Claremont Wolfpack Invitational
2019 — Claremont, CA/US
Leen Abulaban Paradigm
Osaid Abulaban Paradigm
Tala Abulaban Paradigm
Marylou Alvarez Paradigm
Ellen Beeton Paradigm
Linda Berger-Bean Paradigm
Debbie Blais Paradigm
Eva Chang Paradigm
Gurpreet Chawla Paradigm
Soo Yeon Cho Paradigm
Lea Mulan Clark Paradigm
If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyzations of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments. Do NOT run them.
I'm an Int. Relations and Economics major at SacState. I tell you this so you know that I appreciate evidence-heavy cases. If you have properly woven your sources into your case, I appreciate that. If you have multiple contentions, you're well researched, you know the ins and outs of your arguments, I appreciate that. BTW, I'm also a total geek for microeconomics, so beware of mixing up economic terms because I will notice. But I do love a good economics argument. Unless I can't understand you. See the statement above.
I did Public Forum in high school for two years and Lincoln-Douglass debate at the collegiate level. You also might remember me as the "love girl" from Expository. I also did that.
Tiffany Conley Paradigm
Yvette Cordero Paradigm
Claudia Cruz Paradigm
Reyna De La Cruz Paradigm
Dany Doueiri Paradigm
Curtis Durham Paradigm
Majid Essa Paradigm
Jeffrey Evans Paradigm
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: firstname.lastname@example.org or just come find me after round if you have questions.
Iva Fitzsimmons Paradigm
Rosalie Franche Porayouw Paradigm
Haojun Fu Paradigm
Suzette Geris Paradigm
Rittu Gill Paradigm
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.
Lee Graves Paradigm
Eric Grodan Paradigm
3rd year of HS PF judging experience. I have judged at several local and away tournaments.
I do mind speed.
I disfavor jargon.
Provide a roadmap at the beginning of your speeches.
Avoid conclusory statements not supported by logic and evidence.
I prefer to let you monitor your own time so I can put my entire focus into the debate.
B.A. Political Science M.S.U.
J.D. Southwestern University School of Law
LL.M. (Taxation) Loyola Law School
CA Bar Member #212258
Good luck and have fun!
Andres Guerrero Paradigm
Alexis Guzman-Creano Paradigm
Bruce Hamamoto Paradigm
Nicholas Hearth Paradigm
Vanessa Hilo Paradigm
Deanna Ikehara Paradigm
Samar Irizarry Paradigm
Devi Priya Janakiraman Paradigm
Christine Jochimsen Paradigm
Rebecca Kessinger Paradigm
Francis Kim Paradigm
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!!!
Hope Kim Paradigm
Mike King Paradigm
Linda Kittell Paradigm
I like a well organized speaker, those that come into the room late, change their shoes, fix their hair....not so much.
I appreciate the speaker that makes unusual assessments or provides unique remedies.
Respecting the opponent while arguing their contention is better than insulting their person. Debate doesn't mean personal attacks free-for-all.
The burden of proof is what is relevant, I evalute all the situations - if you noticed a missed arguement of your opponent don't assume I caught it, point it out.
Spreading? As long as you speak slowly, feel free...ha ha ha
Hilda Kyle Paradigm
David Lake Paradigm
Alexis Lake Paradigm
Keith Lesser Paradigm
John Lewellen Paradigm
Amy Lu Paradigm
Yilin Ma Paradigm
Scott Marcus Paradigm
Ana Clarisa Martinez Paradigm
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.
Maxwell McGuirt Paradigm
Ling Moeljadi Paradigm
AJ Moore Paradigm
Ezequiel Murillo Paradigm
Thomas Nguyen Paradigm
I am a lay judge. I judged both speech and debate for a couple of years. Make sure to present your cases clearly and at a normal speaking rate. If I don’t understand your logic and evidence links then I can’t vote for you. Have a great debate.
Andrea Noronha Paradigm
Sherry Nouraini Paradigm
I have been judging debate for two years. I am a scientist by training, I teach science at the college level, which forms the basis of how I judge:
1- Back your arguments and opinions by real data from credible sources.
2- I decide on speaker points based on clarity of your presentation, and the content of your speech. Be concise and clear. I cannot judge your arguments if you speak so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying.
3- Do not be disprespectful of your debate opponent.
4- If you use abbreviations and acryonyms, be sure to define them.
Yogesh Pande Paradigm
Jeho Park Paradigm
James Park Paradigm
Jessica Patterson Paradigm
Been judging speech and debate competitions for about 7 years. I'm a theatre teacher, so I tend to gravitate towards IEs. I'm pretty lay when it comes to debate. I've judged enough over the years so that I can follow along with fast speaking, but not with spreading. I really really love it when arguments are clear, contentions are loudly numbered, and definitions are offered to me if the topic has to do with international relations or foreign policies. Be nice to each other.
Sowmya Pendem Paradigm
Mani Peroomal Paradigm
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.
Rohan Reddy Paradigm
Jayson Remigio Paradigm
Katrina Renderos Paradigm
Sierra Rhodes Paradigm
Gift Riley-Norman Paradigm
Sean Rogers Paradigm
Alexander Roman Paradigm
Martin Ruiz Paradigm
Renata Shammo Paradigm
Paarth Sharma Paradigm
Jasmin Sharp Paradigm
I have been competing in debate for six years. I competed in Policy Debate in highschool and then competed in Parli debate in college. I currently compete with Concordia University Irvine. I have been coaching policy, parli, and LD at the middle and highschool level for two years now.
I am arguably most comfortable with a policy style of debate, since I’ve done so much of it in both policy and parli. That being said, if you’re not introducing a plan, doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy the debate just as much. If you are introducing a plan, I really wanna make sure you have specific solvency for the plan; don’t just say you’re going to do x thing and then not tell me exactly what that thing does. If you’re passing a bill, give me a summary of what the bill does. As far as counterplans go, I'm fine with any of them. I like PICs. I think that the negative always has the right to introduce a counterplan, as long as it's competitive.
I really enjoy value debates. But if you’re going to defend a value, you better know REALLY well what that value means. I don’t want to hear you defend deontology and then not know how deontology functions through your contentions and what it means in the framing of the round.
The tl;dr: I’m good with the K but give me a bit of background on the author you’re reading.
I don’t enjoy the kritik when I’m competing, but I enjoy judging them. I have a lot of experience in kiritical debate and I’ve read a lot of authors and seen a lot of Ks, so I’d like to think I’m pretty well versed. Authors I’ve read that I’d say I’m very comfortable with: Foucault, Baudrillard, hooks, Marx, and Tickner. I’ve read a lot of feminist lit so I’m pretty comfortable with any sort of fem K, and I’ve read a handful of other miscellaneous books as well. That being said, if you’re defending a certain author, be sure to know that author backwards and forwards and be able to explain it to me if I look confused. Approach me like a judge that is good on the K and I’ll keep up, but my non-verbals will tell you if I’m lost. If I’m shaking my head, my head is cocked to the side, or I look confused, please clarify what your thesis is – I haven’t read every book ever and for a lot of Ks I’ll need at least a bit of background. Also, please explain how the alt solves – I don’t care if your alt is political or not, just give me clear solvency for whatever it is.
The tl;dr: I love theory and will vote on it if you give me a good reason to.
I was always a theory debater. I think it can be the fastest and best way to win the round for both sides. I will definitely take into consideration any theory coming out of any speech as long as there’s a substantiated reason for it. But if you’re going to run theory, make sure you have a clear interp and competitive standards. I’ve seen and run pretty much every type of theory imaginable so I understand when there’s a reason for it and will have a pretty low threshold if you defend it well – I’ve run theory in the last speech of the round based on what someone did in the speech before me, so I’m willing to vote on something like that – but if you’re gonna go for it, go for it. Collapse to theory or I won’t buy it. I have run RVIs before and I don’t see them as abusive as long as you give a good defense for why this is a situation when I should vote on an RVI. Don’t just tell me “they ran theory so they should lose,” explain how that situation specifically is an abusive use of theory and why that warrants me dropping them. I love condo debates but I don’t necessarily think that condo is good or bad; I vote for the team that makes the better argument on that. As far as speed procedurals go, run them if you think it’s warranted but if you’re gonna run a speed procedural, you better have called clear at least 3 times and the other team has not slowed down. Basically, as long as you give me substantiated abuse on theory I’ll vote on it but if you give me a reasonable explanation of why you’re not being abusive I’m just as likely to vote for you.
IF YOU RUN A K OR PROCEDURAL ABOUT ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, ie TRIGGER WARNINGS BEING ABUSED, I WILL STOP THE ROUND TO MAKE SURE ALL THE DEBATERS FEEL SAFE AND ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE. I don’t want to make anyone feel like they are unsafe when they are debating, so PLEASE bring that to my attention and I will do what I can to make you feel safe.
Things I want to see:
The tl;dr: Clash, impacts, and good impact analysis.
If someone argues something and you drop it; it’s unrefuted offense for the other team and I will consider that in my decision. But I won’t always catch every dropped argument so if you see it, call it out. But make sure you’re directly clashing with your opponents’ points. I like seeing good clash in the round and I’d rather see ya’ll collapse to one argument that has good clash on both sides then to see you stick to your blocks and have the round be like two ships passing in the night.
I also realllllllly want to see good impacts. Explain to me why your arguments matter. If you don’t give me a way to evaluate your arguments against what the other team is saying then that leaves me with a ton of responsibility at the end of the round and I’ll pick the argument I like better. I don’t care how big or small your impact is, just tell me why it matters.
I also really want to see impact analysis at the end of the round. Weigh your impacts on probability, timeframe, magnitude, and probability. I need you to compare your impacts to the other side’s a tell me why I should vote for you (and I much prefer to see that then voting issues since the impacts are what matters).
Be nice. People call me a point fairy and I typically am but I have no problem dropping your speaks if you’re rude in round. I have no tolerance for abusive behavior in round and if you’re a total jerk I’ll drop you.
Speed is fine; I can keep up as long as the other team can, and if I can’t I’ll call clear. And if you're a debater and someone is going too fast for you, please call clear or slow - I won't evaluate an argument about speed unless you attempt to get the other team to slow down first.
If you’re reading an argument about sexual assault, violence, or anything similar, please give a content warning at the beginning of the round so everyone is prepared.
I think debate is a game and I vote for the team that does the best debating, so I try not to have hard and fast opinions on debate. The round is what you make it and I’ll adapt to that unless extenuating circumstances force me to otherwise. Good luck!
Hao Shen Paradigm
Suyashi Shodhan Paradigm
Sarah Slanaker Paradigm
Jordan Stephens Paradigm
I do college policy at Weber State University
1. I will hear any argument you have. Just make sure it has a claim, warrant, and impact.
2. I do more performative arguments so I am not the best tech wise. I should be able to hear and understand your arguments no matter the debate.
3. Cross ex is important and I will consider the things you've said.
4. Do not be rude, racists, homophobic, ect. You can be mad, loud, soft, funny. Just do not be rude.
5. Last just have fun and learn something! Be passionate. Extra speaker points for the level of spiciness you bring to a debate.
Ron Stigall Paradigm
Ken Stocks Paradigm
Deanna Swank Paradigm
Leticia Taufahema Paradigm
Asha Taylor Paradigm
Tabrynn Tucker Paradigm
Deborah Underwood Paradigm
Mandy Wang Paradigm
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.