell clear for clarity, loud for loudness. I will yell these many times if need be, because I do really want to understand you, but
if you persist, I won't keep yelling all round.

3) Please ignore my nonverbals. During debate rounds, I'm very focused on being as fair as I can to you, so my facial control goes out the window. My happy face doesn't mean you're winning, and my sad face doesn't mean you're losing. My lack of flowing may mean I'm confused, or it may mean I've already written enough of the argument to satisfy me.

Theory:

Please be clear where your answers to theory are (on the counterinterp, on
the violation, etc.) and what their function is. The easiest way to
win my ballot here is to weigh your various theory arguments against
each other, and explain to me why this means you win. (I've judged
rounds where the debater explained to me afterwards why a five second
theory argument should've won them the round. The debater was right,
but the explanation in round to communicate that argument was
insufficient. )

I accept whatever arguments are presented to me. If those arguments
are not made, here is how I default:

1) I have a high, but not impossible, threshold for RVIs...in Parli. In LD, I defer to community norms.

2) Theory comes before pre-fiat comes before post-fiat

3) I default to a framework of competing interpretations.

What arguments you should run in front of me:

Kritiks:
I really, really, really like the K, because I think it is an
incredibly valuable way to confront our most basic assumptions about
society. But I have also not debated for quite some time and my comprehension may not where it used to be.

Keep this in mind. K's are fantastic and cool and wonderful. BUT DO NOT RUN THEM
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. The K works well when you understand not
only what the argument says but also why the argument explains why you
win the round. Yelling "they use biopower" is not enough; you need to
give me reasons why their use of biopower means I should vote against
them. Talk about role of the ballot, tell me why your alt solves, and
tell me why I should vote for you.

Extensions:
1) Extensions. I am not okay with shadow extensions. It's fine to say
"extend the Domalewski card" (I live for the day someone says that, by
the way), but do not use the next speech to explain how that card
interacts with an argument your opponent made. I will not allow
"extend x" in one speech to become magically explained in a later speech.

Speaks:
My range is from 27-30. 28 is average, 27 is below average, 26 and
below is probably racist. 28.5 is above average, 29 is "you will
probably clear", and 29.5-29.8 is "you are likely to win this
tournament." Anything above and I will be actively recruiting you to
join my future Presidential campaign, both because I am in awe of your
talents and terrified that if you do not join me you will destroy me.

I reward, in this order:
1. Good strategic choices. Do you have a crafty, strategic case? Do
you collapse to the right places throughout the round? Do you use your
opponent's mistakes against him/her? Do you see the outs your opponent
has, and shut them down?
2. Clarity. To quote my good friend Om Alladi, "structure is KEY. I
really like structured arguments. this does not mean subpoints etc.
but labelling of arguments. if you tag every argument with the
appropriate function, ie '1) not true- 2) alt causality 3) solvency
takeout' i will appreciate it immensely."
3. Innovation/cleverness. Running a weird interpretation or unique
contentions will earn you points. I like creativity.
4. These things will TANK your speaker points: rudeness, being mean to
novices, spreading out people who ask you to slow down, intentionally
being unclear, racist/sexist/homophobic language. Read the room: being
aggressive and dominant is fine against a debater that is equal to
you in skill, but comes off as bullying to someone who is less
experienced.

Laleh Ebadat Leland High School 3 rounds None

Brian Erskine Lovejoy High School 5 rounds None

Ben Fagan Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Sylvia Fan Amador Valley High School None

Travis Fife Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 6, 2023 at 2:29 AM PDT

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

Laura Flores Citrus Valley High School 5 rounds None

John Foy Saint Francis High School 5 rounds None

Kristina Getty Fairview High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 5:26 AM MDT

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

Manijeh Ghasemian Lynbrook High School 4 rounds None

Jagadeswari Gnanasekas Monta Vista High School 3 rounds None

Jagadeswari Gnanasekas Monta Vista High School None

Jaymee Go Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 26, 2019 at 5:44 AM PDT

My debate background is in policy, but at this point, I have experience judging PF and LD as well. Feel free to to do whatever you want and make any arguments you can clearly explain and effectively justify. I am open to anything and enjoy thoughtful and creative approaches to debate as long as you are not being rude or offensive. If you're being a jerk, I will dock speaks.

If I am judging your round, make sure you do the following:

-Keep track of time: I will not be timing any of your speeches or prep, so time yourselves and your opponents-I'd prefer avoiding situations where no one knows how much prep time is left or how long a person has been speaking. Also, please respect when the timer goes off-If your time runs out during prep, I expect you to begin your speech promptly, and begin any of your remaining speeches right away. If your time runs out during your speech, please stop speaking.

-Share evidence quickly: I won't count getting your speech doc over to your opponent as prep time, but please be prepared to do so immediately once you end prep (the document should already be saved at this point). I'm pretty understanding with technical difficulties you may encounter, but you should be able to resolve these quickly and I will get annoyed if you take too long to share evidence. Please include me on any evidence email chains as well.

-Assume I don't know about the resolution: This is super important because I am not consistently judging the same type of debate throughout the year and I have very likely not done any research on the topic. If I'm judging you in PF or LD, be aware that it's the first round at a tournament on a new topic, it's possible that l think it's still the previous topic. This means that you should be as thorough as possible in explaining things and if you're going to be using acronyms to refer to agencies, departments, organizations, laws, policies, etc. in your speeches, you should tell me what it is at least once. If it's unclear, I either won't know what you are talking about, or have to spend time during your speeches to google it.

If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask me before your round. No need to shake my hand.

Kuhuk Goyal Mission San Jose High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2019 at 5:04 AM PDT

kuhukg@gmail.com

I debated LD for four years at Newark Memorial and I went to the TOC my senior year.

I will evaluate any argument you choose to run as best I can. Some warnings:

I am a terrible, terrible flower. That means it is probably best that you go a little slower than you normally would just to make sure I flow that 10-second blip in the 1AR that will become a key piece of offense in the 2.

I ran a lot of K's in high school so I'm at least somewhat familiar with the lit. However, I still feel that debaters have an obligation to clearly explain their positions to their opponents during CX and speeches. If the position is seriously poorly explained and your explanations demonstrate a lack of understanding of your case, I may consider just not evaluating the position, and at the very least, I will seriously dock your speaks. On the other hand, I really enjoy good substantive K debate and I tend to inflate speaks when I'm happy.

My threshold for RVI's is probably as high as my threshold for theory. Which is to say, it's probably lower than most judges'. But don't take this to mean that I'll just vote for you if you run the RVI. Just as many things have to fall into place for me to vote for the RVI as for me to vote on theory or any other argument. I default competing interps.

I won't evaluate presumption unless there is some VERY clear argument made as to why there is NO offense in round. But in general, I think that this is almost never true and think that any argument linked to a framework (perhaps even a theory standard weighed by fairness/education) is probably a better reason to vote than presumption.

Make sure you have fun! I know debate is a super competitive and difficult activity but make sure you're not taking yourself too seriously in round - it is just a game. I also feel that if a debater is having fun, they're more confident and the round will be overall more fun to watch, which will be reflected in your speaks.

That's all that I can think of right now, but if you have any other questions, just ask me before the round. Good luck!

Dhananjay griyage Young Genius Academy 2 rounds None

Quhui Guo Milpitas High School 4 rounds None

Chris Guthrie Fairview High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 29, 2021 at 3:21 PM PDT

I debated in high school back about 10 years ago. I did LD for 3 years and CX for 1.

Speech and debate is at its best when competitors are genuinely trying to make sense of the world and explore visions of the future. I'm here to help you improve at this (to whatever extent I can), and also to learn some new things for myself.

Before your round begins, please feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm.

All debate events:

I vote for whoever persuades me most towards their side of the resolution. I recognize that I approach any resolution with some baggage and bias. Whether I leave the room in agreement with the resolution or not isn't the point. The point is how well your arguments move my views (or reinforce them) towards your side of the resolution. Basically: my ballot is relative.

- Extensions: Please extend your winning arguments throughout the round. Extensions should include a summary of the argument (claim), its rationale including its link to the resolution (warrant), and its relative importance in the debate (impact).

- Crystallization: In your final rebuttal please weigh your impacts against the impacts your opponent has claimed.

- Speed: I'm only so-so at handling speed. Also, I don't normally ask for cases or evidence after rounds unless there's a dispute about the card being cut abusively. So, going at a slower pace reduces the risk that I miss an argument or misunderstand your evidence. By the time I say "clear," I may have already missed something. Whatever you do, please read taglines and authors at a conversational speed.

- Narrative and performance: Emotion is an important element of persuasion. I welcome stories, metaphors, humor, and art, especially when it comes to the values/framework debate. But overcoming skepticism is also an important element of persuasion. You should always be prepared to engage on the level of logic, facts, and expert opinions.

- Civility: Don't be deliberately rude to your opponent (or to me, for that matter).

LD-specific:

I have a "comparative worlds" paradigm. I imagine that I have influence over the decisions made by some agent*. The aff should paint a picture of a world in which that agent changes their behavior in accordance with the resolution. The neg should paint a picture of a competing world, by default the status quo in which the agent doesn't change their behavior. I aim to vote for whichever world is the most attractive.

Both sides should present a value criterion, i.e. a heuristic that reduces the question of "attractiveness" to something more objective, so I can reasonably weigh impacts.

You may use a core value to help clarify the deeper "why" of your criterion.

Multiple aff advocacies are ok (i.e., "agent A should do X *or* agent B should do Y") as long as both advocacies are topical.

Counterplans should be non-topical.

* Unless a specific agent is specified in the resolution, my assumption is that the agent is abstract and generic, like "some state" or "some individual." If aff wants to get more specific, that's ok, but I expect them to keep it familiar (the USA or a well-known organization or something like that). It's not very educational to debate the actions of a foreign government or some other group that only aff knows about.

Applies to both LD and CX:

Counterplans should be exclusive to the plan.

Multiple counterplans are OK. However, you should present at most one value framework.

Ks: There are a couple things I'm strict about. (1) No role-of-the-ballot arguments. Like I said above, I vote for whoever persuaded me most towards their side of the resolution. Your K should link to the language of the resolution or of your opponent's plan/advocacy, not to the language your opponent used in their contentions or evidence. (2) Your framework should clearly justify why the (typically ideological) impacts of the K have any weight at all in the round. By default, I only consider the impact of the actions each side advocates an agent take -- that is, the post-fiat impacts.

Theory is fine, but I don't judge it based on the flow. I judge it by whether or not I actually agree with you. If you want to improve your odds, you should have simple interpretations and impact them to the educational value of debate. While Theory may lead me to disregard other arguments, I won't treat a Theory violation as a voting issue in-and-of itself.

CX-specific:

I am less experienced in CX, but I can generally keep up with what's going on. Between "policymaker" and "stock issues," I guess I have a "policymaker" paradigm. That said, if you do something weird like argue for a plan that's already been passed or a plan that has a super-trivial impact, I might vote against you on the basis of Inherency or Harms. I'm very friendly to framework arguments.

PF:

I'm not a fan of counter-intuitive definitions or philosophical arguments. Common sense is the name of the game.

David Hale La Canada High School

Last changed on Sat February 7, 2015 at 2:57 AM PDT

Hale, David

Instructor at California State University Los Angeles, and East Los Angeles College
Assistant Director of Forensics at La Canada High School (La Canada) since 2014
Assistant Director of Forensics at East Los Angeles College (Los Angeles) since 2014
Coach at Nova42 & Wilshire Academy (Los Angeles) since 2012

Experience
I primarily competed in the realm of interpretation (8 years). However, as a coach my focus has expanded into platform, limited prep, as well as debate (2009 - present). In my time as a debate coach I have had several PuFo teams place at middle school nats. Outside of the activity of speech and debate I have obtained a B.A. and M.A. in Communication Studies. In terms of fields of study I have narrowed my areas of specialization to Rhetoric, Argumentation, and Performance Studies.

General Paradigm
I am a firm believer in the perspective that argumentation is part logic, rhetoric, and dialectic. Specifically I will take into consideration; the logic of the cases presented, whether or not you assessed the available means to persuade me, and lastly if you have attempted to advance the argument by sussing out the most relevant issues. That being said, it is your round and I will do my best to let you determine how you wish me to judge the round -- with the exception of any procedural errors.

Speed/Delivery
In terms of speed I am mildly competent, on a scale of 1-10 I would say my skill is a 6. With regards to delivery, I tend to evaluate what is communicated through the rubric of delivery, arrangement, invention, memory, and style. (If you are unfamiliar with Neo-Aristotelian theory feel free to ask me in round)

Speaker Points
I'll quote from another paradigm that I think best states my view "I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 30 points, second best, 29.5 points, third, 29, and worst, 28.5. I will only give you below a 28.5 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action during the round. I will also deduct an entire point if you are not flowing the majority of the time that you should be. The trend to stop flowing because you are looking at a document (that, mind you, the judge can't see) is gradually excluding us from the rounds....plus, it is creating debates that are more shallow and debaters who think they are "too good" to practice sound debate skills. FLOW THE ROUND." (Megan West)

Technology
Have at it, just make it quick. I won't be forgiving of technological failures.

David Hale La Canada High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 7, 2015 at 2:57 AM PDT

Hale, David

Chris Harris Saratoga High School 6 rounds None

MIchael Harris Mission San Jose High School 6 rounds

Thomas Hobbs Mountain Pointe High School 4 rounds None

Joanna Hong Young Genius Academy 5 rounds None

Charles huang Monta Vista High School

Wei Huang Young Genius Academy 5 rounds

Jordan Hudgens Bainbridge Island High School 5 rounds None

Katie Hughes Lynbrook High School 6 rounds

Winnie Hwang San Marino High School 6 rounds None

Margaret Inui Los Altos High School 3 rounds None

Rory Jacobson Lynbrook High School 6 rounds None

Arman Jaffer Mountain View High Schools 5 rounds

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

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

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

2013:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jyothi Jasti Young Genius Academy 5 rounds

Surya Jayaweera Claremont High School 4 rounds None

Cecilia Johnston Foothill Technology High School 4 rounds None

Charles Ju Monta Vista High School 4 rounds None

Hirut Kassa Prospect High School 3 rounds None

Sallie Kim Crystal Springs Uplands School 5 rounds None

Young Kim Palo Alto High School 2 rounds None

Dixee Kimball Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 8, 2015 at 2:39 AM PDT

Stanford ‘18

The Davidson Academy of Nevada ‘14

Greetings! I tried to list the categories below in order of importance to you.

Style

I debated in LD for four years during high school. My leagues primarily adhered to a traditional style of LD. Therefore, I prefer clear, structured, logically-sound, persuasive argumentation that can be used to defeat an opponent who uses any style. LD is not policy. That being said, I’m somewhat familiar with theory and kritiks, so if they’re what you and your opponent are comfortable with then feel free to use them. However, you both will have to work harder to persuade me to vote on whatever you’re using. If your opponent is not familiar with theory/kritiks, then please don’t implement them to exclude him/her from the round—doing so detracts from the educational aspect of debate. Regardless of what style you use, please clash, weigh, explain impacts, signpost, present voting issues, and remain polite.

Rebuttals

I usually don't flow author names, so try not to reference your cards by author names. Instead, say something like "in the Chicago study, where X was discovered..." If you repeatedly reference the card then it's fine to say "in the Chicago study/card."

I don't really like direct evidence battles ("My card says X." "Oh yeah? Well mine says Y.") They don’t yield much productive clash, and thus it’s difficult for me to vote (whose evidence should I believe...?) Rather than tunnel-visioning on your cards, work towards discrediting your opponent's cards on the meta-level (e.g. their study is outdated, too specific, too general, actually flows on your side, etc).

On a related note, I greatly appreciate analytic/theoretical/common-sense arguments. If executed properly, they can elegantly and effectively provide offense and defense. (I have yet to do so, but I’ll give you full speaker points if you win mostly off of such arguments).

Speed

Use speed only if it’s necessary for your argumentation, and only if your opponent and I can keep up. If you spread too quickly for me to follow, I will ask you to slow down before omitting your arguments from my flow. Please do not spread to exclude your opponent. I don’t like spreading for the sake of spreading, so please don’t turn the round into a lung-capacity demonstration.

Presentation

Your presentation is fairly important and will be considered, but must ultimately be backed by substance. That being said, I’m human so I’m susceptible to some pathos; therefore if you can speak like Clinton, give it a shot.

Evidence

Evidence is necessary for empirical arguments, and not as important for theoretical arguments. This means that it’s perfectly possible (and in my case, probably preferred) to create arguments and dismantle your opponent’s arguments without any evidence. Definitely don’t clip cards. Every card you present should have full citations and the full text. If necessary when voting, I will ask to see crucial cards after the round.

CX is binding and I consider it a speech. It’d probably be in your best interest to further your case or politely attack your opponent’s during this time. I may flow parts of CX if I feel that it will be important later in the debate, but you should bring them up in your rebuttal for my consideration.

2AR

This is the one speech where I will impose some reasonable judgment on what you say, because your opponent has no chance to respond. I will ignore (and possibly vote you down) for any ridiculous arguments, false statements, and anything else that you normally wouldn’t say if the negative had another speech.

Good luck and have fun!

Suzie Kito El Cerrito High School 4 rounds None

Steve Knell Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 29, 2022 at 1:27 PM PDT

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

Rajashree Krishnamoorthy Mission San Jose High School 5 rounds None

Kevin Krotz Del Mar Independent None

Jodi Kruger Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds None

Raghu Raman Lakshmanan Young Genius Academy 10 rounds None

Sapna Lalwani Monta Vista High School 4 rounds None

Eunsil Lee Young Genius Academy 5 rounds None

Elana Leone Hire None

Liz Letak Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds None

Alice Lin Del Mar Independent 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 11, 2021 at 10:42 AM PDT

Updated 1/11/2021.

Background: I competed in NPDA parli at Berkeley 2011-2015. I debated both policy and critical, but many of my original positions were race/gender criticisms and I leaned heavily critical towards the end of my career. I now work for the USFG - mostly on economic policy, but previously on health and immigration policy.

I have judged a few times per year on the national circuit for the past five years, but have not judged this year. If you are having me at Mile High 2021, the last tournament I judged was NPTE 2020, so I have not judged virtually before. Therefore, if you get me in the first few prelims, you may want to go slightly slower than usual. I have not been involved in topic prep at all, so keep that in mind.

Generally, you should do what you want to do (as long as you aren't a jerk) because this is your time and I'm not volunteering my weekend and/or taking time off work to watch people be miserable.

Open to answering questions - message me on Facebook, preferably before prep time begins.

Condo: I have no preference.

Ks: I'm more familiar with race/gender-based criticisms. I don't understand pomo or psychoanalysis well. Feel free whether to defend the topic or not - I read a lot of nontopical affs. But will also vote on framework.

Theory: I was not a good theory debater, and don't have very nuanced views on theory compared to where the circuit has moved. But I seem to vote on it a decent amount.

Speaks: Aside from all the usual, you will get higher speaks if 1) you are not unnecessarily an asshole, 2) you say true things, 3) you sound like you want to be there.

Miscellaneous Observations:

- I enjoy the performative aspect of debate (not limited to "performance" arguments, and not limited to grandstanding).

- I enjoy original, creative arguments.

- I think debate is a fun game and that different people get different things out of it. I tend to think that one of the things with the most significant lasting impact is how we interact with other people in the activity. Which is not everyone must be nice all the time, but I hope people can be compassionate in the context of a competitive environment, while not shying away from confronting hard things.

Larry Liu Hire 6 rounds None

Terrence Lonam Lake Highland Preparatory 6 rounds

Patrick Lou Albany 5 rounds None

Wenxiang Ma Young Genius Academy 5 rounds None

Terri Maa Palo Alto High School 3 rounds None

Shiva Maganahalli Dougherty Valley High School None

Kristen Malkovich Saint Francis High School 6 rounds

Christina Manukyan Crescenta Valley High School 4 rounds None

Sergio Martinez Oakwood School - North Hollywood 6 rounds

Shivani Mathur Oakwood High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 10, 2016 at 2:16 PM PDT

I debated for Oakwood (not the one in LA) in California.
Short Version:

I don't judge often, so I'm not familiar with topic lit
It is in your best interest to not go your fastest
Theory is not my forte

Speed: I can handle spreading, but please don’t go full blitz at me. I will yell clear 3 times before I start dropping speaks. Also, if you’re spreading just to scare your opponent and refuse to explain your case, I’ll drop speaks.
Extensions: I have a high threshold for extensions, so please extend your arguments fully or I won’t consider them extended.
Theory: I’m not a giant fan of theory, but just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it. The way I see it, theory should be run as a check on abuse or somewhat obvious potential abuse. I'm pretty much in tune with the norm on how most people view theory.
That is:
-I default to competing interps unless told otherwise
-I default to drop the arg not the drop the debater
-I like to see specific interpretations/violations/whatnot. If you're extemping a theory shell, make it as clear as possible.
-I meet with some sort of reason is a perfectly reasonable response to a shell
That being said, if you're a theory debater, I'm not the judge for you.
Skep: why
Kritiks: I really enjoy kritiks! As long as your prove a clear link to resolution, I’ll be a happy judge.
Framework: I default to a utilitarian worldview if nobody tells me differently. I enjoy engaging framework debates and philosophical discussions. Judging util-deont deadlocks in which each debater is reading generic dumps is not my favorite thing. Make it exciting.
Intervention: I honestly prefer not to intervene. However, I will intervene if neither debater has done enough work to warrant a vote. Also, I won't blindly vote on an unwarranted argument (even if it goes conceded).
Speaks: I won’t give less than a 26 unless your argument was offensive or you were incredibly rude during the round. Most debaters will fall in the 27-29 range.

Lots of weighing is a great way to get my ballot. I believe in voting on the flow. That being said, please be organized as you debate. Few things frustrate me more than debaters who don't signpost or tell me where they're going.
Most importantly, have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions

Shawn Matson Hire 6 rounds

David McGinnis West Des Moines Valley 6 rounds

Tim McHugh Loyola High School 5 rounds

Sharad Mehrotra Lynbrook High School 2 rounds None

Dan Meyers Presentation High School None

Susan Moore La Canada High School None

Debora Morrison El Cerrito High School 4 rounds None

Leana Mosesian Crescenta Valley High School 3 rounds None

Sri Narasimhan Atiiva Academy 2 rounds None

Todd Newkirk Presentation High School 5 rounds None

Reed Niemi Delta Charter HS 4 rounds

Mariah Noah Miramonte High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 8, 2015 at 11:11 AM PDT

Experience: I competed for 4 years in high school parli, and 2 1/2 years in NPDA college parli. I have coached two high school parli teams and currently coach at Miramonte High School. I also coach policy debate for The Bay Area Urban Debate League.

Judging philosophy: I'm a fairly straight forward judge. I judge in the most tabula rasa way I can. I also tend to view debate as a game. I will judge based on impacts and will give low point wins if the "better" team does not win the debate. I do not have a particular bias or preference to any category of debate argument. I will listen to and enjoy procedurals as well as kritiks. That said, I put a high burden on the team running procedurals to run them correctly (that means tell me why to vote here!!!). Additionally if you want to run a Kritik, make sure you have done your homework and can run it well. My pet peeve is when high school debaters see that I'm a college judge and try to run crazy things without warranting them out. I'm all for crazy, but it needs to be well warranted. (For example, "Econ crash leads to resource wars leads to nuclear war!" Is not well warranted.) Rebuttals should not summarize the debate or engage in more line-by-line than is absolutely necessary. Rather they should pick the arguments you are winning and tell me why you are winning them and why that wins you the debate. Please please please collapse down to the 1 or 2 positions that are winning you the round. Going for everything is basically always the wrong rebuttal strategy. I'm fine with speed but I don't like it as a tool for exclusion so Id like both teams to consent to its use.

Important considerations: I believe words matter. I urge you to carefully consider your rhetoric to avoid problematic language. My biggest rhetorical pet peeve in debate is assuming all government officials are men. Using "congressmen" instead of "congress members" or "congress people" can frustrate me to the point of making it hard to pay as close attention to the debate as you would like. The other common debate phrase I find problematic is, "silence is consent." I think it is just as easy to say, "this argument is conceded" or simply, "they dropped this" without using rhetoric that can remind some people about violent language that may heave been used against them. Lastly, I couldn't care less about appearance. I weigh your arguments, not you're attire. So if you don't feel like changing into your heels or wearing your tie, that's 100% fine by me.

John Nunziati Bellarmine College Preparatory 5 rounds None

Dawn Osuna Citrus Valley High School 5 rounds None

Bob Overing Loyola High School 6 rounds

Michael Overing Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2018 at 8:29 AM PDT

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

Sudhakar Padala Evergreen Valley High School 2 rounds None

Shikhar Parjan Monta Vista High School 5 rounds None

Brad Park Mission San Jose High School 5 rounds None

Ashan Peiris Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 24, 2015 at 2:58 AM PDT

(Updated 10/14/15)
Asst LD Coach @ Loyola High School
Coached Loyola the past 10 years.
Judged numerous TOC level outrounds including the TOC and TOC outrounds as well.

Flashing/Prep
I will give an extra minute of prep for flashing/emailing but it is included in prep.

Speed
It's important to know that I flow by hand. The arguments show up on my flow in proportion to the amount of understanding I have of them, which is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend making the argument.

RFDs
At the end of the day my decision is almost entirely technical. I formulate my RFDs in almost an entirely technical manner. I vote for the side with more offense to the relevant framework.

Argument Evaluation
If there's more than one framework, layer the frameworks. If you're not the only one with offense to that framework THEN WEIGH THE OFFENSE. I absolutely abhor injecting my own beliefs into the debate round. Ideally, my RFD will just be me saying back to you only things that have been said in the round. I generally do as little embedded clash as possible because it involves what I believe to be intervention. Thus, you should take it upon yourself to do as much argument comparison as possible.

Rebuttals
I highly recommends that you start with framework debate at the beginning of your rebuttals. It will make my decision easier. Also have solid overviews that evaluate the issues of the round. The overview should predict the answers to the questions I will have at the end of the round. For example, does Fairness come before the K? Does their turn link to your Deont framework? etc. Generally, the rebuttals should collapse. I'm not particularly fond of new offs in the rebuttals. The best 2ARs I've seen so far collapse to the positions the neg collapsed to and spend the 2AR weighing offense.

T/Theory
My least favorite part of judging debate rounds is T/Theory. There are two reasons. First, if you're spreading analytics its almost impossible to flow by hand. Please power tag your analytics (at least the important ones) with one or two words that I can write down. Second, no one evaluates or weighs standards level offense. Please tell me what to do with offense under each standard, for both sides. Please tell me which standard comes first and why. Then please tell me which voter comes first.

ROB
Please tell me how the ROB relates to all other frameworks. Is it pre-fiat and weighs against T? Or is it post fiat and precludes ethical frameworks. Lastly, tell me what offense links and doesn't link and how it weighs out. (Am I sounding like a broken record yet?).

Speaks
Persuasive styles, strategy, solid and compelling overviews, dominant cross-ex's, ease of decision and less prep time use.

Sudhir Pendse Los Altos High School 3 rounds

Rajiv Pendyala Young Genius Academy 5 rounds None

Dan Perdomo La Reina High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 20, 2016 at 6:45 AM PDT

Thesis: I WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY POLICY DEBATE IS WORTH SAVING

Experience: I was a debater for five years (4 years hs, 1 year open college policy) a long time ago. The last time I made a speech or cut a card was in 2009. I judge lots of debates a year. For the past two years I have mainly judged LD, Parli, and PuFo. I do not listen to a ton of fast rounds anymore. I flow on paper.

I like critical/performative debates*. I am a "big picture"-style judge. I don't like the "heg good" debate. I don't like procedural debates.

I don't dig "heg good," "cap good," or full-blast circuit speed very much but I will do my best to place myself in whatever framework you give me (read: Give me one). I have a reputation as a K hack even though I vote on topicality all the time. See below for more detailed thoughts on critical debates.

You won't win the round on defense, but you can beat the offense. One contextual, well-explained perm is better than 2 dropped blippy perms. Perms are a test of competition, but that still means I weigh the opportunity cost of world of the perm vs. world of only the counter-advocacy. "Judge-kick" is not a thing unless you tell me it is, by default I evaluate every world present in the 2NR as best I can.

I think a multiplicity of debates is good. I am usually not persuaded by most arguments in favor of excluding "non-traditional" debate, and generally hesitant to drop a team on T or theory if I can avoid it (unless it's dropped, you prove blatant in-round abuse, or you crush it technically). I don't like playing the debate police. If you're going to go for T or theory in front of me, you need to really go for it. You should have some sort of big-picture abuse story that demonstrates the kinds of debate you wanted to have that they have prevented you from having, and reasons why those debates are important enough to reject the team. To be persuasive, the procedural needs to be the centerpiece (preferably your entire) 2A/NR--I think presence of another decently-developed generic argument in the 2NR could sometimes be enough to solve the offense on T, and case-specific turns or link stories pretty much prove no in-round abuse. Condo can be a voter if there are multiple mutually-exclusive worlds in the 2NR. I am often persuaded by reasonability, and I often reject the argument but not the team. Despite these preferences, don't hesitate to go for these arguments in front of me if you really think they are the best strategic decision, lots of my neg ballots are for topicality.

I tend to be very laid-back in terms of decorum: I really don't care if you tag-team CX or speak from your seat as long as your delivery doesn't suffer. I don't time evidence flashing unless it begins to take an inordinate amount of time. Oral prompting is fine, but I only flow what comes out of the designated speaker's mouth. I listen to CX but usually don't flow it. I don't call for speech docs and will try not to call for evidence unless the quality of specific cards or warrants are explicitly brought up in the round.

There is no 3rd rebuttal: your job as a debater is to clearly communicate your arguments to convince me to sign the ballot your way and adapt a little if I don't happen to be your ideal judge. If you have not done this than no amount of post-debate hassling will change the decision. This is in fact a great way to get a 25 from me.

Notes for surveillance topic: I haven't done research on it, and haven't coached any kids on it. I have judged policy at one bid tournament (La Costa) and two regionals this year. I don't know the commonly used cards by name. You need to be specific and explain stuff to me like I am a small child.

*So here's the deal: I only did critical debate for a couple years and I'm not a philosophy or rhetoric major or anything, but I am into a lot of these authors in an amateur capacity. Don't assume I already understand your k, or know what it is based solely on the author's name. You will need to explain which Å½iÅ¾ek you happen to have brought to our debate round, and tell a good clear story about what your k means for the debate. In k debates I tend to prefer the style of delivery to somewhat gel with the content of the argument, so I'd really rather not watch you say you create a critical pedagogy of the oppressed at 300 wpm as one of 3 possible 2NRs. Extending tags and saying "they cause genocide" is not persuasive. I don't like hyper-generic "you use the USFG"-style link arguments and can usually be persuaded by a well-explained perm in those cases. I think that sometimes specific legal reforms can create specific material gains for specific oppressed people that impact their daily lives, but I also think that real radical change probably would require a revolution. I believe no debate is outside the world: this round has a social/historical/spacial location and does not happen in a magical non-place. This applies to both sides of a clash of civilizations debate: your arguments are advocacies in an educational space--external impacts are only valuable as far as they inform debate practices/discussions which may or may not produce good education. This means they do not on-face outweigh arguments which indict the kind of education your methodology produces. This is honestly the only model of debate that makes sense to me, and I'm often at a loss when teams ask me to weigh nuclear war scenarios against the K because they are "more real world." As you may have guessed my natural bias is definitely toward the left but I try my best to vote within a framework laid out by the debaters--that means comparing competing frameworks and explaining what my ballot does and how I should evaluate impacts. I am fine with critical affs, non-topical affs, performance affs, whatever, but like anything else you need to justify what you do in the round. Though I encourage teams to make the debate round whatever they want it to be, I don't feel comfortable when teams ask me to actively participate/intervene in the discussion; this puts me in a weird position in terms of choosing a winner and I don't really feel it's possible for me to participate without in some way telling the debaters what to say. All this means is that in such a situation it is impossible for me to be an impartial adjudicator; I am open to arguments that I shouldn't be--but this is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

If you are running anti-blackness, you should read this article first: http://fivefouraff.com/2015/08/21/on-white-afro-pessimism/

Olena Petrova Lynbrook High School 3 rounds None

Erik Pielstick Los Osos High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 8:57 AM PDT

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

Jan Pizzo Butte Falls High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 10:53 AM PDT

I joined the NSDA as a high school student in 1978 and have been involved in the activity at many levels and in many different roles ever since. My initial exposure to speech and debate was a year long class in the structure and theory of cross-examination debate. While I appreciate all forms of debate, C-X is my favorite format. I rarely judge because I am usually part of the tab staff or doing other administrative duties, including at nationals.

C-X Paradigm: I will listen to whatever arguments you run; however, if they are not sufficiently backed up with analysis and just consist of reading large numbers of cards with no solid links to your argument you will have a tough time picking up my ballot. Understanding the power of Stock Issues goes a long way with me, but I will vote on what is on the flow. I dislike generic disadvantages, generic K's and incomplete counter-plans. I can follow very fast debaters, but I dislike using speed to cover-up for logical inconsistencies and analytical flaws. I do not want to have to ask for cards, so be honest. Ethics are important, be respectful. Do not do things that will drive people away from the event. Tag-teaming is fine as long as I am able to see the c-x skills of both partners.

L-D Paradigm: I expect L-D debaters to have a more communicative style than policy debaters. The debater who holds their case together along with maintaining the supremacy (or at least equality) of their value and criterion is the debater likely to get my ballot. My position on theory is related to regional expectations. If I am judging a TOC meet I will expect K's and counter-plans. I do not expect these structures at Oregon tournaments.

Public Forum Paradigm: Communication is important in Public Forum. I expect a smaller number of arguments than in other debate formats; additionally, the arguments need to be clear and logically supported. Analysis, examples and cross-application to other academic disciplines (such as literature) are strategies I appreciate. I expect good manners. Grand Cross-Fire should not degenerate into a yelling match. I need to understand who is talking.

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm: I consider this a "no rules" debate. What you tell me is what I will use as my decision calculus. That said, I still expect good manners and good ethics. Do not lie to me. If you use policy concepts I am fine with that, but do not beat up on inexperienced debaters--this will not get my ballot.

Tim Pollard Gig Harbor HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:54 AM PDT

Hi.

This is Tim Pollard.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2024):

Yearly small note addition before I judge my one-ish tournament of the season, content of last year's note is all you really need to know (but my hearing has improved dramatically).

JanFeb 2024 is a topic that concerns several rapidly-developing global crisis. Evidence that describes the behavior of states a decade ago is probably really questionable. Evidence the describes the relations between countries in the region more than 6 months ago is probably pretty questionable. You should ask your opponent these questions.

** I am going to be very willing to accept reasonable analysis made by a debater about current states of affairs over outdated evidence. **

Brief note for LD Debaters (2023):

Every year I stray further from meaningful investment in debate. All the things below are probably still true, but I have spent even less time involved in the activity than previously. Be gentle. I can hopefully still flow your speed but my sound discrimination is completely shot so make sure you are exceptionally clear at whatever speed you debate.

To summarize the decade of rambling that follows, the process to get me to vote for you is:

a. explain what you are defending.

b. explain why that is different from the other side.

c. explain why that means you win.

I will probably laugh if you structure every argument with each of these three points but based on a lot of the debates I've judged in the past few years it would probably also result in the easiest ballot of my life voting for you.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2022):

Short notes to actually reflect the sort of debates I seem to be judging.

The space topic is complex and kindof unclear about what actually constitutes topical ground. Please make it extremely clear what constitutes "appropriation" and what your position says about it. I will be heavily rewarding debaters who leverage this fact in the speaker points department and think it will greatly improve your strategic position.

util mirrors reward nuance and in-depth analysis. You should be able to identify what the current direction of the status quo is (uniqueness) what the affirmative does to affect that condition (link) and what the implication is for people (impact). Your speech should reflect this structure and the more explicitly you develop what each portion of the argument ("the economy is collapsing now so there's no risk to the disadvantage", "chinese emissions mean US action can't change the status quo") the more directed I will be towards voting for you.

the easiest way to increase your speaker points beyond that on the negative is to not waste speech time reading a nonsense framework that is just "act utilitarianism" when your opponent has already done so. If your framework offers an actual strategic advantage, go ahead but if your 2nc is going to be a body count against the aff's bodycount please don't spend 20s of the 1n telling me why "justice subsumes morality" (please never say that in any debate).

Note for LD debaters (2020):

Below you will find a paradigm that reflects what I've been doing in debate for the last 5 years - infrequently judging policy debates. All the points translate pretty directly back to how I feel about LD. Though I should add that I do have a reasonable amount of familiarity with "LD-style" arguments, so don't worry that I won't like your Kant Aff. I would love to hear your Kant aff.

However, policy debate HAS spoiled me by not having to deal with some of the ... idiosyncrasies of LD debate. Three aimless rant sections identified with bold if you don't have time to read the corpus and need to check what's relevant to you.

First, I think Theory debates in LD generally sit somewhere between asinine and making the activity of debate actively worse. If yr ideal 1ar involves metatheory, I am likely not your judge. I also really don't want to judge any theory debate that would make "Reading util against a Kant aff and then going to case" an impermissible negative strategy (AFC / ACC sort of things). Arguments like theory-justified frameworks are pretty close to that as well, seems like cowards moves. That said THERE ARE DEFINITELY TIMES WHERE YOU CAN AND SHOULD READ THEORY AND THAT'S OK. TOPICALITY is a different class of argument from theory and you should read it.

Second, at an in-person debate event, i would be unable to flow yr a-through-f enumerated warp-speed-delivered 5-word-each wall of spikes. I can't imagine this gets better over Zoom, so enunciate. Slow down a little, or i'm liable to miss the third reason why moral skepticism affirms and I will not vote on it when it shows up in the rebuttal. This is also true in the theory debate. If yr strat is to make your opponent miss something in the cloud of chaff, I'm likely to miss it as well and won't feel bad about not voting on it.

Third, some of the notes on K debates below likely operate slightly differently in LD than in policy debate (or maybe they don't.. i have no idea what the metagame looks like these days). Short version: Yes I will vote for your critical argument. It is absolutely crucial that you explain how it functions and under what understanding of the world and debate I should vote for it if that differs from "the resolution is true/false". I've probably forgotten most of the buzzwords so walk me through it.

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round if you want something made more clear or it's not in the doc - I don't spend a lot of time in-depth thinking about debate anymore so I'm sure it's imperfect. timapollard is my google email handle if you have q's. (Actually does this tournament even have prefs? You might just be stuck with me and I hope to provide better service than the average rando. Good luck.)

Top-level (Following material assumed policy debate but still applies generally):

The first thing I evaluate in debates are questions of uniqueness or differentiation. You will win if you prove why whatever you did in your speech is distinct and preferable from your opponents.

I usually think of debate as a game (in the strategic and competitive sense). That doesn’t mean that it lacks extrinsic value or is bound to specific sets of norms or forms of strategy. But does mean that things like speech time limits and my ability to sign a ballot deciding a winner are non-optional. Prep ends when you email the doc or otherwise transmit your speech to the opponent.

The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I am willing to vote on presumption if either I cannot describe to myself what an argument does or can be persuaded by either side wrt it's non-function.

Judging the round is based on the comparative quality of argument as presented. The most important thing is that your chosen form of argumentation displays knowledge of the issues and is compellingly defended. The more you sound well-researched and engaged in the issues, the better points I'm likely to give you.

I evaluate performance in CrossX compatibly to a speech.

I flow on paper and might ask you for some. I still want the doc, but pay attention because I don't want to (and probably won't) dredge up yr args from some speech doc if I couldn't catch them in the speech. I'm usually pretty good at saying if I can't flow you.

Assorted Specifics:

This is the first tournament I have judged on the arms sales topic. Assume my knowledge of the topic is imperfect - as mentioned, yr burden to make me get yr arg.

Plan is implemented and matters debates

I don't subscribe to the offence/defense paradigm and believe in the ability of sufficiently complete defense/lack-of-link to take out an impact.

Going for the permutation against a criticism in your big silly impacts aff generally just sounds weird and you are actually going for "case outweighs" anyway. Seriously just talk about how sweet your aff is. The permutation is a fundamentally defensive argument.

Go for T against policy affs more. Folks are getting away with WAY too much.

KvK debates

First, generating external impacts and/or differentiating your impact claim is critical. Often these debates get gummed up in both teams winning that they solve and the other team causes some amount of violence/oppression - with me left to muck through and pick an internal link story, tending to have people end up unhappy.

Second, explain how yr perm works in the context of the debate round - what does it mean for me to endorse/reject a permutation? The argument that affs don't get permutations in these situations (method v method debate) threatens to make sense but also has to work through my presumption that the negative must prove something the aff does/assumes/engages with is bad. Generally you should not expect to win just for having another good idea.

Clash debates

I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded by args that reduce to FW: Ks are bad. Stop whining and defend yr aff.

I generally think affirmatives should take an affirmative position wrt the topic area (this doesn't mean you need a plan or to defend the politics DA or whatever).

Debates where I vote for critical affirmatives against T usually hinge on the aff either successfully defending what distinguishes the affirmative from a negative arg against topical affs, or winning impact turns. You will benefit from putting a lot of defensive pressure on the neg's impacts - which tend to be poorly developed.

Both sides - don't fall into the trap of forgetting the 1AC. At the end of the day the 1AC happened and its ability to solve is likely strongly determinant of a lot of the rest of the debate.

T debaters: Stop going for the truth-testing 'assume all their args are false because we can't research them' stuff.

Samaresh Pradhan Saratoga High School 4 rounds None

Donikan Raffi Granada Hills High 5 rounds None

Aleisha Readye Dougherty Valley High School 10 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:02 PM CDT

I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.

To the point:

I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.

What does that mean?

Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around.

Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.

FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.

While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)

Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.

I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise, all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.

BOTTOM LINE:

If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.

Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.

As it relates to LD -

Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.

Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have the opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.

“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk

I evaluate the framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.

If they say they are in the direction of the topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.

I prefer students to use cx for questions and answer exchanges, not for extra prep.

Lyn Ristuccia Sequoyah High School 3 rounds None

Jerome Robinson Granada Hills High 5 rounds

Jackie Rossiter Palo Alto High School 6 rounds None

Siddhanth Sabharwal Bellarmine College Preparatory 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 17, 2015 at 6:15 AM PDT

Conflicts: Mission San Jose HS

I am a sophomore at UC Davis. I debated for 4 years for Mission San Jose High School. I competed in Varsity Policy for two years, and Varsity Lincoln-Douglas for two years. I competed at several circuit tournaments and am familiar with most arguments.

This is a basic overview, if you're lazy and not going to read the rest:

I haven't debated in 2 years, so while I can still flow pretty quickly, your absolute top speed will probably be too quick for me, especially if you have a high voice. Other than that speed is fine. If I can't understand you, I'll say clear twice, and then stop flowing
I'm a blank slate at the beginning, I come in with no prior opinions on the topic.
If you're aff I highly advise you to have some kind of advocacy, if you're running some weird performance aff, you should strike me. Neg gets the status quo at the beginning of the round.
I'll vote on anything, everything is fair game. However if your strat is to throw 10 off cases and drop whichever ones your opponent undercovers, you're less likely to get 30 speaks, unless they were all quality arguments (highly unlikely)
Speaker points depend on clarity, types of arguments you ran, and overall style of debate. If you're a snarky asshole, I'll still give you the W, but you're probably not getting a 30 out of me. I generally give pretty good speaks (28.5 - 29.5). To me a 30 is just a flawless round, that being said I have given 30 to a losing debater. I give high speaks to debaters who use humor well, and are strategic with prep time. Nothing more ballsy then the 2AR saying "no prep" and killing it.
If you're paperless, prep time stops when the flash drive leaves the computer. Otherwise, give opponents access to your evidence.
I pay attention to CX, but I don't flow it, and believe it is binding.
Please signpost before your speeches, so I can put my flow in order, if you're just going line by line, let me know where to flow it, so you can generate clash (don't expect me to fill in arguments for you).
Please spend 45 seconds in your final speech going over voting issues, and some impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame) should be done in every speech. Do some "even if" style of comparisons and try to generate clash.
I have only called for cards once, when a debater claimed that their opponent wrongly stated what was in the piece of evidence, other than that I don't call cards, if I don't understand your argument it's probably because you didn't explain it well.
Here is how I default to evaluating arguments: 1. Theory and Topicality, 2. Framework 3. Kritiks, Disadvantages, and Counterplans. That being said if you make an argument otherwise, I'll hear it and evaluate it.

Specifics:

THEORY:

NEG: I will vote on shitty theory regardless if its a clear voting issue, and you're running it for strategic purposes, I just think it takes away from the educational value of debate. Honestly, if your strat is to run a ton of BS theory because you know the aff won't be able to cover the theory and a bunch of blippy off cases, I'll vote for you if you're ahead, but its an asshole move. I absolutely hate it when teams think they should win the round because they can speak faster than there opponents. I'm going to need an interpretation, violating, standards, and voter. Just to be clear I'll vote off your BS theory if the aff doesn't respond to it, but don't expect a 30 from me. In my opinion, there should be some clear abuse (strat skew, ground skew, moving target etc.) I default to competing interpretations.

AFF: Aff can also run theory if there is abuse, although my threshold is just a bit higher, since the aff has the first and last speech. I've noticed in many rounds that the aff just gets intimidated when the Neg spews through a theory shell, and undercovers a lot of it. Respond to theory how you would respond to a T shell, go through the link story, and show how there is no abuse or how there is no harm even if you violate the standard. I don't think theory is an RVI for the aff. If no argument is made on the theory shell, I default to dropping the debater.

TOPICALITY:

NEG: I love T, it was one of my favorite arguments when I debated, but I do believe Topicality needs have a clear abuse story. This isn't a very popular opinion nowadays, but as a debater I hated when judges would intervene and let their opinions into the round, so I default to competing interpretations, however, if you make a more convincing argument that T is about reasonability, I'll frame the T debate that way. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of "potential abuse is a voter" arguments, the neg should tell me what arguments they couldn't run because the aff's interpretation of the topic limited them from generating any ground. Topicality needs to have an interpretation, violation, standards, and a voter. Good topicality needs internal links to the impact.

AFF: If you can show me why your counter interp isn't limiting, or why the neg interp isn't the right way to look at a word or a phrase, it'll probably be enough for me. If you can also show me why the Neg isn't losing some ground with your advocacy, I'll also buy it.
If an Aff runs T on some CP the neg runs, I'll kill your speaks. T isn't an RVI, obviously, the aff shouldn't win just for being topical. I also default to dropping the debater on T.

FRAMEWORK

NEG: When I was debating on the neg, and the aff was really fast and had a bunch of impacts coming out of there AC, I would run FW to negate some of those advantages. Neg should show why their education and ground is good, and why they should even get it. I reallylike seeing framework debates, I think they're a smart strategy and underused.

AFF: In LD, especially at the circuit level, I realize the standard value and value criterion way of debating is getting outdated, however that doesn't mean you shouldn't provide me with some way to frame the round in your first speech, if you don't do this the Neg can jump ahead on the flow really quickly, and it becomes harder to recover. I like to see good framework debates, you can read whatever philosophy you want, just go a bit slower on analytics. If you realize you're behind on FW and kick it, make sure you can generate offense under the neg FW.

KRITIKS:

NEG: I always interpreted K's as just non-unique DA's. I never ran that much of them in HS, mostly just the Cap K, but I understand them well, as people ran them on me almost every round. I'm decently versed in critical literature, but if you start throwing out buzz words and don't explain what they mean, it's going to be very hard for me to flow you. If you're going to be running a K, please go a tiny bit slower as you run through the guts of the card, so I can flow the important arguments. Additionally, if you're running a K, I'm going to need a link, impact, alternative. Your alternative should solve the problems in the aff, otherwise what's the point? Additionally, if you're running a dense K, with a lot of weird terms, and if the Aff asks you to explain something and you can't, it looks really poorly on you. Please don't double turn yourself, I've judged rounds where people run a fem K, and use "he" as there stock pronoun everywhere else in the round. That being said, if the aff doesn't call you out on it, neither will I.

AFF: Understand that a K is just a way to test the world you present in your aff advocacy, even if you don't understand a single word of what some obscure late 15th-century French guy is saying about something, don't be worried. Clarify your doubts in CX, and if you can show that the alt doesn't actually solve, or how there is no link to your aff, it'll be a good start.

DISADVANTAGES:

NEG: I love hearing unique DA's, like I'll vote on a Politics DA, but they aren't exactly my favorite. Congress doesn't do much these days anyways, so I find a lot of Politics DA's to be non-unique. Do your research, and cut recent evidence. Be knowledgeable here. Specific links to the Aff, and then internal links to the impact are awesome, and I love when a debater clearly explains why the aff advocacy will cause something bad to happen.

AFF: DA's are chains, if you take out the link to your plan, or some internal link to the impact it's good enough. If you can show something is non-unique and then do an impact calculus and show 0% chance of neg impact happening is also okay, you could also clearly show how your impacts outweigh.

COUNTERPLANS:

NEG: You must have some other advocacy, and show how it competes with the aff. You MUST have some net benefit. Just like DA's a unique CP to an aff advocacy is devastating. I have voted on actor CP's in the past, but I find them to be pretty generic, and the net benefit is normally non-unique. I'll also vote on Word PICs but honestly if you can beat an Aff with a "The" PIC, you probably would've beaten them with anything else too.

AFF: The Perm is becoming an underused strategy, especially in LD debate. Use it, show me that the CP isn't mutually exclusive, and that's a good beginning strat. Otherwise take out the net benefit.

Feel free to ask me any more questions before the round, and good luck to everyone!

Jennie Savage Palo Alto High School 5 rounds

Mohan Sayani Dougherty Valley High School 4 rounds None

Jammie schletzbaum Milpitas High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:30 AM PDT

I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.

My Preferred Pronouns: she/her

For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.(You do not have to stand during grand crossfire in PF- this is the only exception).

Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not. I will write feedback on the ballot though, including an RFD and other relevant information for you to read. I am a flow judge. Keep that in mind and try not to drop things on the flow.

LD

For novices:

I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.

For Varsity:

Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.

I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.

Public Forum

Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.

Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. If I do not hear an author/date, I typically just write "blah blah" or "no source" on the flow, since I assume you are saying it yourself and it is not coming from a source. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials. Do not drop things on the flow. As a flow judge, that means if you drop something, you agree with it.

Policy

I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)

Parli

Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.

Ramya Senthil Lynbrook High School 3 rounds None

melanie shackleford Hire 1 rounds None

Shahbaz Shaikh Evergreen Valley High School 5 rounds

Jamie Shen Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 7, 2015 at 12:44 AM PDT

Background: I competed all four years of high school in speech in debate and am a student at Cal. I did primarily LD, PF, and Extemporaneous speaking. I currently coach at Dougherty Valley High School.

Speaking style: I did some national circuit LD, so I'm receptive to some spreading. HOWEVER, please be clear. I will yell clear twice if you are being unclear, and thereafter if you are not I will begin deducting speaker points. It is probably to your benefit that I can understand you, because if I can't I will also just stop flowing. So if you are going to spread do it well- or just don't do it at all.

That being said, I definitely do vote more heavily off the flow than I do just off speaking.

Generally, I start speaks at a 27 and will add or deduct points based on what happens in round (ie. I'll reward speaks for good strategy and issue selection, I'll deduct points for being rude). If you are out rightly mean, you will not like your speaks. I understand that debate can often get heated and aggressive, but I think there is a difference between being really passionate and engaged and just being unpleasant. Don't be the latter.

Arguments: I'm receptive to most kinds of arguments (plans, counterplans, DAs, kritiks, etc.).

Full disclosure- when I debated I tended to air more on the traditional side in terms of argumentation. However, that doesn't mean I won't buy more progressive arguments, they just need to be well explained. Please don't just throw out buzz words and expect them to stick.

If you are running a kritik, I will probably need a clear explanation of it as I am not too familiar with a lot of critical theory. Plans,counterplans, and DAs are generally fine.

I have a few pet peeves - I don't like theory or topicality when it's run purely for strategic value. If there is real abuse, fine. But I think it's usually pretty apparent when you're just looking for an easy out. As long as your opponent does some work on it, I will not vote for you on it and it will reflect unfavorably in your speaks.

I also dislike preempts (especially the unwarranted variety) because I think they are a form of lazy debating meant to place arbitrary restraints on an opponent.

Additionally, I won't vote on arguments that on face are morally repugnant (ie. justifying genocide).

How I evaluate arguments: First, I'll probably look to framework (LD instincts...) - but please don't leave all the work to me. I think the hierarchy of arguments is really subject to change based on what is presented in round. Weigh your arguments!

I also don't believe in shadow extending. It's shady and really nonsensical. A drop is a drop.

I like to think that I vote more flow-based than anything else, but if you do any of the things I've disclosed that I highly dislike, then I am probably less likely to vote in your favor if the round is close.

TL;DR (but really, you should read) Spread only if you do it well, don't be mean, feel free to run any argument as long as you can explain it well, substantiate it, and it is not offensive. Also, have fun!

Shali Sirkay Los Altos High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 14, 2020 at 12:19 PM PDT

I am a former high school debater- I did Policy debate for 4 years and I loved it. I have been judging at debate tournaments since 2012. I have judged Policy rounds, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Parli and Congress.

I flow my rounds, and therefore, I appreciate offtime roadmaps. I am comfortable with spreading. However, I do not like the trend where Public Forum and LD are morphing into Policy debate in terms of speed. That being said, if you wish to speak fast, it's up to you to be understandable and to speak clearly. If I didn't hear your argument, then I can't count it in my evaluation/RFD.

I look for good clash in a round, but this is not to be confused with overly aggressive behavior, as explained below. There is a difference between aggression and hostility. I hope debaters can tell the difference.

I come into every debate with an open mind, as if I know nothing about the topic and have not judged this topic before. However, I do know HOW to debate, so I am looking for the technical aspects of debate. This is to your advantage because if you can make an argument (however outlandish) and support it, and your opponents cannot refute it effectively, then you win that argument. I look for dropped arguments, but I also need the debaters to recognize when an argument has been dropped by the opposing team and to acknowledge it. For Varsity debaters, I expect that your arguments will consolidate down to whatever you think are your most important, win-able arguments.

I look at frameworks and impacts, so I include a comparison of the "affirmative world" vs the "negative world" in my consideration of how to vote. I also need you to weigh your impacts for me- tell me why your arguments are more important than the other team's.

I believe in the value and significance of debate, and therefore, I expect debaters to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner. Please be respectful of each other. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer- do not cut them off. No name-calling or shaming (yes, I have seen this in rounds, and it is very disappointing). Do not try to intimidate your opponent or the judge. This hostile behavior is very obvious and it will show up in your lackluster speaker points.

I understand that debaters may be nervous, and I am very sensitive to that. I don't generally dock speaker points for nervousness, but I will dock points for hostile behavior and attitude.

Yang Song Lynbrook High School 3 rounds None

Jill Spurgeon Crescenta Valley High School 2 rounds None

Renie Stamm-Kirk Bentley School 3 rounds None

Sriram Subramanian Washington 3 rounds None

Jim Suguarman El Cerrito High School 2 rounds None

hwan suk La Canada High School 5 rounds None

jawahar sundaram Washington 2 rounds None

Sakthi Swamy Presentation High School 4 rounds

Sameep Tandon Monta Vista High School 3 rounds None

Christian Tarsney West Des Moines Valley 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 31, 2018 at 4:57 PM EDT

Most important datum: As of Minneapple 2018 (for which I'm writing this paradigm), I haven't seen a debate round or thought about debate since TOC 2017. I was never particularly great at understanding or flowing fast debates, and I can only imagine I've gotten significantly worse in the last 18 months. Also, whatever new fads or jargon have emerged in that time, I'm completely unaware of them.

Background: I debated LD for two years in high school (2003-5) and coached for about 12 years after graduating, mainly for schools in the Midwest. I'm now an academic, with a background in analytic philosophy.

"Paradigm proper": My default view of debate (which I'm open to revising in round on the basis of argument) is as follows: (1) As the judge, I adopt a "neutral prior" for purposes of the round -- an assignment of probabilities to the various propositions that might play a role in the debate that assigns the resolution a 50% probability of being true and assigns probabilities to other contentious propositions that reflect a neutral/conservative (conservative = erring in the direction of 50/50) balance of reasonable opinion. (2) I update those beliefs based on the arguments and evidence presented in round. (3) If, after those updates, the resolution is more likely true than false, then I affirm. If it's more likely false than true, then I negate.

Presentation/delivery preferences: In principle, I have no problem with speed. But, like I said above, I've never been especially good at understanding or flowing it, and I'll try to be very strict about not voting on any argument that I didn't flow the first time around. If you're clear, but I'm just failing to flow you because you're fast and I'm old, I'll yell "slow." If you're sufficiently unclear, I'll yell "clear," but after I've yelled "clear" once, I don't promise that I'll yell it again any time you're unclear. It's on you to adjust, significantly and permanently, to become clear. If you're unclear enough that individual words are getting lost, I won't do very much interpolating for you.

Argumentation preferences: I'm open to anything, but (a) I'll only vote on an argument if I understand it, and I think I have a higher standard for what it means to "understand" an argument than a lot of judges -- specifically, I should be able to identify premises and conclusion in what you said (without interpolation) such that the premises reasonably and significantly support the conclusion; and (b) I'll weight arguments, to some extent, by the prior plausibility of the premises. (If an argument depends on an apparently implausible premise, then that premise ought to be supported by an argument of its own.)

In more nuts-and-bolts terms: (1) I tend to think that most "critical" arguments are just a mix of banalities and absurdities dressed up in obfuscating and poorly defined jargon, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise in any particular instance. (2) I don't particularly like theory debates, and I have a pretty high threshold for abuse claims. (3) I'm very skeptical of very long, very specific causal link chains. (4) I'm somewhat skeptical of normative frameworks that don't care at all about consequences.

The best way to get my ballot is a deeply justified and prima facie plausible normative framework coupled with contention arguments that, where they rely on empirical claims, are justified by high-quality empirical evidence that you know backwards and forwards, and where they rely on predictive/causal claims, are robust in the sense that they don't depend on a lot of very specific and jointly improbable assumptions.

Chris Theis Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 6:34 AM PDT

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Affs nearly always must disclose 30 min before start time, and both debaters should disclose which AC they will read before elim flips.

Affirmatives should usually be topical.

Plans are good, but they need to be consistent with the wording of the topic.

Extra T is probably bad

Severance is bad

Intrinsicness is usually bad, but I'm open to intrinsic perms in response to process cps

Conditionality is OK

PICs are OK

Alt agent fiat is probably bad

Competing interpretations>reasonability, usually

Probably no RVIs

Almost certainly no RVIs on Topicality

I don't like arguments that place artificial constraints on paradigm issues based on the speech in which they are presented.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. (There is an emerging practice of hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks to the AC without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is intentional deception and will result in an automatic loss).

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping. By sending those analytics you're representing, they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

Anna Thomas Presentation High School

Jatinder Thukral Cupertino HS None

Rhiannon Tomtishen Rancho Bernardo High School 4 rounds None

Adam Torson Marlborough School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 2:46 AM PDT

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Brad Townley Skyline (SLC) 3 rounds

Teja Vepa Polytechnic School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM EDT

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Christopher Wheatley Aspen High School 2 rounds

Scott Wheeler Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:03 PM EDT

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Jeff Wingard Lovejoy High School 4 rounds None

Kevin Yanofsky Del Mar Independent 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 28, 2016 at 6:07 AM PDT

Background:

I debated npda/npte parli for UC Berkeley from 2011 to 2015, where I graduated with a degree in computer science. I also debated three years of circuit LD in high school. Overall, I largely view debate as a game, and think that you should do what you think gives you the best chance to win it.

Overview:

- I am fine with whatever level of speed you wish to debate at, but be sure to make sure the rest of the debaters in the room are as well.

- I will listen to any type of argument you like, as long as you are able to justify it. However, I’ll go into further detail in later sections as to my tendencies that might deviate from the average parli judge.

- I evaluate the round based on my flow. As of now I'm not sure what to do about arguments telling me this is bad. Perhaps the best case for you if you tell me this method of evaluation is problematic is that I will be slightly less picky about my flow, but don't count on it.

- My overall knowledge of the world is limited mostly to news headlines and debate experience. If you are reading an intricate scenario, just explain it carefully and you should be fine.

- My personally experience of debate was split fairly evenly between policy and critical.

- I do have a moderate preference that the affirmative defend the resolution (perhaps if you want to be critical, find a topical way to do so without fiat). That being said, good argumentation can certainly override this preference, and while I might like a good framework debate, I will not give credence to a bad one.

Case Debate / Disads:

- For both the aff and neg, the more specific your links are to the plan the better.

- Be sure to fully terminalize your impacts, I might feel uncomfortable doing that work for you. If the terminalized form of your opponent’s impacts are not obvious, I find pointing this out to be a strong way to outweigh them.

Counterplans:

- I have little bias for or against condo, debate to your style here.

- If you want to run other “cheater” counterplans, I find that topic specific reasons those counterplans should be relevant are persuasive responses to theory.

Theory/Topicality:

- A personal favorite of mine, at least early in my career. I will appreciate nuanced and well thought out theory debate, but don’t think that I’ll give you credence on a bad shell or make internal links for you.

- I default to competing interpretations, and absent a clear definition of some alternative, I find it very difficult to evaluate theory under reasonability.

- Competing interpretations means you need to either win a we-meet or superior offense to a counter interpretation.

- I personally find fairness claims more compelling than education, but any arguments about the order of these two made it round will instantly override that.

- By default I will assume any 4 point shell is reject the team, and any paragraph theory (often seen as responses to cheater perms) is reject the arg, absent the team reading the shell specifying the opposite.

- RVIs will be a very uphill battle, if you really want to go here please read unique, maybe round specific arguments.

Kritiks:

- I read and collapsed to Ks in the majority of my neg rounds. I believe I would be comfortable evaluating most Ks that could come up in parli.

- Specific warrants and examples from the real world, as opposed to making the same assertion that your author claims, will generally help put you further ahead both when reading and answering a K.

- A pet peeve of mine is when every alt solvency argument is just a perm pre-empt (you'd be suprised how often I've seen this). Please also warrant why your alt solves your K.

- I might be slightly less inclined to wave away the framework of a K than the average parli judge, especially if there are more specific arguments being made than the standard stuff where everyone’s impacts seem to end up getting compared on the same level. That being said, if all you plan to do is read the super generic K framework arguments, I’m perfectly fine if you just cut it out from the beginning and go for root cause. Side note, if you do this, be wary of timeframe on extinction impacts.

- I read a lot of pomo as a debater, so if you want to bite the bullet and make people to justify why intuitive things are real/bad, go ahead and do so.

Aff-Ks:

- As I said earlier, I prefer that teams find a way to defend the topic.

- I find topic specific critical affirmatives or smart critical advantages to be very strategic.

- If you are answering framework, saying that the shell is a re-link to the K is not independently a logical takeout of the theory. Often these debates devolve and become a circular mess of each position denying that the other should exist. Find a way to make your approach to this problem more nuanced than your opponents'.

last updated: 1/3/2016

Natalie Yates AofHL - Chaminade 5 rounds

Teri Young Los Altos High School

Last changed on Wed October 1, 2014 at 9:36 AM PDT

Julie Herman

Note: This paradigm is a little long but I’ve tried to put in good headings and keywords. It should be very searchable.

Constraints: Prospect High School, Mountain View-Los Altos High School (MVLA or listed separately), Livermore High School

Background
I debated parli for four years in high school and four years of college for Santa Clara University (although less consistently in the last two years). I coached at MVLA for three years and Prospect for two years. I oversaw topic writing for SCU tournaments 2012-2014, and those topics reveal a lot about my preferences. I am currently a PhD student at UC Santa Cruz studying evolution and ecology.

Approach to judging
On some of my first paradigms, I said I was tabula rasa. I now know anyone who tells you they are a true blank slate judge is probably lying. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that go unanswered that I don’t like, but I do have a low threshold for buying into certain arguments and a higher threshold for others (described below).

I fundamentally believe debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not some game that is completely separate from cultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. This also plays into my preferences (again, see below).

Argument preferences

Counterplans: I will listen to almost any kind of CP as long as you can explain to me how it competes with the plan. A permutation the affirmative takes as their advocacy is severance, and I will be very receptive to abuse arguments on that front. I have no particular bias against kicking CPs or even running multiple conditional CPs, but I will also be open to the theory commonly used to respond to those strategies.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Don’t just blip through them—explain what they mean to me. You need some pretty good links to get to nuke war, but if you can, go for it. Don’t trivialize dehumanization. That’s not cool. I’m open to and encourage discussion of systemic impacts.

Kritiks: I am open to most Ks including performances, narratives, and language Ks. I commend you if you’re dedicated to a particular project K. I’m into feminism, social justice, and environmental justice, but don’t run them to impress me unless you know what you’re talking about. Ks that require cards and/or involve spreading your opponent out of the round are going to be harder for me to accept. Ks are at their best when they are centered around enriching and reforming the activity and the community. I am not thrilled about the recent interest Time Cube by high school debaters. Unless you really have a handle on using absurdity effectively, don’t try to be West Georgia Liberation Front. This isn’t college policy, and you aren’t them.

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 default to proven abuse unless you tell me otherwise. I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I am not going to be thrilled if you turn the entire round into a technicality as a tool to defeat a less technically skilled opponent.

Trichotomy: I prefer policy rounds since policy is the format parli has the best framework for, but don’t try to twist the wording of a well-written fact or value topic to make it policy, as those have their places as well. Please do not intentionally make rounds vaguer or more metaphorical unless you have a strong reason to do so (ie, a K).

Presentation preferences
Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage format. Please include impact calculus in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision. By extension, you should also articulate a weighing mechanism, although I default to net benefits.

Tag-teaming: I am perfectly fine with tag-teaming, but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech. 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: I do not flow answers to points of information or the questions themselves. They only impact speaker points unless you bring up the information in the question explicitly in your next speech. I stop time for Points of Order, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. The debater who called the point of order will have a chance to make their case, the current speaker will be allowed to respond, I will make a ruling, and the time will be restarted.

Respectfulness: This is where your responsibility as debaters comes in—you possess the incredible privilege of an educated, persuasive voice. Do not use it for evil. Don’t trivialize rape or violence against oppressed groups. Use words to describe groups of people that you wouldn’t be afraid to use in front of those people. I will be very open to voting issues specifically about speech in the round if your opponent is offensive or hostile toward an oppressed group.

Speed: I can follow higher speeds, but I will penalize your speaker points if spreading substantially decreases your coherence. 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.

Style: Humor and charisma will win you speaker points but not the round. Personal attacks will lose you points (and the round if your opponent makes a compelling argument on the subject). Intentional trolling is disrespectful to both your opponents’ time and mine and will be treated similarly to personal attacks. There is a difference between experimental and/or performative arguments and trolling. For example, I have witnessed two rounds in which teams talked about football rather than the assigned topic. In one, the speech was meant to comment on the absurdity of parliamentary procedure and top-down control of debate. In the other, it was a cover for lack of knowledge on the topic. I trust you to discern the difference.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis, you are expected to provide it.

Stephanie Youngquist Palo Alto High School 2 rounds None

Lei Zhang Lynbrook High School 2 rounds None

Xiaobing Zhang Atiiva Academy 3 rounds None

Max Zimet Aspen High School 2 rounds None

James Zucker Loyola High School 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

29th Annual Stanford Invitational

2015 — Stanford, CA/US

LD Paradigm List

Judges