Claremont Wolfpack Invitational

2019 — Claremont, CA/US

Jazmine Aguirre Paradigm

Not Submitted

Naomi Alan Paradigm


I have debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for about 5+ years now. I always disclose.

I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember: magnitude, time frame, probability. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts.

  • I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.

Be sure to extend (especially your T voters). If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it. Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.

---------------------------- Miscellaneous ---------------------------------

I do not count emailing/flashing as prep time unless it takes around 3 minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as it's both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner.

Full disclosure: I'm not familiar with a lot of K's beyond the basics (cap, fem, etc.), and FrameWork tends to be a mess, so those might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or ima get lost

Kendrick Alan Paradigm

I don't like excessive speed or Kritik/philosophy arguments.

If you must go for K's/philosophy, it needs to be put in simple terms to make me feel comfortable voting on it.

Marina Alan Paradigm

The debaters must to remember to focus on their impacts, as well as their framework/value criteria as it relates to their impacts. That is where they tell me "where the goal is" and "who reaches it" for the debate. Having the biggest impact doesn't mean anything if it doesn't fulfill the right framework.

If framework is not debated by the neg, I will default to 1AC's Framework.


Abigail Barton Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

McKayle Bradford Paradigm

I debated throughout high school, with a main focus on public forum. I am now an assistant debate coach in Utah. My decision will come off the flow, and I will vote for pretty much anything that is well warranted, as long as it falls within the confines of your event.

Things I’d Like to See:

1. Thoughtful responses. Please do not read off a novel of evidence, expecting me to automatically buy your claims. Use evidence as a supplement to actual argumentation.

2. Clear links. This relates to 1. If you have obscure evidence claiming a link, with no logic to back it up, I likely won’t buy or weigh it.

3. Impacts. Please weigh the impacts of each argument, and how your impacts are preferred. If you have frivolous arguments with no impacts, I likely won’t buy them.

4. Tell me who won. Use clear voters and give me a strong summary. Additionally, my decision is easier when you give line-by-line.

5. Smile every once in a while!

Things Not to Do:

1. Waste time. If you have sufficiently countered a point, or if a point holds little weight, please do not spend an entire rebuttal on it.

2. Spend entire speeches staring at a computer screen. While I weigh substance of the debate first, speaking ability/confidence/knowledge of the topic can give an advantage in determining close rounds.

3. Be disrespectful/patronizing towards opponents.

If you see me outside the round, I will be happy to provide feedback. Feel free to ask me more questions before the round, and any you might have after as well. Good luck, and have fun!

Scott Brown Paradigm

8 rounds

Scott Brown (he/him/his)

Current: LD Coach @ Honor Academy in Cerritos, CA.

Previous: Centennial(MD), McDonogh, Fullerton Union, others.

I have actively coached competitive debate for over a decade. My background is in Policy Debate, but I'm also very experienced in LD & PF.

If you do prefer me, please be forewarned that I do actually have preferences and ask that you do some adaptation (if necessary). I am in zero ways offended by you striking me. Please, go ahead. If you need some strikes, I volunteer as tribune.

I can heave a mint green Tady #45 surface iron WAY further than "Joseph Barquin".

Online Updates:

Please slow down. SLOW DOWN. Slow. Down. 80% MAX speed, IF that. No Operation Warp Speed. Does this mean you'll have to take positions out of the NC? Yes, but it also means the AFF has to take arguments out of the 1AR. Your microphone quality is probably a LOT worse than you think (especially if you're NOT using a studio mic and/or audio interface). If this confuses you or you think you can still read at top speed, please strike me.

I live in a small duplex with a Kindergartner and a 2 year old that's FULLY in the midst of the "terrible twos" and ask that you please be respectful when there are surprise appearances or interruptions. I'll work hard to minimize these instances, but cannot promise they will not happen.

I've been a huge advocate for debate film study since 2011. If it not against the rules of the tournament and both debaters' parent(s) or legal guardians print this video consent form and e-mail a picture of it filled out back to me (sbrowndebategmail), I will happily record the debate and privately share it with both debaters after the debate.


I'm currently flowing on paper. I don’t want to be on your email chain. I don't follow along in the speech doc. I flow card warrants.

You must give your opponent a copy of your evidence before your speech begins (if using a laptop) or as it happens (if using paper).

I will proactively judge intervene to end a debate if any form of clipping/bad ethics occurs.

As a judge, and as students, being able to organize a debate is important. Successful line by line refutation is necessary.

I don't have a "debater poker face". I nod along if I get what you're doing, laugh at jokes, smile, give perplexing looks if I don't get what you're saying, etc.

I'm a sucker for smart analytical arguments

I often read very little to no evidence after the debate (I don't think I read a single piece of evidence the entirety of last season) and often make my decision very quickly. I will disclose my decision and provide verbal comments after the debate.

Truth > Tech

Zero Risk very frequently occurs

If you make a joke that insults my civic pride (Ravens/Orioles) that I DON'T think is funny, your speaker points for the round will almost certainly be the low that's dropped in the high/low.

NO POST ROUNDING. If you have a problem with my decision, strike me next time. If you engage in actions that I think are "Post Rounding", I will give a single warning before I terminate/end the RFD and comments/feedback for you (I will still give comments/feedback to your opponent).

I have no idea how to give speaker points in 2020. I was told after Jack Howe that apparently my points are super low. If that's something you care about you might want to lower me a couple places on your pref sheet.

LD: Please refer to LD debate as "One on One debate". Please do not call it LD or Lincoln Douglas Debate. Douglas not even CLOSE to an alright human.


Speed/"Spreading" is fine as long as you are "clear" (clear means that you audibly articulate the difference between each and every syllable of each and every word). If you do not clearly say every syllable of every word while spreading, you cannot get above a 27.

If executed properly, I'm great for 'conditionality' bad and most "theory" arguments. I'm really bad for the NEG if the AFF properly executes theoretical arguments against positions such as Consult & Process CPs.

I'm an atrociously bad judge for you if your strategy is to read a blazing fast 11 point analytical underview and go for "they dropped 7-Eleven".

I will not vote for these argument even if they are dropped: RVIs, "New Affs Bad", "Nebel T", "Disclosure Good Theory", "Tricks"

I will not flow evidence from a debate coach, former debater, or debate website (Nebel, Ryan James' LinkedIn Page, Edebate posts from Nooch, Solt DRG articles, etc).

If you run a "trick", I'm going to pull a trick on you called not flowing your "tricks".

I don't believe in proactive "Judge Kick". If you explain in your speech how a world of a kicked CP/K still wins you the debate, I'm totally down. You can't just say "Judge Kick" or except me to proactive assert a "Judge Kick" when it isn't an argument on my flow.

I dislike judging "framework" debates. I often feel like passive observer who has no idea what to do at the end of the debate.

If I am prefed for a "Baudrillard" vs. "Baudrillard" debate, I will actually literally flip a coin because the coin will do a better job of judging this debate than I will.

In a utopia, my ideal panel would be Daryl Burch, Steve Pointer, and Chris Randall. And I would go for T.

Michael Koo often described people who highly prefed me as rolling dice. I don't disagree.


If your evidence isn't read in "cards" and is just a bunch of paraphrasing with the author's name, you will receive the lowest speaker points the tournament deems acceptable (and *almost certainly* lose the debate).

Please don't shake my hand.

Avinder Chawla Paradigm

Not Submitted

Frank Chen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Isabel Cholbi Paradigm

About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I have the same basic standards for rhetoric and composure in both events, but as I consider the difference between them important, I’m dividing the rest of my paradigm into separate sections for LD and Parli respectively. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!


Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way to do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I flow. I’ve debated, I know the jargon, so I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. Restating your argumentation is not an extension/refutation. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.


General: Parli is great because it allows for all different kinds of resolutions. I normally expect a slightly different approach to plan vs value vs fact resolutions, and not all of the below apply to all of those.

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Cool. Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan, I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response; I think they are rather hard to defend super well.

Theory: Go ahead, but ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. If the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it, but in my view theory should not be a replacement for having an actual case that you defend. Articulate a clear violation of fairness and clearly link it to its impact on the round.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: Don’t just claim a point of order for the sake of claiming one. That’s bad faith. If you do think a new argument is being introduced, feel free. I will listen to the POO claim and defense.


General: Provide a framework! Ideally with a value and a value criterion! Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution. If you don’t, it may be easy for your opponent (neg) to convince me that you are not fulfilling your (aff) burden of affirming the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. If the aff runs a plan, feel free. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: Only run these on the neg, aff Ks are weird. I understand Ks and will consider them. However, I am receptive to the aff defense that Ks leave the aff with no ground. So, ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan (much more sympathetic to Ks against plans than Ks against the res since debaters have some choice of plan but not of the res), and articulate a clear hypothetical scenario where the aff would be able to win (maybe a bit counterintuitive, I know) so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking and that you are not simply leaving them with zero argumentative ground.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.


I am studying political economy, which means I enjoy debate on political institutions, economic institutions, the interaction between the two, etc. One of my debate pet peeves, though, is econ arguments without clear explanations. If you say something like “this will benefit/harm the economy”, please be sure to explain what that benefit/harm looks like, how it comes about, why it is beneficial/harmful, etc.

I did IE in addition to debate in high school, and consequently I am impressed with nice rhetorical turns/good pathos, but I know they aren’t everyone’s thing, and that expecting them from debaters who have speech troubles for whatever reason is unfair; I will adjust my ballot accordingly.

Since traditional LD was my first debate love, I may have an unintentional liking for strong standards/weighing mechanisms/values/criteria/frameworks/whatever you call them. That being said, I’m absolutely cool with whatever you run whether these are included or not, and whether the standard is “net benefits” or something more interesting. This applies to both LD and Parli. I’m just telling you this for full disclosure. I enjoy strong moral frameworks, but only if well-executed. In other words, have a clear understanding of the framework you profess to uphold, and good explanations of why your plan/your advantages help advance this framework. If you can do this, I’ll be impressed; if not, don’t stress and run whatever non-framework-centric case you like.

Sajeed Chowdhury Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Matt Contreras Paradigm

I am fine with any framework for decision making being debated in round.

I am a LARPer! (Didn’t know what that meant because I’ve been gone for a while, but I basically prefer technical speedier debate over traditional LD)

Any rate of delivery is fine as long as all debaters present are able to participate.

My default impact primacy ordering is theory, then kritiks (that have “pre-fiat” implications for the role of the ballot), then case disads cp etc. Of course arguments teams make that change this ordering would replace my default ordering.

Theory is another area where I evaluate arguments in the round, but I notice I have leanings so I feel obligated to specify theory positions I find compelling

T is a voter, drop the argument not the team, condo good, pics good, floating pics bad, abuse in round or articulated ground loss are going to be more persuasive than the potential for abuse.

I’ll evaluate any argument you make, I’m familiar with a lot of the topic literature and with a lot of the Kritik literature.

Colin Coppock Paradigm

I have 5 years of debate experience. I did two years of policy and two years of public forum, and I now do British parliamentary at the University of Laverne. If you make me laugh or smile, I'll be more willing to give you better speaks, but don't fish for votes, make it natural.

I'm good with speed

If you're debating policy try to have some original thoughts, I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

If you have any questions, my email is:

Ashlie De La Rosa Paradigm

Not Submitted

Esther Esho Paradigm

Not Submitted

Donald Etheridge Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeffrey Evans Paradigm

8 rounds

Honestly, if you're the type of debater who looks up their judges paradigm, you'll probably be fine.

Experience: I debated in Lincoln Douglas all through High School. I have experience in and am comfortable with both traditional and progressive debates. Stuff I read: Plans, CP's, one K, and Advantages/DA's (when not going the traditional route). My vote goes off of the flow and I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

Speed: I'm cool with top speed if I can at least catch your tags and authors. If I can't then I'll clear you, but I won't dock any speaker points.

Theory/T(procedurals): I prefer Drop The Arg over Drop The Debater, No RVI's, and Reasonability over Counter Interpretations. I don't have a ton of experience with this type of debate, so be clear on the interpretation if you go this route.

Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless you take waaaay too long. Flex prep is fine for clarification if both debaters are comfortable with it.

If each debater/team asks me then I will disclose.

Please be respectful and make debate a safe place.

Contact: or just come find me after round if you have questions.

Sherilyn Fagan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kate Farwell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Leanne Feldman-Murray Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ian Finley Paradigm

8 rounds

If you are the kind of debater that checks tab for paradigms, then you probably know enough.

I’m a simple former high school debater. Impacts will win the round but they can’t be reached without links ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

David Finnigan Paradigm

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 9 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

Patricia Garcia Paradigm

Avoid spreading and jargon, both are lazy. Focus on direct clash with opponent. While I expect you to time yourself, I will also time you. Anything said beyond time will be disregarded.

Rashmi Ghai Paradigm

Not Submitted

Steven Gill Paradigm

I am a former high school LD, PuFo, and Parli debater, I also did Parli in college and am a member of Pi Kappa Delta. I have a BA Degree in Sociology with minors in History, Political Science, and Economics. I also coach debate at my former high school and for Simposn College I am currently in a Masters of Arts in Teaching program.

I have been involved in speech and debate for 10 years on and off, and I am a mix of Tabula Rasa and Game judging. I am a flow heavy judge, so reefer back to the flow. Make my job as easy as possible tell me what's happening.

Please put me on the email chain:

Spreading- Don't care, read as fast or as slow as you want. I can hear and understand around 350-450 wpm, it honestly depends on my mood and attention that day, PLEASE ASK BEFORE ROUND STARTS!!

Signposting- VERY VERY IMPORTANT. Make my job as easy as possible tell me where you're at on the flow and where you're going, you have 15-30 sec for an off time road-map USE IT!!!

K's- Make sure you run them correctly, appropriately, and make sure they apply (Links Matter). You can K a K. Honestly it's your round just run it.

T's- same rule as K's

Theory- Love it, same rule as K's

Framework Debate- Love it, as a former LDer

Definitions Debate- Love it, once again as a former LDer

Voting issues- Very important, TELL ME WHY YOU WIN

Like I said I am TOTALLY open to anything, 100% Tabula Rasa and Game, whatever I have on my flow is what I use to decide who wins. Sometimes I make weird facial expressions just ignore them, I might be think about how and why i'm writing the way I am or thinking about my pens smooth writing, or anything weird so just ignore my face lol.

Side note: the most important part of this activity is the educational value YOU'RE getting out of this. NO MEME cases, and nothing stupid, I am on Discord and Reddit DAILY so I do know what's going on in the community. Stock issues are VERY important you should know them and refer back to them whenever possible. IF you can prove your opponents are de-valueing the education of the debate that's a big plus(On that note it is important to PROVE that they are de-valuing the education of the debate. DO NOT just tell me they are you MUST PROVE IT). I can't stress this enough DON'T make me do work for you, yes i know all about Kant and Marx and Butler and all the big-wig philosophers and I know how they link to everything but YOU must tell me explicitly your links AND your impacts, they are literally the most important thing in round don't forget to do some Impact Calc/weighing in round. Have fun though everyone, this is an amazing and rewarding activity and do your best. =)

Oscar Gonzalez Paradigm

I have a couple of years’ experience judging debate events, and when judging I try to be as Tabula Rasa (not bias) as possible. Some of the points I focus the most are the following:

Excessive speed and excessive jargon don´t not add value to the debate, instead, strong arguments and clear exposition addressing the opponents contentions, are more appreciated.

I am counting on the debaters to use their time to transmit confidence in their arguments by using evidence, documented reference, deep screening during cross examination and logic to support their cases.

Spreading is not always the best way convince a Judge. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not have a way to weight your arguments.

I consider the debate, not only as a contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers, but as a great opportunity to present strong arguments logically linked, easy to follow in a convincing manner. Be polite, be respectful, be convincing and enjoy the moment.

Victoria Gonzalez-Rivera Paradigm

I am a lay judge and a university history professor. I expect respectful behavior, logical arguments, and please no spreading.

Lee Graves Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andres Guerrero Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Omar Hamid Paradigm

LD Paradigm:

I am a lay judge. My daughter does policy so I know some of the jargon, but make sure to explain EVERYTHING. Please do not spread- at most fast conversational speed- otherwise I cannot flow and will miss your arguments. I will shout "clear" if I can't understand you twice and then stop flowing.


Aff- Just know your aff and be able to explain the ins and outs. If I am confused about your solvency mechanism then it will make it very hard to vote aff. If you are running a nontraditional affirmative, I am not the best judge for you. I took one philosophy class back in college and barely remember most of the theory. If you want, take your chances, but I recommend striking me.


T- I'm probably not the best judge for this unless it is clearly outside of the resolution (ex. topic is let's go eat nuggets; aff says salad is wonderful--- while related, I know what the difference is). If it is not something you would expect an average citizen to understand be sure to clearly explain the violation. Also explain the debate jargon.

K- Again, I am not the best judge for this because I will get easily confused by the jargon.

DA- I'm probably best for this. Make sure you explain your link story and do impact calc

CP- Explain everything. Will probably not vote on theory, but who knows I might.

Speaker Points:
I'm not really sure how to give these out. Things that will up your speaks: Being slow (not spreading), clear, and making good arguments that I can understand (minimal debate jargon). Things that will kill your speaks: Spreading, using only debate jargon, being rude to your opponents.

Nicholas Hearth Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cynthia Hendricks Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robert Hu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yongseok Jang Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Israel Jazo Paradigm

Not Submitted

William Jih Paradigm

I am a parent judge. I have debated in LD when I was in High School over 25 years ago. 2 years ago I have reacquainted myself with debate when my son started competing. So with this being said, I am comfortable with all types of debate however I am not super familiar with all the arguments that currently popular. Assume my understanding at your own risk. What you will get from me is an independent judge that is flow-based. I will base my decision on how articulate your arguments are and if you adequately addressed your opponents key arguments.

I can handle moderate spread, but NOT if you're incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable.

In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and articulate. Additionally, although I will base my decision on the flow of arguments, I do NOT appreciate any show of disrespect to other competitors, spectators, and judges. I cannot guarantee that it doesn't affect my decision or assignment of speaker points.

School affiliations: Redlands High School,Los Gatos High School, Leigh High School

Sarah John Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jessica Jung Paradigm


My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, K’s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, don’t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:


- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.


- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.


- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

Frances Kim Paradigm

Hello competitors!!

My name is Francis (Sae-Rom) Kim, an assistant coach at Valley Preparatory School in Redlands, CA.

I have been judging Congress for about 2 years now, and I am very excited to see all the amazing, talented speakers today.

As a judge, I evaluate the "Best Legislator" in the chamber based on a demonstration of various skills, not just speaking. I often use the congressional debate rubric chart. This means I evaluate basic skills as well as participation in setting the agenda, making motions, asking questions, as well as content, argumentation, refutation, and delivery. Most importantly, I'm looking for effort, passion, and consistent participation in the round. Just because you gave a good speech doesn't mean you get an automatic good rank. You need to show you are engaged with the chamber.

I will try to be as fair and just as possible, so enjoy the experience and be respectful during the round!!!

Thank you.

Srinivas Kothandaraman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mark Lii Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Amanda Lud Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sierra Maciorowski Paradigm

TL;DR: call the Point of Order, use impact calculus, make logical, warranted arguments and don't exclude people from the round. It's your round, so do with it what you will. I'll vote where you tell me to. I won't shake your hands but I love you still.

Updates for NPDI 2020:

1. Here are some book recommendations: Disability Visibility, edited by Alice Wong, A Long Petal of the Sea by Isabel Allende; Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino, The Memory Police by Yoko Ogawa, Transcendent Kingdom by Yaa Gyasi, Las venas abiertas de América Latina by Eduardo Galeano, The Shadow King by Maaza Mengiste, The Dragon Republic by R.F. Kuang (+ The Burning God, out 11/17!!), The Storyteller by Walter Benjamin.

2. This paradigm was written in 2015, and has been updated sparingly. It is now undergoing a comprehensive revision to better reflect the changes in my approach to debate evaluation and pedagogy. Thus far, I have updated sections on: criticism and identity, rejecting the resolution, presumption, frivolous theory, uplayering. I will plan to update further before the NPDI deadlines to accommodate the shifting norms of the circuit.

Background and Trivia

I did high school parli, then NPDA, APDA, BP, and NFA-LD in college; I've coached parli at Mountain View-Los Altos since 2016. My first debate round was against Trevor Greenan in 2011. My opinions on debate have perhaps been most shaped by partners—James Gooler-Rogers, Steven Herman, various Stanford folks who you won't be familiar with—as well as my former students and/or fellow coaches at MVLA—particularly William Zeng, Shirley Cheng, Riley Shahar, Alden O'Rafferty, and Luke DiMartino. I majored in English and Human Biology, currently teach HumBio things at Stanford, started a senior research project on the risks of pandemics in the 21st century a year and a half ago (oops), and spend my free time reading critical theory and Argentine literature.

Pedagogy, or, why are we here?

Debate can be a game, and a fun one at that, but it is not just a game to me—debate is a locus of interrogation, a place where dominant ideologies can be held up and challenged, a home for those of us with trouble in belonging. At its best, debate is a place where we can learn to speak of truths—as I see it, a sort of poetry.

What does this mean? If there is a schism on this circuit between judges who believe that the primary form of exclusion in this space is that of "technical" arguments excluding "non-technical" teams, and those who believe that the primary form of exclusion in this space is the exclusion of under-represented debaters who are marginalized by the nature of this activity, its judges, and its resources, I am on the side of the latter. Debate is a tool for liberation—the liberatory act of of learning to speak your own truths, and listen to others', and learn from them. I will not tolerate —phobias, —isms, or misgendering/deadnaming in any debate space that I am a part of. When you feel like debate excludes you, please consider reaching out to me, whether you know me well or not at all. I promise that I will always do everything I can to call out/in people causing harm, to use my accumulated authority and networks to hold people accountable, and to listen.

But I don't believe that a schism between different forms of exclusion should exist at all. I know that technical debate can be intimidating. The most-watched round of my debating is NPDI finals, 2014—in which I argued shakily against a K at the fastest speed I could, after learning what they were just two days before. In high school, I learned about kritiks to bitterly beat them. And then I went to a junior college to compete in NPDA, and learned that kritiks are not something to be feared, but just another argument to engage with. If you fear kritiks because they confuse you, recognize that maybe that's something to learn about rather than hate. If you believe you hate all kritiks, ask yourself deeply why it is that you are unwilling to question the power structures that govern debate and the world. Do you benefit from them? Don't we all? Can't you learn to question them too?

I believe that the best form of parli is somewhere between APDA Motions and national circuit NPDA. This means the rounds I value most are conversational-fast, full of logic without blipped/unsupported claims, use theory arguments when needed to check abuse, do clear weighing and comparative analysis through the traditional policymaker's tools of probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and use relevant critical/kritikal analysis with or without the structure of traditional criticism.

I will end this section with the following note. Debate is your space, for as long as you are here. It is a space that can give you everything, and make you feel on top of the world, or make you feel utterly worthless. I've been in both places. I know. So I hope that after reading this, or skimming it, or ignoring it, maybe you'll just see this little section here: give yourself space to love debate, and to mourn its exhaustions. This activity, as you know it, will never exist the same way again that it does today. Make it your own. Make it kind. Make it funny. Make it home.

Most Important

  • Content warnings are good (link).
  • Call the Point of Order.
  • Debate should be respectful and educational. This means I am not the judge you want for spreading a kritik or theory against someone unfamiliar with that.
  • Rebuttals should primarily consist of weighing between arguments. This does not mean methodically evaluating each argument through probability, timeframe, AND magnitude, but telling a comprehensive story as to how your arguments win the round.
  • Adaptation to the round, the judge, and the specific arguments at hand is key to good debate. Don't run cases when they don't apply.
  • Fine with kritiks, theory, and any counterplans, but open to arguments against those as well.
  • I default to probability in impact comparison and competing interpretations on theory. That means your link stories should be specific and probable, and in theory rounds, I prefer to evaluate the argument by determining which side has the best interpretation of what debate should be. But default weighing is silly on principle: risk calculus is probability x magnitude, so just do good analysis.
  • I don't give a damn if you say the specific jargon words mentioned here: just make logical arguments and I'll translate them. If you say theory should come before case because we need to determine the rules first, but forget/don't know the words "a priori", congrats, the flow will say "a priori".
  • Tagteaming and speed are fine, but should be respectful— if you puppet your partner without being asked, I will dock your speaks enough to make a difference for seeding. Please don't go fast if you don't have good word economy.
  • Blips without meaning won't win you the round— Please, if you do nothing else, justify your arguments: every claim should have a warrant, and every argument should have an impact. The questions I've ended up asking myself (and the debaters) in nearly every round I've judged over the past ~4 years are: Why do I care about that? What is the implication of that? How do these arguments interact? Save us all some heartache and answer those questions yourself during prep time and before your rebuttal speeches.
  • Be good to each other. Parliamentary debate is a community that should always expand, not push people out.
  • Presumption flows the direction of least change. This means that I presume neg if there is no CP, and aff if there is. I am certainly open to arguments about how presumption should go — it's your round — but I will not be thrilled, and will only presume if I really, truly have to. If you don't have warrants or don't sufficiently compare impacts, I'll spend 5 minutes looking for the winner and, failing that, vote on presumption.


  • Theory relies on logic as much as any other argument: have clear standards and weigh them against your opponents'.
  • Your interpretation should be concise and well-phrased-- and well-adapted to the round at hand.
  • No need for articulated abuse-- if your opponents skew you out of your prep time, do what you can to make up new arguments in round, and go hard for theory. Being able to throw out an entire case and figure out a new strategy in the 1NC? Brilliant. High speaks.
  • Frivolous theory is technically fine, because it's your round, but I won't be thrilled, you know? It gets boring. I'll appreciate it more if it sounds serious.
  • The trend of constant uplayering seems tedious to me. I would much rather watch a standards debate between two interesting interpretations than a more meta shell without engagement. Your round, but just saying.

Kritiks + Tech

  • General: Kritiks are fun when well-run. To keep them that way, please run arguments you personally understand rather than shells you borrowed from elder teammates.
  • Familiarity (UPDATED 11/06/19): In the interest of providing more info for people who don't know me:
  • High familiarity: queer theory, crip and disability theory, Marxism and a variety of its derivatives (Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, intercommunalism, eco-marxism, etc), critical legal theory
  • Medium familiarity: Afrofuturism, securitization, settler-colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, orientalism, biopower, security, Walter Benjamin, Lauren Berlant, Eve Sedgwick, anti-neoliberalism, transfeminism
  • I will be sad and/or mad if you read this: most postmodern things that are hard to understand, Lacan or anything psychoanalytic, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, any theory rooted in racism, anything that is trans exclusionary.
  • I'm still not sure what I think of including a list of authors I'm familiar with, but I think on balance that it is preferable to make this explicit rather than having it in my head and having some teams on the circuit be aware of my interests when other teams are unaware. Don't ever assume someone knows your specific theory or author. Familiarity does not mean I'll vote for it.
  • Exclusion: Don't exclude. Take the damn POIs. Don't be offensive.
  • Conditionality: collapsed debate is good debate. If it hurts your ability to participate in the round, run theory.
  • Speed: Don’t spread your opponents out of the round. Period. If your opponents ask you to clear or slow, please do so or risk substantial speaker point losses. I can handle your speed, but if you aren't coherent and organized, that's your problem.
  • Rejecting the res (UPDATED 10/15/2020): I tend to think the resolution is the "epicenter of predictability" or whatever the tag is these days. Generally better to affirm the resolution in a kritikal manner than to reject the resolution outright, unless the resolution itself is flawed, or you have solid indicts of framework prepared.
  • Flow: I’ll flow through what you tell me to flow through, and will vote on the flow to the best of my understanding of the round. Overviews and underviews are good. Be clear as to what I'm voting on.
  • On identity (UPDATED 10/15/2020): All criticism is tied in some way to identity, whether because we make arguments based on the understanding of the world that our subject position allows us, or because our arguments explicitly reference our experiences. I used to ask debaters to not make arguments based on their identities: this is a position that I now believe is impossible. What we should not do, though, is make assumptions about other people's identities—do not assume that someone responding to a K does not have their own ties to that criticism, and do not assume that someone running a K roots it, nor does not root it, in their identity. We are each of us the product of both visible and invisible experiences—please don't impose your assumptions on others.
  • On philosophical tricks: I'll be honest: I don't understand many of the philosophical arguments/tricks that are likely to be at this tournament (dammit Jim, I'm an English major not philosophy!) I will reiterate with this in mind, then, that I will not vote for your blips without warrants, and will not vote for arguments I don't understand. Convince me.

Case Debate

  • Fine with perms that add new things (intrinsic) or remove parts of your case (severance) if you can defend them. If you can't, you'll lose– that's how debate works.
  • I'll be as tabula rasa as possible, but if you say things that I know are untrue/misrepresentations, your speaks might reflect that.
  • I am such a massive fan of deep case debates, wow! In NPDA I enjoyed reading single position cases, whether a 1-off K or a disadvantage or advantage. These debates are some of the most educational, and will often result in high speaks. I am also a massive fan of critical framing on ads/disads.
  • Your cases should tell a story— isolated uniqueness points do not a disadvantage make. Understand the thesis and narrative of any argument you read.

Points of Order

  • I will protect against new information to the best of my ability, but you should call the Point of Order. If I'm on the edge as to whether something is new, I'll wait for the Point of Order to avoid intervening.

Speaker Points (Updated 11/3/18)

25-26: Offensive, disrespecting partner/other debaters, etc.
26-27: Just not quite a sufficient speech— missing a lot of the necessary components.
27-28: Some missing fundamentals (eg poorly chosen/structured arguments, unclear logic chains).
28-28.5: Average— not very strategic, but has the basics down. Around top half of the field.
28.5-29: Decent warranting, sufficient impact calculus, perhaps lacking strategy. Deserve to break.
29-29.5: Clearly warranted arguments, weighable impacts, good strategy, deserve to break to late elims.
29.5-29.8: Very good strategic choices + logical analysis, wrote my ballot for me, deserve a speaker award.
29.9-30: Basically flawless. You deserve to win the tournament, top speaker, TOC, etc (have never given; have known every TOC top speaker for years; can't think of a round where I would ever give this to any of them)

I don't care if you talk pretty, stutter, or have long terrified pauses in your speech: I vote on the arguments.

I really have no desire to shake your hands.

Feel free to email me with specific questions at or message me on Facebook.

This paradigm is long. If there are teams in the field that I am unfamiliar with, I prefer to err on the side of over-explaining, because short paradigms privilege those who have previous exposure to a given judge, or a given format. I encourage other judges, NPDA and APDA and BP alike, to do the same.

Djavan Mack Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ariane Marie-Mitchell Paradigm

I am a parent judge who has experience since 2017. For speaker evaluations, I pay attention to basic skills like enunciation, intonation, volume, pacing, eye contact, facial expression, and gestures. For debate, I keep track of arguments and logic presented by each side, as well as whether counter-arguments were persuasive. If appropriate to the debate form, I also consider the strength of the evidence presented by each side. The winner of the debate is the side with the most clearly communicated and defended arguments. I strongly dislike spreading.

Aiden McGloin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Adele McGraw Paradigm

Not Submitted

William McGregor Paradigm

I am a lay judge, this is my third year of judging league and invitational speech and debate. If you have any questions, please ask.


Please record your side of the debate in case there are any technical issues and someone drops off the call.

Because this is being done online, slow down a bit. I would hate to miss anything due to latency or other technical issues.

Amandeep Miglani Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephanie Muravchik Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ileen Mylrea Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ryan Nam Paradigm

Ryan Nam - Los Osos High School

Background: I've competed in Speech & Debate for four years at Los Osos High School, primarily in Parli and Extemp. I've also competed in Congress, Public Forum, Extemp Debate, Worlds, etc. I have judged at a few tournaments, primarily for Parli and Public Forum, and I'm currently on the Boston College Mock Trial team ('22). If you have any questions or concerns about my history or background, you are more than welcome to ask before the round.

Parli Paradigm:

With most of my experience being in Parli, there is not much on material that would surprise me during a round. Do not ask if I am familiar with material before a round because I will most likely not answer. The following breaks down categories of Parli that you may have specific concerns about to help you find your answer. If your question is not answered here (and it is NOT about material), you are welcome to ask me about it before a round starts.

Types of Debate: It is my belief that there are three fundamental resolution styles in Parli: policy, value, and fact. Make sure you are aware of which resolution you are working towards in a round. If there is a dispute on this during the round, please make sure to address it during the round and not ignore it.

Policy: Policy should be fun, engaging, and the most creative format of Parli that we can debate on. I value strong fundamental set-ups for plans (i.e. AFF should have a clear and engaging inherency/problem). I also find it important to express creativity in this style. Being able to execute creative plans (even if they seem realistically ridiculous) is always interesting to watch from my perspective and will engage me more with your speeches. Of course, strong fundamentals and a clear understanding of the style/resolution is crucial. If "creativity" means you have weaker overall debating, then avoid it and stick to what works for you. I will always prioritize strong fundamentals. All tactics (i.e. CPs, perms, PICs, Ks, topicalities, etc.) are welcome for both sides. If you feel like you are being excluded via speed or that their plan is especially niche in its application, then express that during your speeches properly and I will flow it. I will probably be familiar with most of the literature (if you are using any) during these tactics, but that does not mean you should neglect it or skim by it. I am a firm believer in flowing only what I hear during the round and if I do not hear you properly explain something to me, then I will not flesh it out for you.

Value: Make sure to have your own value or I will assume you are working under AFF framework. If AFF does not have a value, then I will work under NEG framework. If no one gives me a value, then I will go with whatever framework has been presented during the round at all. The idea here is that we do not need to come to a consensus for a framework as you would normally in a policy round. Simply achieve your value best and (bonus points) try to show why you are ALSO achieving your opponents' value better than them. This is your time to really hone in on niche arguments and incorporate some aspects of philosophy that touch on moral or philosophical issues. For instance, human lives may/may not be the best impact here, so be creative with how your arguments work UNDER YOUR FRAMEWORK.

Fact: This is a simple fact-oriented debate. I do NOT weigh rounds based on quantity of factual material, but will weight based on quality. Of course, just having one good statistic is not going to win the round for you, but do not expect to just pour out a bunch of facts on me without proper explanation of what they mean and why they matter and expect to win. Treat this round as classic debate without bells or whistles and just try to win the round via strong warranting and impacting.

Public Forum Paradigm:

In Public Forum, you obviously are limited on time and must focus on what you feel are the important ideas. The hardest part of this event is proper time management as a team. It is fine to address important small details, but do not linger on them and attempt to look at the bigger picture. Framework issues should hopefully be addressed in the 1AC/1NC as best as possible. Cross is generally used as a speaking score indicator for me. If you claw out an important statement or argument from your opponent, you should reiterate that in your following speech for me to properly flow.

I really enjoy how fast this event goes and if you can keep up the tempo and be aggressive in your argumentation, it will yield more offensive flow for you. Frankly, there is not much on material that I can address, but do explain your arguments thoroughly, yet efficiently as if it is my first time hearing the resolution to begin with. As I mentioned in my Parli paradigm, I also tend to value creativity. I understand that it may be harder in this event as by the end of the month, the tier list of arguments is generally pretty much fixed, but maybe developing your case with new and intriguing twists can be helpful for you throughout a round. Do not be careless, but use your strong fundamentals to incorporate some fresh ideas into the round, if possible.

General Paradigm:

Speed: I can "understand" up to 400wpm, but I would recommend sticking to no more than 300wpm. I am not confident in my own ability to flow all of your arguments above that as I have been out of debate for a few years. As I have stated earlier, if you are getting spread out of a round, then I welcome you to argue that appropriately. If not, I will assume you understand what is happening just fine. That being said, I am aware that most judges disapprove of spreading in Parli for good reason. I am not that judge. You are welcome to spread in this event AS LONG AS YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO IT. Do NOT spread if you are not clear and cannot enunciate properly. *If I say "clear" during a round, please actually either slow down or read more carefully. If I am saying "clear," I expect you to respond in some way and not doing anything about it, is likely to cause me to not flow your arguments correctly*

Tag-teaming: I am fine with it. I would appreciate a notice that you will be doing this just for me to make sure that the opponents are also aware of their ability to use it. Also, I will only flow what is said by the appropriate speaker at that time. Therefore, if you are speaking and your partner says something, make sure to repeat it to me or else it will not go on the flow. This is very important if you are tag-teaming.

Flow/Protecting the Flow: If it has not been clear by now, I am a flow judge and will flow arguments equally across the board. My eventual weighing does not impact the flow, but will be factored in at the end of the round. I protect the flow for novice/JV, but I will not protect the flow for Open/Var events. I would advise you to be attentive during your opponents' speeches to keep track of this.

Impacts: This is how you win rounds. If you do not impact out an argument, I will not do it for you. Flesh out your arguments and negative impact out your opponents' arguments. If you want to run an impact chain to death/human suffering every time, then go ahead. Just impact out everything that you feel should be impacted out.

Foul Language/Rudeness: I am OKAY with mild foul language. It will not hurt you during the round. However, do not start cursing every sentence or speech for the sake of it. If it slips, it slips. Don't sweat it. On the other hand, rudeness will not be tolerated. If you begin to attack your opponents directly and not their arguments, this is not only frowned upon, but will likely lose you the round. This is an educational activity that should be fun, enjoyable, and accessible to ALL people. Please advise.

I have not included speech paradigms, as I fall pretty much in the same realm as any other speech judge. If I am the only judge, you can ask me simple questions NOT related to the direct speech material and I would be happy to answer.

If there is anything that was not covered in this paradigm that is not related to direct material, please feel free to ask before a round starts. It will be more beneficial you to be knowledgeable and aware than to simply assume.

Good luck!

Austin Northamer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Araceli Nuener Paradigm

I am a philosophy professor (emphasis on logic and ethics) and a parent judge. This is my sixth year judging, and I enjoy LD most, followed by Parli and PF.

I prefer when debaters have a clear and well-researched case supported by a specific ethical theory or moral principle. I expect that debaters will be assertive but never disrespectful toward their opponents. In terms of debating style, please avoid "spreading." Also, I don't like it when the round has been reduced to debate jargon and you're arguing the rules of debate rather than debating the educational issues within the resolution.

Angelo Orioli Paradigm

Not Submitted

Paige Oshan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Paul Oshan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Erin Pack-Jordan Paradigm

Note- my judge wiki hasn't been updated in quite awhile and is focused mostly on policy judging ( ). Please default to the paradigm below.

Paradigm: I identify most strongly as a Tab judge and will listen to any warranted argument. I tend to default to Policy Making and enjoy a good impact calc debate. Argue what you are comfortable arguing. It's your debate round, not mine.

Speed: I understand spreading pretty well, but please enunciate. I will shout "CLEAR!" one time if I can't understand. Adjust accordingly. Be especially clear on your tags and theory args.

Kritiks: As they logically flow within the context of the round, go for it. You need to have more than a Spark Notes understanding of the author's ideas. The rule of thumb for me with K's- don't read something if it doesn’t offer a competitive alternative and you can't sufficiently link it into the case without making a huge leap. I want logical progression. Generic Ks for their own sake are no bueno.

Style Points: Be polite and present thoughtful arguments. Don't be an awful human being. I consider this to include: being rude to other people in-round, randomly shouting at the other team during their speeches, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic/ableist comments to other people.

LD Specifics: I appreciate good clash on framework. Most of my LD ballots go to debaters who can provide the most offense-based arguments and the best value/criterion linkages. I also like evidence, policy-based approaches, and a priori considerations.

Who is this person?: I love debate, and believe it can be a force for good. This is my 13th year of semi-regularly judging! I'm originally from rural Texas, hold a BA in History and a Masters in Social Studies Education, and ran my own full-service forensics programs in Texas and Utah for 8 years. I served on the curriculum board of the Women's Debate Institute, worked several camps, tabbed many tournaments, and was the judge coordinator for the 2016 NSDA Nationals in Salt Lake City. After a short "retirement" period, I'm now an assistant coach at Green Canyon High School in Utah.

Sung Pak Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jeho Park Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mani Peroomal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sophie Pielstick Paradigm

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are easy to understand and supported with evidence. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

Connie Pocrass Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jonas Poggi Paradigm

I have four years of HS debate experience (mostly Parli with a bit of PuFo), 3 years of collegiate debate experience (British Parli and APDA), and 3 years of coaching/tutoring and judging experience.

I'll flow all your arguments, just make sure that you explain to me what your argument is, how it's relevant to the debate, and why it's important. If you want me to vote for you, have clear link work and explicit weighing of your impacts. If you tell me that "x" is the most important issue in the round, I will vote on "x." If your opponents tell me that "y" is the most important issue in the round, then you need to tell me why I should vote on "x" instead of "y," or how you can win on both "x" and "y." I'm okay with talking fast, but please don't spread.

I don't have a preference for any types of arguments, but please make sure your arguments relate to the round. I won't vote for something with a high magnitude if there's an incredibly low probability (i.e. if you run nuclear war on a topic about international adoptions, I probably won't vote for it). If you can convince me that there's some degree of probability, then I will vote for it (so if you run nuclear war on a topic about, oh I don't know, nuclear war then I will vote for it). Unless your k is really good, don't run it. Not a huge fan of theory debates.

Always be respectful of your opponents. Debate should be an educational space and talking down to them won't gain you any points in my book. Have fun!

Bonnie Qui Paradigm

Not Submitted

Buff Quilon Paradigm

Not Submitted

Danielle Rascon Paradigm

Not Submitted

Denise Rawlings Paradigm

Not Submitted

Whitney Reed Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jesse Rodgers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Adolfo Rumbos Paradigm

Not Submitted

Luis Sandoval Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sarah Scheer Paradigm

I enjoy the spirit of debate, but it is disappointing to witness rounds where competitors become rude, insensitive, or aggressive. Debate should be treated as an event to exhibit critical thinking and social awareness, not a chance to browbeat others. Niceties aside, speak clearly, explain your arguments well, and do not rely on debate jargon to articulate your reasoning. I prefer conversational style speaking over speed.

Eva Shinnerl Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a lay judge with three years of experience. I judge multiple invitationals each year in southern California. In '17 and '18 I judged at Stanford Invitational, and in '17 I judged at State. I have judged many league tournaments over the years and twice judged CBSR league qualifiers. I judge all events: IE and debate.

Over the years I have learned that, when judging Parli, I prefer a logical, well-organized, well-paced case that builds without falling into the "information dump" trap. I am also suspicious of Parli debaters inventing statistics in round. If I am about to judge a Parli round you're in, please know that running a K is risky. You'll need a very good reason, one that enhances rather than diminishes the value and integrity of the debate. Educational value is paramount; your case needs to respect that, as well as your opponents.

Shali Sirkay Paradigm

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.

Cody Smith Paradigm

Not Submitted

George Smith Paradigm


For starters I did Parliamentary debate and Congress for four years in High School, as well as IX, impromptu, and Original Oratory for two years. I did make it to state in IX in California. That said I have only judged a few tournaments and most of those where local.

How I Judge

For starters I will absolutely flow what is being said, and will look to see if points flow through. As part of that make sure that you clash with your opponents, as this is a debate. Also I prefer logical common sense arguments, keep it on topic and structured and we should be good. When it comes to speed I am okay if you talk fast but you should not be spreading. If I can not tell what you are saying, and can understand what your opponents are saying, your opponents are going to win. Also I do like road maps just to know what is going to be said as it helps me plan out my flow chart. As for congress make sure that you clash with other people. If it seems like you are just reading some pre-prepared speech off of your computer then I will not rank you highly. Congress is a debate event as well and not just a speech one. In summary I like common sense arguments and a team is generally not going to win on some small technical argument. Also I do like sources and, if you do need to email me my email is however, if you do not say it in round I will not include it with your arguments.

Angela Su Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Sylva Paradigm

Add me to the email chain:

Bottom Line

Show me clear structure in your arguments. Signpost everything clearly and highlight your impacts. Tell me how to weigh the round and lay out clear voting issues in the 2NR/2AR, the final foci, and the PMR/LOR. Be inclusive. Make sure your opponent(s) are okay with your rate of speed, work to help them understand your arguments, and just don’t devolve into insults and bigotry. Bigotry will result in an automatic loss for the offender(s). Otherwise, please be competitive, intelligent, and considerate.


I’ve been active in the forensics community for 10 years now. I’ve been a competitor, a judge, and a coach, and have experience in PuFo and Parli at the high school level, and NPDA and CEDA at the college level. Outside of forensics, I have an MA in National Security Studies from CSUSB. My specialties are in WMD strategy and East Asian comparative politics.


To me, goal of the round is to synthesize and disseminate knowledge. This activity is meant to prepare you for higher academic discourse, and good academic contributions are original, intelligent, and comprehensible. Thus, my general expectation for competitors at all levels:

1. Show me that you’ve done YOUR OWN research into the topic. To be clear, I don’t expect you to have prepared for the debate all by yourselves. Of course we rely on our teammates, and sometimes victory briefs, to help write and research cases. However, there is a difference between using these means as tools, and relying on them completely. Good cases will demonstrate an excellent command over the topic area and contribute an original idea which synthesizes the research presented in the round. A lack of understanding of the topic, your research, or your entire case will make a loss very likely.

2. Show me that you are an excellent critical thinker. Do not just present me with 600 of other people’s research papers. Give me some original analysis. Respond well to your opponents’ arguments. I don’t expect you to have prepared for every possible contingency, but I think good debaters are clever enough to find ways around that issue. Evidence isn’t everything (even in Policy). If you provide me and your opponents with evidence with little to no analysis, you will very likely lose the round.

3. Show me that you can clearly, concisely, and coherently communicate a cohesive and complex idea. Gut-spreading a nuclear war-extinction impact at 500 wpm for a healthcare topic is none of these things. I will not flow arguments like this. Generally, the longer the link chain you need to prove an impact, the less likely I am to vote on it. Contrived and counter-intuitive impacts derived from pure theory communicated incomprehensibly do not good academics make. For the sake of making good arguments that can enlighten the uninformed while contributing intelligently to the discourse, please make clear and coherent arguments. Please present cases that cohere without long, convoluted, and/or purely theoretical link chains. In regards to speed, specifically, I will accept spread in some cases (please see “preferences”).

Other Preferences

· Debate as a game. Debate is a game where the objective is to synthesize and disseminate knowledge in the round. I can't fact-check everything you say in the round, so I defer that duty to you. To synthesize knowledge there needs to be clash. I highly prioritize direct clash in my decision calculus because you don't create knowledge by merely claiming your position. By clash, I mean providing evidence and analysis which directly addresses your opponent's contentions. It means putting your opponent's case within the context of your own. What makes both sides mutually exclusive? Where are they mutually inclusive? How does your thesis surpass the opposing antithesis? To disseminate knowledge, I need to understand what you are trying to communicate. If you are going to spread, that's fine, just make sure that I can read your case. To this end I highly value structure. Arguments need to flow in a logical order, I should be able to intuit how links fit together, and impact calculus should be as transparent as possible.

· I like theory and straight-up debates equally. That being said, I still expect kritiks to be intelligent, original, and comprehensible. Carry your K all the way to the end of the debate; commit to it. Don't just read one sentence long blocks and call it a day. Show me you have an in depth understanding of the literature you are reading or I will drop the argument. Same goes for theory and topicality. Interpretation is always a prior question. That means that kritik, theory, and topicality take priority over case, and if you can successfully prove them for your side, I drop the opposing case and you win the debate. on the flip side, if you fail to prove your interp issue and you have no case coverage, then you will lose the debate.

· PICs are fine so long as NEG adequately shows how the counterplan isn't just a permutation of the AFF plan.

· I’m fine with speed ONLY so long as your opponent(s) are also good with speed. Keep in mind that I flow on paper, so it will be a little more difficult for me to flow the debate in its entirety if you spread.

· Signpost EVERYTHING. I want you to really walk me through the structure of your shells and contentions. This is less to show me that you understand the structure of arguments, and more to help me with my own flow. Really, anything you can do to make my evaluation of you easier is a big plus.

· I love stock issues. I’ve noticed that stock issues have fallen out of favor in a lot of high school leagues (in my league, anyway). Nonetheless, I think good cases really do need to address significance, harms, inherency, topicality, and solvency. I expect competitors to zero in on these issues if their opponents lack them in their case. I really like to vote on stock issue

· Tell me a link story. Don't just read blocks and assume I'll know how to put them together. Give original analysis and go through the process of establishing that the premise of your contention/advantage is true, then walk me through how your premise leads to a terminal impact. In other words, what are the external links that prove your premise true? What are the internal links that lead to a persuasive and significant impact? Please do terminalize your impacts and give me some clear and concise calculus with which to weigh your impacts.

· Tell me exactly how to weigh the round. I’ve seen weigh too many people drop their weighing mechanisms, not fully understand what a value criterion is, and straight-up not tell me why they should win the debate. Please do not be these debaters. Please understand your weighing mechanisms, values, etc. and give me a clear list of voting issues at the end of the debate.

· Hate and bigotry lead to an automatic loss. If you espouse hate speech, belittle your opponent period, or otherwise judge or attack them or anyone else for anything other than the quality of their arguments, I will drop the debater.

Noor Tabba Paradigm

Not Submitted

Daryn Teague Paradigm

I was a national HS circuit debater in the 1980s (policy) and did a little coaching at the college level in policy as well. As a parent volunteer the last couple years, I’ve judged most events and genuinely enjoy these rounds . . . so have fun when you’re debating in front of me!  

A few specifics/preferences:  

*    I start out with Tabula Rosa paradigm unless/until I’m persuaded to bring a different model to the debate. I’m open to all sorts of arguments, just make sure that you explain to me why something should be a voter — it’s not enough to win an arcane argument, it needs to make sense to me why it should win you the ballot.  

*    In spite of the above, I’m pre-disposed to treat the “stock issues” (especially Topicality) with reverence.  

*    I’m all about the flow. It’s not only the road map that I use to keep my brain organized throughout the debate, it’s also my record of the debate for post-round decision making. You’ll make things a lot easier on me (and therefore yourself) if you sign-post clearly before your constructives/rebuttals and make sure I stay on the same page with you during each speech.  

*    I’m comfortable with speed and will flow whatever I can hear. But one word of caution: I’m more impressed by smart arguments than I am by quantity of arguments.  

*    I’m old school when it comes to speaker points (let’s just say that 30s were a lot more rare in my day) but I’ll work hard to award them as close as I can to the current points scale. Fastest way to get dinged by me, though, is to be a jerk to other competitors — no matter how good you are. No excuse for rudeness.  

*    I like to call for evidence after rounds, from obscure definitions of terms in the resolution to cards buried in the middle of contentions. Don’t read anything into the stuff I ask to see, sometimes it’s crucial to my RFD and other times I’m just curious about a source citation.  

Last thing to understand about my judging philosophy: I was away from debate for many years, so some of the progressive arguments (e.g., Kritiks) are new to me. I’m open to them, but just be forewarned that you’ll need to explain the theory of your argument and how I should weigh it in the round.  

Competitive debate is awesome and will help you in every aspect of your academics, but it also teaches you skills that will be a competitive advantage for you in your professional careers. Have fun!

Kevin Tong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xavier Torres Paradigm

Not Submitted

Peggy Tse Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michelle Ugarte Paradigm

I have had four years of experience in judging Speech and Debate events but I still consider myself a novice at times. For debates, I weigh the arguments you presents as if I knew nothing about the topic and I like clearly stated arguments and not spreading. If you speak too fast and I do not understand or unable to follow what is being said, then you and your partner may have a less chance of me choosing your side. I also want debates to be conducted in a civil manner.

Stacey Ungaro Paradigm

Not Submitted

Thomas Vavra Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brian Walker Paradigm

I prefer that you remain cordial and respectful to both your opponents and the judge. I am ok with most argument as long as it makes some sort of sense. Please no Ks- relatively new to debate. I am don't have a lot of experience with speed. Some things that I look for in a debate:


- pointing out logical fallacies are always good

- Make sure not to cut off the other speaker in a rude manner in CX

- I'm fine with evidence swap as long as it's done in a timely manner

- Be prepared to provide evidence after the round because I may call for some

- Hypotheticals with no inherency don't fly in this zone

Good luck in the round!!!! :)

Ryan Wallace Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Fengyi Wang Paradigm

I am a parent judge. I have no experience on the topic, so please don't spread and tell me why to vote for you. Keep your own time.

Bonnie Whaley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mark Windham Paradigm

I debated policy at nationals in high school and on the NDT circuit for UC Berkeley in the 1970's, breaking at the major tournaments. After 24 years as a lawyer, specializing death penalty defense, I became a Superior Court Judge in 2008. As a parent I have returned to the activity, founding a program at New Roads School and coaching for six years. I am indeed a parent judge, but one who understands why you have a perm spike in your K thesis.

Though I evaluate professional advocates every day in my courtroom, I am judging you within a high school debate paradigm. I adhere to debate norms and respect generally accepted debate theory.

I'm a ‘policy maker’ in that I weigh impacts and a ‘Tabula Rasa’ judge in that I am an open-minded skeptic. You have the burden of persuasion on claims you assert, requiring sufficient warrant; dropping is concession, but not equivalent to proof. Sophistry has no weight. Nihilistic K’s annoy me but it is the opponent’s job to refute them. Highly unlikely impact scenarios are not persuasive; prove real links. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Obviously, right? Sometimes this seems lost, however, at the highest levels, when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation or rejoinder does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal. While I vote on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge. For me that would tend to be reasonable weighing of human impacts, or in a meta-debate, something which inexorably results in the most desirable policy fact or value conclusion.

I’m open to authentic value debate, even in policy rounds, and vice versa; ‘net benefits’ will not always be the best framework for evaluation of a resolution. In the real world, cost/benefit analysis is bounded by value limits. While I enjoy policy topics the most, fact resolutions happen! Deal with them. They are the basis for real world argument in science and in law, for example. Impact calculus is misplaced here; preponderance of the evidence, as measured by its persuasive force, is a legitimate standard, as is hypothesis testing.

Novel advocacies such as kritiks, kritikal PMC’s, unconventional counterplans, severance permutations, conditionality, theory and narratives are fine, but artifice may diminish your effectiveness. I prefer substance to procedure. It is most important to address the social issue at hand; clever arguments shouldn't be made for their own sake, but only to advance the substance of your position. I would consider argument that clearly abusive theory is a reverse voting issue. I appreciate case debate.

Speed is not a problem, per se, if you speak very clearly. Repeating your tags would be helpful. If I don't understand you, you can't win the argument. I will not say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ so pay attention to the judge. While I enjoy and prefer the breadth of argumentation you may present using an accelerated pace, if you double breathe I can't flow you. But fast is fine if it is audible, clear and persuasive. Line by line argumentation is very helpful, but persuading me that a single contention is determinative of the round, when it was presented as part of a spread may be difficult. But if so, of course you must.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to evaluate your debate. I hope that I may contribute to your education as an advocate, with the aspiration that you will use this experience to make this world a better place. I hope to learn from you as well so that I may do the same.

Angie Wood Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

John Yim Paradigm

Not Submitted