34th Annual Stanford Invitational
2020
—
Stanford,
CA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Marwa Abourayya
Monta Vista High School
None
Grace Adams
George Washington HS
None
Veena Adiga
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sat March 20, 2021 at 8:32 AM PDT
School Affiliations:
Judging/Event Types:
Years judging:
Speaker Points?
-
Things that will make you lose points
-
Unprofessional language
-
Stating false information
-
Being Disrespectful
-
Things that will make you gain points
-
Humor
-
pace(not too slow or fast)
-
Good word choice
What I vote on:
Notes Habits:
Evidence Preferences:
RWI:
CX:
Lay vs Flow:
Other:
On K's:
Don't try plz.
On Speed:
TALK SLOW. If you are going too fast, I will say slow once. After that, I am going to drop you.
On Theory/Topicality:
Default to reasonability. I have a low threshold for what is considered "a-topical"
On Truth Testing:
Truth exists if I say so.[Don't Read it]
FW:
I enjoy util.
For Parli:
- PICS are a great part of debate.
- Don't read new evidence in the 1AR
- If you read new contentions in the 2NC that could have been made in the 1NC in an attempt to overload the 1AR, I won't flow them
Anju Agarwal
Monta Vista High School
None
Monica Agarwal
Mission San Jose HS
None
Anuj Aggarwal
Infinite Academy
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:39 AM PDT
Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.
DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.
FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.
OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.
HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)
Sanjay Aggarwal
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2019 at 11:38 AM PDT
Analysis and organization of speech
Citations and references
Time management
Verbal presentation and body language
Constructive argument and cross examination
Respect to others
Gauri Agrawal
Cupertino High School
None
Tammy Aguiniga-Garretson
El Cerrito
None
Anees Ahmed
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Thu May 2, 2024 at 11:55 AM PDT
Hello Speech and Debate enthusiasts -
I am a parent judge and have been judging Speech (primarily) and Debate events for the past 4+ years.
Summary:: When judging any event, my philosophy for ranking students high or low is subject to the rules / guidelines that are relevant to that event. Aside from that I am listening to your flow, observing your body language and most importantly your attitude towards fellow competitors, judge and audience.
Debate:
- Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals.
- During rebuttal speeches, do not bring the earlier points, bring something fresh to the debate.
- I prefer to listen to the debate framework and evaluate your warrants and evidence.
- I am not too big on “spreading” (fast speaking), it is hard enough to process your arguments so make sure to slow down and enunciate. I will stop if I fail to understand you.
- A key element of judging debate for me is how you differentiate yourself from the opponent.
- Providing a roadmap will help as well.
- It helps if you tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for.
My judging experience is mostly within speech and when judging debate, my preference is quality over quantity.
Speech:
For Speech, I am looking and hearing you as a Speaker not only as a judge but also as a member of the audience. As an audience member, you do not connect to me, then your speech lacked a certain element - this could vary. So in order to connect, you need to have Clarity, Pace, Organization and Engagement.
Delivery--I am evaluating you on content, delivery, speed of delivery, diction, and speed of delivery. As a speaker, I want to evaluate if you demonstrate poise and effective body language that fits well with your speech. It helps if you are able to relate to the mood and the emotions of the topic, character.
Overall, I want you to have fun and know that you will rank higher if you follow rules, are able to keep me engaged through your delivery and are respectful of everyone.
Rebecca Allison
Notre Dame HS
None
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:58 AM PDT
I am a lay judge with very little experience judging. I will vote for the side that explains their arguments clearly, interacts with the clash in the round, and speaks at a comprehensible speed (this doesn't have to be overly slow, but more so conversational). Also, please remain calm and be respectful toward your opponents!
Laura Amos
Cajon High School
None
Anjali Anand
Evergreen Valley
None
Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Holly Anderson
King's Schools
None
Kendricks Anderson
ModernBrain
Last changed on
Wed October 9, 2019 at 2:00 AM MST
I currently teach Theater Arts, African American / Latinx American Literature, and English I at Pinole Valley High School. I am looking into teaching Speech and Debate and appreciate the invaluable experience I gain when judging competitions. I tend to defer to the competitors in regard to the pace of the debate and I do not appreciate coaches coaching during the actual debate. Other than that, I think that I am an unbiased, open-minded judge that allows for students to shine by demonstrating their knowledge on the topics being debated.
Indira Anupindi
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Kavitha Appakayala
Presentation HS
None
sim aquino
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Wed September 18, 2024 at 4:52 PM PDT
School affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School
Judging/Event types: Extemporaneous, Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, Congress, Informative Speaking, Original Oratory, Original Advocacy, Original Poetry/Prose
Years in judging: 6
As a judge, I’ve had the privilege of watching my two children participate in Speech and Debate since 8th grade, giving me about six years of experience in this role. Over the years, I’ve grown tremendously as a judge, and I now look for well-rounded performances that emphasize confidence, creativity, seamless transitions, strong eye contact, and clear voice projection.
I appreciate speakers who can break down complex ideas into simple, relatable terms, especially through the use of examples and analogies. Please keep your pacing measured—if I can’t fully hear or understand your argument, it’s difficult to fairly assess your content. I’m a very emotional person, so if you see me tearing up or laughing, it’s because I’ve been genuinely moved by your performance.
I approach every round with an open mind and take my responsibility as a judge seriously. I strive to take thorough notes so I can provide thoughtful and constructive feedback.
One area where I might need extra support is with political terminology. If you use any uncommon terms (for example, "quid pro quo"), please define them early on so I can follow your argument with ease.
I’m excited to witness your performances and feel truly grateful for the opportunity to watch each of you shine!
Sergio Aranda
Sonoma Academy
None
Venki Ayalur
Cupertino High School
None
Ramesh Banda
Notre Dame HS
None
Teri Bartlow
South Albany
None
Craig Barwell
King's Schools
None
Maria Bautista
Oakwood
None
Shelia Bearfoot
Mountain House HS
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:25 AM PDT
Update: Here's some SetCol lectures and links to hella lit I compiled a while ago:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UzbBrwOK3BDTgMTgV2KNnS14BiLKb4e1
Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.
I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)
Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.
Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.
(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)
^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea
Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.
Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.
Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.
Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.
Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.
Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.
RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.
K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.
Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.
Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.
Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.
Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.
Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!
Teja Bedi
Presentation HS
None
Sonu Bedwa
California High School
None
Ellen Beeton
Claremont
None
Elizabeth Beken
Presentation HS
Last changed on
Mon October 15, 2018 at 11:48 AM PDT
I am a new parent judge.
Taylor Belmonte
University Laboratory School
None
Vincey Bhan
Redwood MS
None
Milan Bhardwaj
Monta Vista High School
None
Meena Bhatia
Washington High School
None
Sanjukta Bhattacharyya
Leland High School
None
Rahul Bindlish
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri March 15, 2024 at 9:00 AM PDT
Add me to the email chain and send round docs rahul.bindlish71@gmail.com
Occupation: IT Services
School Affiliations: DVHS
Years of Judging/Event Types: Judged PF for 3 years
How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Fluency of speech, arguments made supporting your position, data provided supporting your arguments, how did you defend the other teams objections, how did you challenge the other teams position.
What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Logical reasoning, supporting data, clarity of thought and clear articulation.
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I take notes by speaker and team. I tend to keep tab of main arguments made for and against the topic and try to decide which ones I finally believed in based on the arguments and data presented during the debate.
Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily
Clothing/Appearance: 1; Use of Evidence: 10; Real World Impacts: 8; Cross Examination: 10; Debate skill over truthful arguments: 3
Narayan Biswal
Folsom High School
None
Bijoy Bora
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Kishan Bulusu
Oakwood
None
George Cai
Leland High School
None
Eva Cao
Mission San Jose HS
None
Luis Cardenas
Democracy Prep Harlem Prep High
None
Luis Cardenas
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Luis Cardenas
Democracy Prep Harlem
None
Kamal Chahal
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Sun January 19, 2020 at 6:38 PM EDT
I am a parent with some experience in debate formats. I am looking for persuasive and organized arguments that follow the flow. To help me:
1) When you sit down, please introduce yourself with your full name and the school you represent. This helps me when I allocate individual speaker points.
2) Try not to go 180mph. I will take notes along the way, so I follow your strategy.
3) For the most part, I evaluate the debate on content & strategy (not on the presentation style). So relax!
4) POI's are OK; abusive heckling - not ok! POIs raised should be concise and well-articulated.
Adriana Chan
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Gavin Chan
Leland High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sun February 4, 2024 at 4:02 AM PDT
Just go with your preparation and keep it relevant to your topic and do your best. You'll be judged by each of the judging criteria outlined for each event. I'm given equal weights for each criteria at this time (may do weighting in near future).
Subha Chandran
Monte Vista
None
Nagu Chandrappa
Monta Vista High School
None
Nagabhushan Channabasappa
Monte Vista
None
Manish Chawla
Saratoga HS
None
Naren Chelluri
Cupertino High School
None
Chris Chen
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Elena Chertkova
Smoky Hill HS
None
Ramakrishna Chilukuri
Presentation HS
None
Jennifer Cho
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Wed February 7, 2024 at 12:50 PM PDT
My Background:
Undergraduate degree in Business Administration (Berkeley Haas).
I'm a program manager for a speech and debate program.
I have little to no experience judging debate.
What I look for:
Be respectful. Confidence without attitude.
Please keep your delivery slow and clear.
I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.
Hyenam Choi
Foothill High School
None
Last changed on
Sat March 9, 2024 at 12:48 AM PDT
I am a parent judge who is also a middle school teacher.
Samantha Chu
Almaden Country Day School
None
Carol Chung
Redwood MS
8 rounds
None
Issac Chung
South High School
None
Jordan Church
Harvard-Westlake School
None
James Clark
Almaden Country Day School
None
Marc Clark
Rancho Bernardo High School
None
Cora Cleary
George Washington HS
None
Kristin Clements
Yucaipa HS
None
Hormazd Commissariat
Young Genius
None
Hope Cornish
George Washington HS
None
Libby Cortez
Jesuit High School
None
Steve Cortez
Jesuit High School
None
Caroline Cosio
Lovejoy High School
None
Emmanuel Cruz
Democracy Prep Endurance
None
Mariel Cruz
Notre Dame HS
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 9:07 AM PDT
Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024
Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School
I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.
Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.
Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.
Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.
As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.
K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.
Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.
Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.
Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.
Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.
General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.
Mavelyn Cruz
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Padmanabh Dabke
Monte Vista
None
Renu Dargar
Saratoga HS
None
Ashutosh Das
Monta Vista High School
None
Paramita Das
Mission San Jose HS
None
Sutapa Dasgupta
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 10:58 AM PDT
Speak at a pace that people can understand. In order to cover too many thing in your time limit don't speak so fast that i cannot understand anything .
Be authoritative in what you say. if you are not convinced what you are saying, i am not convinced either.
Enjoy speech and debate!!!!
Linda Davis
Mentoring Academy
None
Phil Deng
Peninsula High School
None
Shuang (Sheri) Deng
Mission San Jose HS
None
Prashant Deo
Cupertino High School
None
Darshan Desai
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:22 AM PDT
I am a lay parent judge and I judge tech/truth. I prefer not to have too many regulations on debaters and I consider myself a flexible judge. As for evidence sharing, please have all your evidence ready to go before the debate so we don't waste time and please include me in the email chain. Signpost so I can have a clear flow. For high speaks make sure to be clear and order your speeches. Finally, if you are going to spread or speak remotely fast, please email me a speech doc or put a link in chat, @desai.darshan@gmail.com.
I am looking for clear communication, professionalism and mutual respect in the debate. I also expect the debaters to maintain time.
I will also look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. Debate should be vigorous, but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.
Comparing and contrasting in your arguments is very important. Do strong weighing between the two arguments (Affirmative/Negative) and explain why yours is better than theirs and why I should vote for you. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear.
I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument rather than one who stays on the same point for too long.
I don’t prefer intervening and expect teams to call out bad behavior such as spreading, new arguments in final focus etc. Competitors do not have to reply every argument in case a team is using spreading tactic.
Competitors are encouraged to focus on main issues pertaining to the topic rather than “minor” or “obscure” arguments.
Good Luck at the Tournament!
Krishna Desai
ModernBrain
None
Priya Desai
Monta Vista High School
None
Padma Desikachari
Cupertino High School
None
Cynthia Dewar
SF Waldorf HS
None
Prabu Dhaksh
Dougherty Valley Bridge
None
Kanchan Dilip
Presentation HS
None
Kaveh Dilmaghani
Tahoma Senior HS
None
Michael Dittmer
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Tue January 30, 2018 at 1:10 PM PDT
Hello! My name is Michael Dittmer and I have 4 years of HS LD experience and 2 years of NPDA experience in college. I am currently an LD and Parli coach for Evergreen Valley High School.
A couple notes on my paradigm:
1. I debated for Cal parli and understand tech arguments and am fine with speed. However, I was not the fastest nor most technically advanced debater on the college NPDA circuit, so please accord a little slowing down and explanation in case you're running a complicated position or are telling me how to evaluate certain args, especially in rebuttals. I'm a few years out so if you need to explain to me what functional vs. text comp, competing interps vs. reasonability, etc. please do since I always appreciate the clarity.
2. Generally, the most important thing is having clear, supported, and impacted arguments. I will default to a policy making/net benefits paradigm but am totally fine being told how to evaluate otherwise (e.g. K's, ROB, etc.).
3. I otherwise don't have a whole lot of preferences regarding certain paradigmatic issues, eg related to evaluating theory, K's, etc. Regarding theory I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. I'm open to reasonability but probably will err on little more on comparing interps. Theory/procedural needs to be justified as a priori in order to be treated as such. Most importantly, please slow down and clearly read interpretations and violations-both for the sake of me and also in fairness to your opponents.
4. I understand RVIs and metatheory are becoming more a thing these days, but I generally have a pretty high bar for voting for RVIs or arguments that criticize the act of running theory (e.g. in the 1AR) unless abuse is strongly demonstrated.
Feel free to ask questions before round if you see something not listed here. Good luck!
Last changed on
Mon October 1, 2018 at 2:25 PM PDT
Do not talk fast.
I have not been a judge before.
Look for:
1) passion
2) preparation
3) assertion
4) persuasion,
5) strong, and
6) clear arguments.
Yi Dong
Young Genius
None
Zakaria Doueiri
Cajon High School
None
Taisia Dubinina
Young Genius
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sun February 11, 2024 at 5:24 AM PDT
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
ANANT DURGUDE
Monte Vista
Last changed on
Thu January 14, 2021 at 3:43 PM PDT
Hello, I'm a parent judge with a very short experience of judging only a couple of tournaments.
For my decision making, I'll be looking for "What is said" as well as "How it is said". Your clarity in thoughts as well as in delivery, Your confidence in presentation and contents/research will be key input to my judgement.
Here are some suggestions/inputs based on my experience from earlier competitions:
- Don't speak too fast. Don't panic.
- Relax and Enjoy your performance. Be calm & controlled.
- Follow online meeting etiquettes/good practices.
- Don't use examples/arguments that are niche. Be clear.
Happy Debating!
John Eichman
Yucaipa HS
None
Janet Escobedo
Cristo Rey High School
Last changed on
Sat September 7, 2019 at 10:40 AM PDT
Preferred E-mail:
janet.esco@gmail.com
Debate Experience:
Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA)3-ish years (Policy)
Bradley Tech High School (in Milwaukee, WI)- 4 yrs (Policy), Assistant Debate Coach - 1Yr (LD & PF)
Current Position: Head Coach at Oak Grove HS, Kipp San Jose Collegiate, and Downtown College Prep-El Primero
I'm only writing this so I don't get fined. J.K.
If I said I'm trying to be as clean of a slate as possible when judging, I'd be lying. I vote on mostly everything as long as there are good arguments made and carried through the final speeches.
Things that will aggravate me and make me want to hurt a puppy (May apply to National circuit LD and PF debates when applicable):
- The spray and pray (You just make random args with no content just for the sake of making them) -_-
- Race arguments executed badly, ESPECIALLY from someone that has never experienced racial discrimination a day in their lives. You will get stale-faced, and I will make sure my ancestors haunt you in your dreams. -__________________-
- When you run topicality when you're constrained to a packet and use abuse as a voter -__-
- When you run arguments incompletely, and decide to go for it (i.e. Counterplans with no CP text, DAs with no link or uniqueness or impact, T with no standards or voters)
- When you argue with me and you know you're wrong. Don't do it. I'm not the one, I promise you.
I love clash, clash is fun. I can't be mad at a passive-aggresive CX or debate because I was notorious for that, but when you show your whole behind then it gets awkward and I will probably dock your speaks if it's unwarranted.
The one thing I love more than clash is when the debater does the work for me. This is often achieved through good line by lines and impact calcs.
I am okay with speed as long as you're clear. If you know you are an uncler spreader, then don't do it to me or to yourself. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing if it continues and give you the death glare.
K debates, performance debates, T, and weird alts are fine.
Theory and framework debates- I need you to definately slow down on these arguments if you want me to flow everything and get a good understanding of the arguments. These also need an impact calculus.
I will not vote on oncase arguments alone on the neg, I need some sort of off case to go with it.
Lincoln-Douglass:
Same applies. Don't make me want to kick a puppy in your name. I love impact arguments and extending those impact arguments. Whether its extinction, dehum, etc. I need Impacts and I'll love you for using them.
Framework: Will vote on it if you tell me why I should vote on it with clear impacts.
T and theory: same
DA's and CPs: they neeeedd to have impacts and your counterplans need to be mutually exclusive either on their own or through a net benefit.
I value more the quality of the argument than the amount. I like efficiency.
line by lines make me happy.
Dont be condescending in round or when giving my RFD. If you do, I can't promise that I won't embarrass you.
I am a fairly progressive judge, I am open to most arguments and stay as objective as possible.
Allison Evans
Claremont
None
Gina Fagin
Almaden Country Day School
None
Tawab Fakhri
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 12:18 PM PDT
- I am speech couch that's been debate adjacent
- I vote on the cleanest argument that makes sense, has evidence, links reasonably to an impact
- If nothing makes any sense or proven true, I default to negative
Peter Fan
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Sherry Fan
Leland High School
None
Zahra Fattah
Monte Vista
None
Katie Fauria
Presentation HS
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 2:36 AM PDT
I've been a Speech and Debate coach for the past 7 years, but primarily on the Speech side.
When it comes to policy debate, I tend to be more of a stock issues judge and believe that the Aff's burden is to protect and prove the stock issues; I especially look for that. I also want you to clearly articulate your positioning and prove why your arguments outweigh your opponent.
For Congress, be clear and efficient with your speeches. Feel free to lean into the "Congressional" part of it and performance is always key, but if you don't have sufficient evidence and don't explain or otherwise discuss the consequences and implications of that evidence then all the rhetoric in the world won't make up for it.
Overall, please speak clearly and slowly. Do not spread. And above all, analyze your evidence. Don't let it stand for itself - prove why it's important.
Jessica Finnsson
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
Carol Finuliar
American High
None
Kim Gallego
Presentation HS
None
Kiran Garlapati
Redwood MS
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 9:42 AM PDT
I am a parent judge
Ashley Garrett
Valencia High School
None
Rohit Ghai
Saratoga HS
None
Ratan Ghosh
Washington High School
None
Binny Gill
Joaquin Miller Middle School
None
Linda Golan
Notre Dame HS
None
Sridhar Gollapudi
Mission San Jose HS
8 rounds
None
Jacob Gore
Young Genius
None
Satish Gowdra
Joaquin Miller Middle School
None
Shivani Goyal
California High School
None
Vinita Goyal
Mission San Jose HS
None
Emily Greaver
University Laboratory School
None
Mishika Grewal
The Golden State Academy
None
Peter Guastaferro
Presentation HS
None
Lisa Guo
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Akash Gupta
Monta Vista High School
None
Amit Gupta
Mission San Jose HS
None
Last changed on
Sun April 7, 2019 at 5:39 AM PDT
An avid debater - both extempore and prepared during my younger days.
Winner of the Inter Collegiate debates during my engineering and business school day.
This is my first formal year of judging both speech and debate events and I love providing constructive feedback to all participants that can help them with their future rounds.
Interest in wide ranging topics including technology, psychology, politics and current affairs, sports, cinema and visual arts ... Avid sportsperson and an enthusiast, Coach and Mentor for Robotics and Odyssey of the Mind teams !!
Keshav Gupta
Young Genius
None
Manish Gupta
Cupertino High School
None
Neeharika Gupta
Young Genius
None
Lewis Gurgis
Democracy Prep Charter High
None
Last changed on
Sun February 18, 2024 at 1:32 AM PDT
Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.
TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.
If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com
Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.
General:
I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.
Arguments:
I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.
However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:
Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.
For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.
Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.
Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.
Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.
For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.
I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).
Style/Speed:
I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.
Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.
I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.
I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.
If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.
Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.
Final Approach to RFD:
I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!
Weigh impacts.
Weigh impacts.
Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:
- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.
- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.
Faisal Habib
Monte Vista
None
Sawera Haq
Mountain House HS
None
Thippeswamy Hariyaplar
Lynbrook HS
None
Kelly Harris
American Heritage Boca Delray HS
Last changed on
Sat February 8, 2020 at 7:34 AM EDT
I am new to judging speeches. I have previously served as a judge in mock trial competitions and in public forum debate.
Muhammad Haseeb
Young Genius
None
Maheshwari Hatte
Presentation HS
None
Amruta Hendre
Young Genius
None
Christina Hill
New Roads School
None
Danny Hirsch
De Toledo High School
None
Samantha Hirst
Leland High School
None
Wingchiu Henry Ho
Cajon High School
None
Stephen Hohs
Silver Creek HS
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 11:36 AM PDT
I was a high school debater back in the 1970s. I have been judging debate for approximately 5 years. I am a math and physics graduate from the University of Illinois and a EECS graduate from UC Berkeley.
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:02 PM PDT
Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.
email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com
Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.
Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.
I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.
CX Paradigm
Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.
Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.
Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.
Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.
Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.
For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.
LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.
PuFo Paradigm:
Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.
Kaelyn Holguin
Gig Harbor
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:11 AM PDT
My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years.
I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.
Other aspects to keep in mind:
I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.
I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.
Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.
I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.
I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.
Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.
Kun Hu
Mira Loma High School
Last changed on
Mon December 31, 2018 at 12:41 PM EDT
I am a parent of an LD debater. This is my third year judging LD debate. I judged varsity LD on several invitational tournaments and NCFL/NSDA nationals.
If you're a progressive LD debate, I will be better for me if you can run you case in traditional LD way.
I consider myself a tabula rasa judge, and will vote on anything if given a proper rationale and justification. However, please do not make sexist, racist, or ablest arguments I will drop you.
I take judging seriously and most time showing a poker face so don’t try to get feedback from me during the round. You can expect that I will have a solid understanding of the subject(s) being debated.
What I won't have is a pre-determined way of thinking based on my individual beliefs on any topic.
Preferences:
Speed: It is ok to go faster than normal, but please no spreading. If you aren't clear, then I can't understand your arguments. And if I can't understand your arguments, I can't vote for you. Vary speed, tone, volume, or something else to differentiate between tags and cards. Emphasize transitions, present important analysis, signposts, etc.
Plans: I am ok with plans, just have solvency.
Counterplans: I am ok with counterplans, but please don't run abusive counterplans, I won't vote on them. Pics are okay, but not word pics.
Kritiks: I will not vote off a Kritik.
Philosophy: I like value/value criterion debates.
Theory: No theory.
Topicality: Only argue about topicality if your opponent is being blatantly non-topical.
Decorum: Please be polite and respectful towards your opponent. Do not be overly aggressive.
Edith Huang
Los Altos High School
None
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 1:43 PM EDT
I am a lay, parent judge.
Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.
I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.
Speak slowly and clearly.
my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com
Timothy Huang
Monte Vista
None
Xia Huang
The Golden State Academy
None
Chad Huffman
The Village Middle School
Last changed on
Wed March 9, 2022 at 4:22 PM CDT
Speaking ease and flow that takes the audience along a journey.
Gestures that appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.
A presentation that flows naturally and is easy to get lost in the story.
Points that are clear with good supporting material
Ease of speaking as if it were a discussion with a friend or small group of friends.
An emotional context that feels genuine and organic.
Make me laugh, make me wonder, make me cry - I enjoy it all. But most of all, make me believe.
Mark Hull
Almaden Country Day School
None
Rebekah Inocencio
Jesuit High School
None
Mila Ioffe
Monte Vista
8 rounds
None
Farshid Iravani
Cupertino High School
None
Josh Jablon
King's Schools
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:23 AM PDT
Lay judge debate paradigm.
Akhil Jain
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:29 PM PDT
Hi everyone!
I am judging for Dougherty Valley.
Here is how I judge:
Number 1: Don't talk fast and do not spread. Be loud and clear so I can make proper notes.
Number 2: Please be polite, don't scream at your opponent.
Number 3: Please provide a definition and make sure to explain everything you say clearly.
Number 4: Make sure to give an off time road map.
Number 5: Quality over quantity
Number 6: Offense over defense
Number 7: Weigh properly, impact is critical
Number 8: Probability of your argument is also key for my ballot
Number 9: Look professional
Number 10: Have fun
Swati Jain
Monte Vista
None
Upesh Jain
Notre Dame HS
None
Vanita Jain
Young Genius
None
Rekha Jayakrishnan
Mission San Jose HS
None
Manikantan Jayaraman
The Golden State Academy
None
Shaloo Jeswani
BASIS Fremont
None
Patrick Johnson
Westview High School
Last changed on
Sat July 13, 2024 at 10:45 AM PDT
For all debate formats- Run whatever you want, but for the love of all that's good and right, please, please respond to what your opponent runs, explain your clash analysis, and give me a weighing mechanism.
AND...
LD- Not only should V/VC be defined, I'd like to know your rationale why they are superior over other V/VC you could have chosen. ALSO, have clarity on how the VC gets you to the V. And of course, contrast how your V is superior. In the event your opponent has the same V, and/or tries to claim your advantages through his/her V, clarity of comparison analysis, and reinforcement, are pretty darn important. All too often I'm seeing debaters essentially referring to an opponents position, as if that somehow provides clash. I need analysis of opponents arguments to give me a reason to flow to your side.
CX- I like on-case arguments, T is fine. Not huge fan of Theory when all you know is how to read the canned script of your Theory argument w/o understanding or being able to explain your own argument, same goes for K.
PF/Parli- Comparative Impacts! Logical pace w/o spread- breathe and just explain ideas and clash.
Lokesh Johri
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Sun October 20, 2019 at 7:47 AM PDT
Flay judge
I am not flowing the debate but keeping careful notes.
The substance of the argument and the authenticity of the sources is important to me.
Also- as far as possible I want a response and a counter-response to all the points that are raised.
Please do not digress and fudge- negative points for that.
I accept some arguments as the common sense which may not need a source
A proper conceptual understanding of an issue is important. It shows the rebuttals are significant and just reading off from the prepared points with the necessary adjustments to make them pointed and relevant.
Ravi Joshi
Leland High School
None
MICHAEL Kang
Monte Vista
None
Tosh Kanno
Rancho Bernardo High School
None
Last changed on
Sat February 29, 2020 at 6:44 AM PDT
flow
CHRISHMA KARKADA
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT
Hey guys,
LD
I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:
-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.
-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.
-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.
-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.
-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:
-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.
-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.
-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this
-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this
EXTEMP
I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.
I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.
I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10
Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!
As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.
Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.
Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!
Pavan Katragadda
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Sun April 28, 2024 at 12:31 AM PDT
Introduction:
Hello, my name is Pavan Katragadda. I have been involved in the world of speech and debate for over five years, serving as a parent judge. My journey in this field has been enriching and enlightening, and I am eager to continue learning and growing with each debate I judge.
Communication Style:
Clarity of speech is of utmost importance to me. I believe that the essence of a good debate lies not in the speed at which arguments are delivered, but in the articulation and structure of those arguments. Therefore, I encourage debaters to speak clearly and at a pace that allows me to follow their line of reasoning. If you choose to spread, please be aware that if I cannot follow your arguments, it may impact my evaluation.
Technical Terms:
While I am familiar with the general rules and format for most of the Debates, I may not be well-versed in all “technical” terms from the debating vocabulary. If you plan on using any such terms, I would appreciate it if you could explain them during your speech. This will ensure that I fully understand your argument and can evaluate it accurately.
Post-Round Process:
After the round has concluded, I like to take a few minutes to reflect on the arguments presented and enter my feedback and results. Please understand that this process takes time, and as such, I will not be able to disclose the results or provide judge’s feedback immediately after the round.
Expectations:
I expect all debaters to come prepared with strong arguments backed by solid evidence. A good debate is not just about winning or losing; it’s about learning, growing, and enjoying the process. So let’s have a fun and engaging debate!
Anantha Keesara
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Wendy Kelly
Fullerton Union High School
None
Manish Khanal
ModernBrain
Last changed on
Fri May 10, 2024 at 1:23 PM PDT
Mayuri Khanna
The Golden State Academy
None
Raj Khaware
The Quarry Lane School
None
Matthew Kim
North Hollywood High School
Last changed on
Sun February 19, 2023 at 8:14 AM PDT
they/them
Former national level public forum debater. Good understanding of the flow on a pf level but novice level understanding for LD and policy. Berkeley student.
clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.
Give me judge instructions and do impact analysis.
I can handle light to medium speed.
Tommy Kim
Fullerton Union High School
None
Sreenivasa Kollu
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat December 19, 2020 at 12:10 PM PDT
I am looking for competitors who have good composure and are good at analyzing their points thoughtfully.
Parthipan Krishnasamy
Monta Vista High School
None
Omar Kudsi
SF Waldorf HS
None
Amol Kulkarni
Presentation HS
None
Atul Kumar
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:12 AM PDT
I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.
I am based out of East Bay, California.
I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).
Last changed on
Wed January 13, 2021 at 3:08 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and I prefer competitors keeping a slow pace while speaking. I also prefer well-articulated arguments where candidates are getting across their point. The complexity of the arguments is not an issue, as I have a daughter that debates as well. However, I would prefer if they are easier to understand.
I end up weighing the rounds largely based upon the refutations. To get my ballot, refutations should be logical, well-reasoned, and well-presented.
Candidates should also be nice to each other. Not respecting your opponent is a big no-no for me.
Overall, just have fun when you debate!
Veera Kyabarsi
Mission San Jose HS
None
Anuj Lal
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 12:16 AM PDT
Speech:
--> I value emotion, diction, and how well an argument flows
--> I expect Oratory/Interp/Prep speech to have their speech fully memorized
--> I obviously cut slack for limited prep events (Impromptu, Extemp), but still value confidence and flow
Debate:
--> I am relatively new to judging debate
--> Not very comfortable with spreading, but I try my best
--> I value confidence and respect
Robert Laurence
Presentation HS
None
Steven Leal
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue March 5, 2024 at 1:39 PM PDT
To be clear, I'm a speech coach. I am proficient enough in flowing rounds and can effectively keep up with the debate. However, if spreading is utilized, you run the risk of losing me entirely. Additionally, strategies such as running theory or K's are unlikely to lead to a winning outcome in my view. I prefer debates that are grounded in linking arguments back to a value or standard set during the rounds. Please signpost clearly so I can follow the flow more effectively. I don't want to direct the debate in any particular direction; structure it as you see fit, keeping my background and preferences in mind.
Robert Lebeda
De Toledo High School
Last changed on
Tue January 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM PDT
Hello y'all!
It's everyone's favorite time, to read the philosophy of the judge so they can bs their way to winning rounds.
Background:
My background is pretty baller. I did speech for 4 years of high school and was ranked in the state. I did debate for 2 years, mid lay level LD and parli. After I graduated, I started coaching at Chaminade College Prep. To my dismay, they were mostly a policy school. I cried for weeks about this.
I've been the assist head coach there for 2 and half years and now the head coach for the past year. Surprisingly, no one has died. I've now judged rounds of all debate events in California, at almost all levels, except Varsity Policy, because I'm not too masochistic.
Here are some general things, then you can look at event specific things below:
I try my best to not put my beliefs onto the flow. I don't mind any critical arguments, just realize most of you run them wrong/weak links. Don't do that. Be clear and articulate, explain to me how it impacts the round. Don't just say "Dumb judge, I win because of (fancy jargon word)" Explain why you win. If you're going to cross apply, explain how it cross applies. "Cross apply this to all of my contentions because in reality, I have no answers, but want to seem like I didn't drop everything on the flow"
Don't run K's with no clear link. If I feel you've run this K against every aff you've hit, not matter the topic, I won't be happy. Make the link very clear. This comes off as lazy to me.
Speed: I'm alright with speed. Usually by the rebuttal level, I'm fine. I'd say in policy try to go 70% your fastest. LD you can go 80% your fastest. I have yet to have an issue with speed in PF and parli, so don't worry. You'll want to go slower with me, mostly because I tend not to give any indication if I can't understand what you're saying because I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying.
Also, when spreading, there is this thing called enunciating. Do that. I like that.
And in spreading, I know that tends to turn into yelling, try not to do that. As a speech a coach, I feel horrible for your vocal cords that your abusing and misusing. Also, no one likes to be yelled at for an hour.
There's no reason to be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk. Be passionate by all means, but making your opponent cry, or just being a "meanie face" will not make me like you. I will still give you the win in the round, if you won the round, but you can say bye bye speaker award, because your speaks are destroyed. Moral of this story: Win, but let your arguments win, being a jerk doesn't gain you ground on your arguments and it hurts your speaks for me. Being a meanie poo (I'm avoiding curse words, for if some reason my school I work at finds this) isn't educational and won't help you in the real world.
I generally enjoy rounds where the topic and cases are engaged. I'm more of a straight policy/LD person. However, trust me when I say, I'm totally fine with any arguments you want to run, just please make it follow a clear train of logic.
I'm cool with flex prep, if everyone agrees. In the prepared debate events, especially LD and policy, if your opponent is misrepresenting evidence, and you call that out, I love that.
LD:
Yo, LD, I like that event.Since it's LD, I'm a big fan of the values debate. Otherwise just go into policy.
Policy:
If I'm judging a policy round, I'm already crying inside. Don't make those tears turn into a full out sob. Meaning, clearly explain everything, go slow on your tag lines. I won't time "flash" time towards prep, but don't go super slow.
Parli:
I love parli. As a judge, I realize that you've only had 20 minutes of prep. For this reason, unless you cite where you are getting your information, I'll probably assume you're lying.
I'm definitely fine with any critical arguments you want to run. However, I'm not a huge fan of parli in which the topic is ignored entirely. If it's a poorly written topic, call that out, but don't refuse to debate it because you think it's poorly written. If we're getting a resolution on if we need to send aid to the Sahel region, I don't want the aff to come in an talk about how we need to stop oppression in America or an entirely different case for a resolution (unless there is a very clear link to the resolution) Again, if you feel the topic is horribly skewed, explain that in round, but I don't like when the aff comes in with a new topic, It just comes off as lazy and not willing to engage the debate and topic.
Public Forum:
I've never had any issues with speed or anything in Public Forum. Basically, if you're in Public Forum, do you boo. PF you understand me and I love you for that public forum.
Also, because I'm fat, I'm receptive to receiving donuts, cheesecake and fettuccine Alfredo. It won't give you the win, but I'll give me something to cry into during the policy rounds.
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:16 AM PDT
I have judged several years for speech events and believe speech and debate is a great platform for students of all level to participate and benefit from it. Since our competitors have worked hard to share their performance with us, I try to also share something useful for them to takeaway with them when I write my ballot.
Esther Lehr
Yucaipa HS
None
Janice Lei
Maranatha HS
None
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2020 at 8:44 AM PDT
Parent Judge.
jane li
Mountain View High School
None
Yuan Li
Young Genius
8 rounds
None
Kalei Lima
Kamehameha Schools
None
Lily Liu
Monta Vista High School
None
Tracy Liu
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Nishant Lodha
Young Genius
None
Suvarna Lodha
Saratoga HS
None
Revatha Loghashankar
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:41 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. No circuit or spreading. I like logical arguments substantiated with evidence. I also appreciate good crystallization that helps me with the voting decision.
Leela Lolabattu
Presentation HS
None
Richard Lopes
Monta Vista High School
None
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 7:53 AM PDT
This is my first year as a judge in speech and debate tournaments.
Have fun, be courteous, and good luck! :)
Jiwei Lu
Stratagem Learning
None
Shengyong Lu
Foothill High School
Last changed on
Wed November 17, 2021 at 10:40 AM PDT
I do not have any competitive speaking experience, and I am a parent judge. For IE, I look mostly at delivery and presentation. Please speak clearly especially since this will be online and audio cuts may occur. You've prepared for this for a long time, so please be confident and good luck!
Laura Luna
Cajon High School
None
Yaowu Ma
Global Prep Academy
None
Rajeswari Mahalingam
Monta Vista High School
None
Vinita Malik
Amador Valley High School
None
Hema mallesh
Evergreen Valley
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed February 3, 2021 at 2:14 AM PDT
This is my second year of judging and my first time for Parli. Also I am lay judge.
Logic-
When Judging debates and presentations, my number one criteria is logic. I prefer logic driven arguments over well-delivered ones. If your points make reasonable and logical sense, I will be inclined to side with you. To me, content and reason matter the most during a debate. Regardless of how eloquent you are, if your logic and reasoning do not flow well, I will be hard pressed to vote for your side.
Evidence-
I find it a kind of joy to be able to examine the evidence presented by both sides of a debate. The integrity and quality of the evidence both come into consideration when I cast my vote, so please be honest and thorough with your evidence. Truthful and honest arguments from both sides will make the debate more enjoyable for all parties.
Have Fun!-
Prepare, speak slowly, but also relax and have fun! Take this as a great opportunity to work on some skills that will be useful in your life no matter what you do and be gracious!
Good luck participants!
Ann Marie Manca
Sacramento Waldorf HS
None
hari mankude
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Irin Mannan
Oak Hill School
Last changed on
Fri December 21, 2018 at 9:56 AM PDT
My name is Irin Mannan and I am one of the coaches and classroom instructor for Oak Hill School debate team. While I am new to the Oregon debate circuit, I am a veteran to debate in general. I did 3 years of debate in high school (in Reno, Nevada), mostly Policy debate and some Congress. I love all IEs and I enjoyed doing interps like DI and HI when I was in high school. I had the opportunity to compete at NSDA Nationals twice, and competed in other national tournaments like UC Berkley. I also did college debate for one year at the University of Nevada, Reno. Before moving to Eugene, OR I was a volunteer coach at Hug High school in Reno from 2013-2015.
I have a MA in International Studies from the University of Oregon, and am currently working on my PhD in Prevention Science.
My paradigm is very simple. I like a debate round that is educational, respectful, and has clash. For Policy (CX), I don't have any biases regarding certain arguments i.e. I am OK with you running T, K, CP etc. For Ts, I generally don't like it when it is run as a time suck, but if neg makes good arguments about T's relevancy, significance, it usually results in good clash which I enjoy in a round. Ks are great as well but you have to be VERY clear with me about why it's relevant in the round and why your arguments are superior to Aff.
For all debate in general, PF, LD, Parli, give me a road map, let me know where you are going in your speech. Let me know when you are moving from on case to off-case i.e. policy: say "moving on to 1st DA... next is CP... now Topicality etc. In the final rebuttals give me voters and tell me why you should win. I am a flow judge, I like line by line arguments, so tell where to put what on my flow.
I'm OK with speed but within in reason. I HAVE to understand you. Don't go so fast where I can't understand your arguments because if I don't hear it, it's not on my flow.
Be respectful. I don't like it when you are not nice to each other, it puts me in a bad mood and not like you in the round. Debate is a privilege, we're lucky to be a part of it, let's respect the activity and each other.
Overall, have fun in your rounds. I love a debate round where both teams are clearly having fun debating each other and they make me laugh.
Kamesh Mantha
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Fri May 17, 2024 at 3:11 AM PDT
For email chain: yilin@modernbrain.com
- I did not compete in speech and debate but have been involved in speech and debate since 2016. I’ve Judged and watched a fair amount of rounds, mostly in speech, with some in Congress and PF. Also judged a few rounds in LD and other form of debates.
- Speech and debate are such amazing activities, enjoy yourself and do your best!
- Please be respectful and kind.
- If you see me in a speech round, know that I care about authenticity, evidence, creativity, and presentation.
- If you see me in a debate round, please don’t spread, and be clear so I can understand you. Tell me where I should be flowing. Tell me why you are winning. Tell me why should I vote for you.
- Have fun, be nice, make some friends!
Srinivas Maram
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Tue October 3, 2023 at 3:36 PM PDT
I prefer moderate speed while speaking. I vote for speaking clearly and convincing arguments.
Emily Markussen Sorsher
Fullerton Union High School
None
Danielle Martell
Rocky Mountain HS
Last changed on
Wed March 11, 2020 at 3:24 PM MDT
Danielle Martell: 2 years of Judging Experience (Stanford Finals)
Preferred Debate Styles: Public Forum & Lincoln Douglas
How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?
Clear and concise delivery, I won't flow the argument unless I can understand what you're saying. Make sure that taglines are especially clear and that evidence you want me to remember is emphasized. Some eye contact and influx is also a plus! Evidence should directly correlate with your arguments, I don't need to hear fluff and fancy words that contribute nothing to the actual contention or subpoint. Sometimes less is more, debate should be accessible to everyone, not just those who have read the entire oxford dictionary or can spread at the speed of light. :)
How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?
As stated above, clear and concise delivery. Mentioning specific cards is welcome, and if you want me to remember something make me remember it. I'm a line by line judge, make sure to address all of the important points and address them in an organized and appropriate manner. Sign-posting is MUCH appreciated.
How Should Debaters approach Evidence?
1) Evidence exchange won't be timed as long as it doesn't take up half of the round.
2) Just read it off, last name of the author and year would be great. If I would like to see evidence after the round I will call for it.
How Should Debaters approach Crossfire?
Some respectful clash is welcome, if you are mean or your attitude it taking away from the round don't be surprised if your speaker points don't turn out super great.
How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?
Passing notes or writing down a question is fine, but don't take over someones else's crossfire.
How should Framework be approached?
Be diligent in explaining how the framework of the round and your cases/arguments tie together and make me vote for your side.
How should debaters use values, criterion, and arguments to support a value position?
Value and criterion should be upheld throughout the round. Explain how each contention is related to the criterion and how that upholds the value. Don't disregard the value criterion debate, we can't debate LD without it.
What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical, or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?
As long as they are understandable and relate back to the debate, any kind of argument is great. Empirical is easiest to understand, so make sure to really explain the theoretical and philosophical arguments.
Please explain your view on kritical arguments.
Not a fan, if you can avoid it then please do.
How should debaters run on case arguments?
They should be prioritized in the round.
How should debaters run off case arguments?
I would rather see all arguments presented to me in the constructive speech. Other than blocking out a contention in a rebuttal, avoid bringing new arguments into the middle of the round.
How should debaters run theory arguments?
Standards and voters are very important. If you're going to run abuse tell me why it's abusive, if I don't know why then it just sounds like you're out of things to say and a lot of complaining.
What other preferences do you have, as a judge?
Debate isn't just about the communication or just about the flow. Both have to work together in order to convince me to vote for your side. If you have excellent arguments but I can't understand them, I don't know that they're actually excellent. If you speak beautifully but what you're saying makes no sense, then I can't vote for that either. I appreciate effective sign posting and organization, and if it's something that should be weighed heavily in the round repeat it like there's no tomorrow. Make me remember the important things in the round, bring the argument into every speech so that I know that I need to be voting on it. Make sure voters are listed out, clear and effective. Other than that, make sure you enjoy your round and keep debate an experience that everyone can access and wants to come back to!
Heath Martin
Presentation HS
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT
I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.
When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.
The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.
I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.
Michelle Martin
Yucaipa HS
None
Haley Martz
Carter HS
None
Alok Mathur
Young Genius
None
Sharad Mathur
The Golden State Academy
None
Anitha Matta
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:28 PM EDT
Congressional Debate Paradigm:
While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.
Individual Events Paradigm:
I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.
Leilani McHugh
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:42 AM PDT
My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.
I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.
I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.
Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?
Tim E. McHugh
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
None
Whitney Mecham
The Harker School
None
Mehaa Mekala
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
8 rounds
None
Alex Mikler
TAF@Saghalie
None
Anthony Milan
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
Kristopher Miles
The Harker School
None
Alwyn Miranda
Presentation HS
None
Sujoy Mitra
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat January 25, 2020 at 1:17 AM PDT
I am a lay judge with 1 year of debate and speech judging experience.
Personally, I have no speech or debate experience.
I am not skilled in the technicalities of the various speech/debate events. I judge based on my perception of overall performance.
I take notes during the event.
I prefer speech events.
Meykia Mittag
Thomas Jefferson High School
8 rounds
None
Ruchi Mittal
Cupertino High School
None
Megan Moore
Melissa High School
None
Last changed on
Mon January 27, 2020 at 11:07 PM PDT
I prefer speak clearly with a clear logic frame, state your opinion with evidence and data.
I prefer very well structured argument and convincing argument.
Sateesh Mucharla
Monta Vista High School
None
Raviprasad Mummidi
Young Genius
None
Vikas Munjal
Mission San Jose HS
None
Lida naftchi
Young Genius
None
Sridhar Nagunuri
Granite Bay HS
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 8:28 AM PDT
Have been judging speech and debate for the last 4 years. Iam pretty current on the national and international events. What Iam looking from the debaters are - No spreading, Kritiks, or Theory. Make sure to refute all the important points raised by your opponent. I have my own opinions but i dont go by them when judging a debate, i go with whoever is able to convince me better.
Kavitha Naidu
Mission San Jose HS
None
Saji Nair
Presentation HS
None
Bharath Namboothiry
Westview High School
Last changed on
Sat February 8, 2020 at 3:33 AM PDT
Hey! My name is Bharath. I'm one year out of Westview HS in Portland, Oregon, and am currently a Math + CS major at Stanford. I did PF, Parli, Extemp, and a handful of other IEs all four years of High School.
Judging Preferences (PF):
1. WEIGH. Thank you.
2. All offense needs to be extended in FF or I won't vote on it
3. I don't write stuff down in cross, so if something happens bring it up in speech
4. I can have a hard time following insane spreading (but this is PF, so like, don't.)
5. In cross, it's fine to be assertive, but don't be rude (bad vibes = bad speaks)
6. I/your opponents will probably call for cards so please have them ready to pull up fast
7. I'll evaluate any argument you give me, but I don't have a really good grasp on off-case progressive args (since I never read them) so if you do it explain it well
8. Generally speaking, Tech > Truth
9. One extra speak for if you give me a KitKat (jk... unless...)
Judging Preferences (IEs):
Pretty Chill, just communicate clearly and be articulate.
Jyoti Narang
Young Genius
None
Richa Narang
Cupertino High School
None
Chau Nguyen
Presentation HS
None
Harneet Nibber
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Wed January 20, 2021 at 1:14 PM PDT
I hope to hear clear speaking and captivating speeches. I also pay attention to eye contact and speaker volume. I have been judging for 3 years.
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:20 AM PDT
I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.
Debate:
In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.
I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.
I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.
If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.
I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.
I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!
Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.
IEs:
These events are my jam. :)
Caitlin Nichols
Claremont
None
Shauna Nichols
Kamehameha Schools
None
Danielle Nidome
Almaden Country Day School
None
Megan Noel
De Toledo High School
None
Tracey O'Rourke
Leland High School
None
Brian Ogata
Lynbrook HS
None
Ertugrul Oner
Leland High School
None
Mridul Pal
Presentation HS
None
Uma Panidapu
Nautilus Academy
None
Rajani Parameshwar
Almaden Country Day School
None
Chirantan Parikh
Lynbrook HS
None
Jung Park
Nova 42 Academy
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:37 AM PDT
I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.
What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.
Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.
Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.
Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!
Isaiah Parker
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
Rajiv Pendyala
Monta Vista High School
None
Earl Peng
Monta Vista High School
None
Madeline Pereira
Sonoma Academy
None
Aldonsa Perez
Cajon High School
None
Caleb Perry
Sonoma Academy
None
Jana Persky
George Washington HS
None
Florence Petit
Pompano Beach HS
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 12:01 PM EDT
I've judged rounds of: Public Forum, Congress, Lincoln-Douglas, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Interpretation of Literature, and Impromptu Speaking.
Strong debaters have a balance of facts, statistics, engaging rhetoric and clear delivery. Help me flow! I like lots of taglines and signposting, even during cross ex. If you're speaking fast, make sure you're not sacrificing clarity. Although I don't prefer when competitors spread, I can understand what they are saying (during the cross examination sessions). If you're interrupting your opponent habitually, it may count against you.
The winning team / debater is able to deliver and extend strong, well-supported, and prepared arguments while pointing out and breaking down flaws in the opponent's arguments.
Preethi Philip
Monta Vista High School
None
Giorgi Pilpani
Monta Vista High School
None
Estelle Piper
ModernBrain
None
Saileela Policepatil
Amador Valley High School
None
Chandra Polisetty
Joaquin Miller Middle School
None
Hoi Poon
Cupertino High School
None
Aparna Pophali
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 1:19 PM PDT
I don't want you to judge me, so no paradigm. Sorry! :)
Mukul Prasad
Presentation HS
None
Chris Price
Tahoma Senior HS
Last changed on
Thu February 29, 2024 at 4:46 AM PDT
It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what I hear so watch your speed and clarity. Communicate ideas in an organized and professional manner. You WILL NOT win by trying to confuse your opponents.
Looking for solid evidence-based logic, reasoning, and depth of analysis.
Clearly state contentions, your own and your opponents, both in constructive and rebuttal
Josh Prine
The Quarry Lane School
Last changed on
Sun June 16, 2019 at 11:50 PM PDT
I've been a Speech and Debate coach since 2016 and have a background in teaching philosophy, literature, and critical theory. I'm most familiar with Public Forum, though I have exposure to Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, Congress, and Speech events as well. I do flow, but I can't always flow as fast as you speak, so I appreciate taglines and signposting.
Public Forum: Make your impacts clear, and do a lot of weighing. If you're not interacting with the opponents arguments and weighing impacts, I've got nothing to vote on. I like to pay attention to cross, but you should bring it up in your speech if you want me to put it on the flow. Don't bring up new information in Final Focus if you value your speaks. I don't vote on extinction impacts without empirical evidence.
Lincoln-Douglas: I'm OK with theory and performance; I don't like tricks. I won't vote for phobic arguments
Neeraj Purandare
Presentation HS
None
yi qiao
Leland High School
Last changed on
Wed January 22, 2020 at 12:51 PM PDT
I have been a parent judge for about a year. I like students who keep their arguments relatively simple. The best cases, in my opinion , are characterized by clarity, cogency, and one or two fully defined and exemplified contentions. I do not like students to read off of their laptops. I much prefer students who have their cases on paper and engage their judge and opponent with effective eye contact and use of hands.
Syed Quadri
Young Genius
None
Kerry Radcliffe
El Cerrito
None
Zahid Rafique
Sierra Canyon School
Last changed on
Sat February 9, 2019 at 9:25 AM PDT
Lay Judge with one year of experience. Limited exposure to circuit, but a strong intuitive grasp of argumentation and will be able to follow your logic. Adjust accordingly.
Saumya Rajan
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 3:41 AM PDT
I have been a judge for about 3 years now. I have judged almost all IE's from prelims to finals round. I am a software engineer by profession and I used to be very nervous about speaking in front of others when I first started my career. However over the years that has become one of my strengths. I enjoy listening to various perspectives. I look for a good flow of thought in the speeches.
Hariharan Ramamurthy
The Quarry Lane School
8 rounds
None
Kartik Ramaswamy
Leland High School
None
Ananthakrishna Ramesh
Cupertino High School
None
Nirmala Ranganathan
Joaquin Miller Middle School
None
Gita Rao-Prasad
Cupertino High School
None
Ashish Rastogi
Notre Dame HS
None
Sumithra Ravisundar
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Kapualani Reeves
Kamehameha Schools
None
Katherine Rhee
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Reshma Rizvi
Monte Vista
None
Claudia Rossi
Oakwood
None
Anita Ryan
Rocky Mountain HS
Last changed on
Sat February 8, 2020 at 1:29 AM MDT
Tabula rasa
Speaking skills/Communications
Neeraj Sahejpal
Presentation HS
None
Rebel Saint Lilith
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat April 6, 2024 at 3:14 AM PDT
I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.
I have about 10 years of experience in the speech and debate world. I primarily exist in speech land, but I have judged a lot of debate and love a strong argument and good links. That being said, I enjoy when a speaker can clearly articulate their arguments, and use delivery based methods of persuasion to help sway the ballot.
I am always hopeful for a debate where there is a lot of clash, and a clear path to the ballot.
I love when debaters give me voters and a clear articulation of why they believe that they have won the ballot.
Devin Sarno
George Washington HS
None
Ashish Savla
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri March 3, 2023 at 1:58 PM PDT
Hello,
I am new to judging congress, but I have judged a couple of speech and debate tournaments in the past (Public Forum, DI).
Congress: I will be looking for a good understanding of the topic, well formed arguments, meaningful evidence, ability to defend your arguments and cross examination skills. Refutation and engaging with past arguments is important. A confident but respectful demeanor, your ability to engage with the chamber and overall active participation will also count.
Good Luck!
Amy Schelling
El Cerrito
None
Steve Schmidt
Carter HS
None
Jean Schoonover
The Quarry Lane School
None
Kerri Schwab
King's Schools
None
Fatima Shabbir
Monte Vista
Last changed on
Sat March 7, 2020 at 12:10 AM PDT
I’ve been judging for a while. My decisions are based of persuasive arguments backed up by evidence. Please, speak slowly and clearly. Good luck!
Anish Shah
Monta Vista High School
None
Nirav Shah
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Tue February 27, 2024 at 3:44 AM PDT
Intro: My Name is Nirav Shah and I Will Be Your Judge Today. I Am a Traditional Flow Pf Judge With Extensive Experience. I Flow All Speeches With Great Detail. My Son is a Debater for Dougherty Valley (Ivan). I've Judged at Gtoc, Cal Rr, Stanford, Berk, Presentation, Asu, Cal States, and So Much More.
General Pf Preferences: I Try to Keep My Evaluation Exclusively to the Flow. In-round Weighing of Arguments Combined With the Strength of Link and Conceded Arguments. I Default to Arguments With Substantive Warranted Analysis. Please Collapse on the Most Important Voters in the Round. The Defense Should Be Extended in Both Summary Speeches if You Want to Go for It in the Final Focus. Be Respectful in Cross as I Pay Close Attention to It. Don't Speak Too Fast but if You Do Please Give Me the Speech Doc. Time Yourself and Make Your Opponents Accountable for Their Speech and Prep Timings. Weigh Your Impacts and Explain the Comparison. Provide an Off-time Roadmap in Every Back Half Speech Onwards From the Second Rebuttal. Time Yourself and Make Your Opponents Accountable for Their Speech and Prep Timings. Weigh Your Impacts and Explain the Comparison. Provide an Off-time Roadmap in Every Back Half Speech Onwards From the Second Rebuttal
Evidence: I Strongly Encourage Debaters to Cut Cards as Opposed to Hyperlinking a Google Doc. I Call for a Lot of Evidence After the Round Instead of Looking Through It During the Round. (Only Contested Pieces of Evidence)
Speaker Points (on Average 29.3): Used to Indicate How Good I Think Debaters Are in a Particular Round Along With Substance
Prog: I Have a High Bar for Abuse for Theory Argument but You Can Run Them as Long as It is a Genuine Violation. I Wouldn't Run Any Non-topical Ks on Me. Topical Ks Are Fine. I have extensive experience with Sec, Militarization, Orientalism, Cap, EcoAuthoritiasm (Ill buy More but It'll Be My First)
Other: I'll give an Oral RFD
Have Fun!
Feel Free to Email Me Any Questions or Concerns. (Also Add Me to the Ev Email Chain if You Are Making One). Email: Niravdhira@gmail.com
Sathishkumar Shankardhas
Evergreen Valley
Last changed on
Sun November 20, 2022 at 1:14 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. Here are my preferences for the round.
-Avoid technical terms (like the TULI format). Instead, just guide me through your case and explain the points.
-Speak slowly. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow what you are saying and I will just end up ignoring what you said.
-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain it without the technical terms. Perms are 100% okay, but still explain without the technical terms.
-I will vote on whichever side provides the best logical arguments + warrants to back it up!
-Enjoy and Have Fun during the tournaments !
Pingping Shao
Monta Vista High School
None
William Shearin
Cupertino High School
None
Sarah Sherry
Puyallup High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:31 AM PDT
Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute
General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.
Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy
Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".
I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.
Vachana Shigehalli
Mission San Jose HS
None
Andrew Shimer
King's Schools
None
Eliza Shoell
The Harker School
None
Deborah Simon
Interlake HS Unaffiliated
8 rounds
None
Thomas Simon
Leland High School
Last changed on
Mon October 19, 2020 at 7:33 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I have judged parliamentary debate before so I am aware of the format.
Arguments
Please be clear and read your arguments slowly so that I can understand. If you read them fast (spread), I will not be able to flow properly. Try not to use extremely technical terms that are not very obvious and even if you have to, please explain it clearly.
I prefer traditional on case debate. I'm fine with counterplans but please explain it clearly.
I am not familiar with Ks (kritiks) and theory so please refrain from running those arguments UNLESS there is actual abuse of rules present. If that is the case, please explain the abuse VERY clearly. Please don't run theory just for the sake of running theory.
Other
Use the last speech to explain exactly why you should win the round. Weigh out the impacts of both sides.
You will be awarded high speaker points for speaking clearly, having a good presentation, and being respectful to your opponents.
Jasvinder Singh
Monta Vista High School
None
Rajesh Singh
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Sun March 12, 2023 at 3:25 AM PDT
I am a parent judge and so I am not professionally trained. However, I have been judging since last few years (mainly judging LD these days).
I care about technical aspects of debate and expect you to follow those (such as, if there are specific tournament policies/expectations then you must be aware of and follow those). Beyond that I am very open minded and look for your passion when you present your case and do rebuttal.
I like debater who understands that there is line between "being assertive" and "being aggressive". Show sportsmanship.
Your speed - I would prefer if you present your case with normal speed as that will help me understand it better but I am fine if you prefer to go fast. That would not go against you. I normally read your case.
I assess overall proceedings but rebuttal is very critical to me - try to respond to all the objections/questions of your opponents but more important is how and what you respond with - in terms of data points, justification, impact and, through that, how you strengthen your case/argument. During CX, I like to see how to find loopholes in opponents case/argument and how you build trap.
To me - it's not that big point if you come across dominating (through your speaking style/tone/body language or speed etc). That's an advantage but not everything. I give more weightage to things such as, how structured and logical you are in handling conflicts, building traps, etc and strengthening your case.
Please email me your case and the documents at raj_may6@yahoo.com
Sukhman Singh
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Ajay Singhani
Evergreen Valley
None
Radha Sivaramakrishnan
Monta Vista High School
None
Rafika Smati
Pro One Academy
None
Ames Smith
King's Schools
None
Charlotte Smith
King's Schools
None
Yvonne Smith
Almaden Country Day School
None
Sophia Sohn-Won
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Brandon Spars
Sonoma Academy
None
Clara Spars
Sonoma Academy
None
Joe Spurgeon
St Mary's - Unaffiliated
None
Vamsi Srikantam
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Fri February 5, 2021 at 2:43 PM PDT
I like to see the overall presentation and confidence of the competitor.
A key attribute is being passionate about the topic and modulate the voice according to what is being said or presented.
Sudhir Srinivas
Mission San Jose HS
None
Aparna Srinivasan
Monte Vista
None
Mrs Steiner
Lake Highland Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat November 10, 2018 at 3:18 AM EDT
Ms. Steiner's Paradigm for Public Forum -
I am a debate mom. My judging experience consists of only two tournaments from last year. Please take the following into consideration:
1) Explain arguments clearly and effectively - Do not speak too fast. The arguments being read are mostly new to my ear. Assume I know nothing, and that you must thoroughly explain everything in order for me to understand. An argument is only solid if I can understand and evaluate it in my decision.
2) Signpost - I do my best to flow, but I do find this exercise to be challenging. If I know where an argument should be placed on my chart, I can write it down and conduct a more effective evaluation.
3) Off time road map – It will help to set my expectations before speeches are given.
4) Weigh…… At the end of any debate, multiple arguments are at play. If you let me know which arguments are most important, I will evaluate those argument first.
Thanks!
Joanne Stowitts
Cajon High School
None
Irin Sultana
North Hollywood High School
None
Jialing Sun
Amador Valley High School
None
Tong Sun
Interlake HS Unaffiliated
None
Amanda Swainston
Peninsula HS
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:45 AM PDT
Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.
Mahendra Swamy
Cupertino High School
None
Belen Tadesse
The Quarry Lane School
None
James Tang
Monta Vista High School
None
Xinyu Tang
Monta Vista High School
None
Chetan Thakkar
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Anusha Thotakura
ModernBrain
Last changed on
Thu February 13, 2020 at 3:25 PM EDT
Debate consists of proper argumentation and articulation. This means that I’m looking for coherent arguments with strong warrants and even stronger impacts. Sources for evidence need to be credible for an argument to have value. For presentation, make me feel interested in what you have to say. Use vocal variation, pauses, and eye contact to show that you are talking about your most valuable points. Rehearsing your arguments is the best way to improve on presentation, so I expect debaters to come prepared. Lastly, decorum is important. Debates are supposed to teach important ideas to consider. They are not meant to attack one another so keep it civil and keep it fun.
Jatinder Thukral
Cupertino High School
None
Alexandria Tippings
ModernBrain
None
Ochoa Tippings
ModernBrain
None
Aizhan Toibazarova
Cupertino High School
8 rounds
None
Arman Torounian
Aragon High School
None
Sushma Trehan
Lake Highland Preparatory
Last changed on
Sun February 2, 2020 at 7:03 PM EDT
Be very clear and precise with presenting your case.
I personally dislike spreading, If I don't understand you, it is to your detriment.
Really be clear on framework, I enjoy framework debate, and including to this please weigh in your 2NR and 2AR.
Giving me voters is a good way of securing the round, please ensure that you give voters.
DON'T BRING IN NEW EVIDENCE IN THE FINAL SPEECHES!
Please don't start yelling in CX, or getting overly aggressive in your speeches.
Good Luck!
Carl Trig
ModernBrain
None
Norberto Troncoso
Democracy Prep Endurance
None
Norberto Troncoso
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Lisa Trottier
El Cerrito
None
Tiffany Yiwen Tsai
Albany
None
Phyllis Tung
Saratoga HS
None
Vijay Ubhayaker
Young Genius
None
Veda Upadhyaya
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 24, 2020 at 12:19 PM PDT
Parent judge.
Has experienced judging both speech and debate events.
Like to see eye contact, clear tone and confident moments.
Harish vakharia
Dougherty Valley Bridge
Last changed on
Thu March 5, 2020 at 12:20 PM PDT
I am a parent judge for Dougherty Valley High School and have had about 2 years of judging through various speech and debate event. I look for strong and valid evidence that supports your claims. I need to see refutations and interaction with each other in round. When it comes to speeches, I look for passion as well as your ability to convince me why you are right. I look for unique impacts that show your knowledge about the topic, as well as the way you contribute to the round.
Ben Van Dyk
Servite High School
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 11:42 PM PDT
Veteran High School History Teacher and moderator MUN.
When it comes to public speaking, passion causes audience engagement. If it's clear you are not passionate about what you are talking about, it is difficult for me to buy in even if you are logical. I understand that public speaking can be intimidating so I'm not bothered so much by occasional fillers and pauses. I would rank delivery as most important, followed by organization, and then content.
Good luck!!!
Daisy Varley
Ashland HS
None
Mohit Vaswani
Almaden Country Day School
None
Jana Veitsman
BASIS Independent Silicon Valley
None
Srividya Velchamy
Saratoga HS
None
Aparna Vemuri
Cupertino High School
8 rounds
None
Gopinath Vinodh
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:42 AM PDT
Teams must respectful of eachother.
Facts and evidence are the most important in a round.
Srinivas Vura
Cupertino High School
None
Sarang Wagholikar
Young Genius
None
Jinlin Wang
The Harker School
None
Lynn Wang
Joaquin Miller Middle School
None
Weijia Wang
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT
2022 Update
Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!
2021 Update
You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.
2/4/2020
Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!
4/4/2015
I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.
My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.
I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.
Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.
I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.
I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.
Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.
Alex Weissman
George Washington HS
None
David Wells
Bakersfield HS
Last changed on
Wed September 20, 2017 at 4:16 AM PDT
David Wells
Head Coach Bakersfield High School
dmwells101@yahoo.com
Policy Debate Experience
4 years HS policy debate 1992-1996
3 time College NDT qualifier 2000-2002 CSU, Bakersfield
Policy and LD Judging Philosophies below
Policy Judging Philosophy
Tech vs. Truth
Truth is often determined in round by the argumetns presented so I guess I lean toward technique that has well explained arguments. Blippy arguments are rarely persuasive and often easily grouped and defeated.
Prep Time
Please don't use the restroom right before your speech and expect it not to take your preptime.
Prep time can be used before or after CX.
Flashing docs is not considered prep time, unless you "realize" you need something that requires prep.
Evidence vs Analysis (The lost Art of Argumentation)
Good analysis beats bad evidence most of the time. My HS Coach was fond of saying, "Debate with your brains not with your briefs." That being said, good evidence with good analysis is best.
AFF
I prefer Affirmatives that defend a topical policy action, preferably with a plan. The topical case can be big impact, systemic impact or critical in nature. I can be persuaded that other ways of debating are worthwhile, but the burden of proof falls heavily on the AFF without a plan as to how they actually affirm the resolution, not just an identity or issue unrelated to the Nationally chosen topic.
I have no problem voting for performance AFFs that are well debated. I do not care at all for Adhom. attacks.
I dislike blip theory debates. I do like theory debates that are developed, well articulated, and impacted. I have no problem voting on theory. Just make it good theory.
NEG
Counterplans, DAs, Kritiks, Case Debates, and Topicality are all fine. The more specific the evidence/links the more likely you will get weight for your arguments.
Be ready and able to defend your Neg Strategy. 2NR should make strategic decisions and no go for everything.
LD Judging Philosophy
Speed/Clarity: I debated Policy at the national level in college so speed is fine. Let me clarify, clear speed is fine. I determine your clarity. So I will say clearer twice, then slower, then stop flowing if you fail to adjust. If you do "speed" drills but not "clarity" drills, you probably should speak slower.
Strategies: I really just want to see a clash of ideas. Arguments that avoid a directly clash can be persuasive but rarely get high speaker points. Preferably, an actual debate about values and value criterions is preferred. The move toward LD becoming individual policy debate is interesting...not decided if it is beneficial. If you debate policy style, you need to be clear why that is to be preferred and how it stays germane to the Resolution.
The Topic: I like LD cases that embrace the value question of the resolution head on and develop their position. If you run a policy it should be germane to the topic and ought to be a reasonably predictable case for competitive equity. This can be debated out in the round.
If you have questions of me, just ask. I'm not perfect. I'm getting older. You know the topic better than me. So, teach me your position and you have a better chance of winning. If you just read a lot without analysis, you let me be the learner with a poor teacher and who knows what I may think...?
Be Polite and enjoy the debate.
Erin Wheeler
Bakersfield HS
Last changed on
Sat November 3, 2018 at 7:57 AM EDT
I competed in both Lincoln Douglas and policy debate, and had some success in Lincoln Douglas at the circuit level. It has been a awhile since I’ve been in a fast round so although I’m comfortable with some speed, I would not go your fastest with me. I’m okay with whatever arguments you want to run, but do tend to like a traditional Lincoln Douglas debate.
Have fun!
Danny White
Almaden Country Day School
None
Terry,ynn whitfield Whitfield
Claremont
None
Claire Wilson
The Harker School
None
Gerald Wong
Cupertino High School
None
David Wright
Fullerton Union High School
None
Xinghang Wu
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Renxin Xia
Young Genius
None
Hannah Xian
Bowditch School
None
Joel Yang
Oak Ridge High School
None
Jie Yao
Monta Vista High School
None
Milene Yip
Saratoga HS
None
Catherine Yiu
Stratford Middle School - San Jose
None
Last changed on
Fri January 13, 2017 at 3:12 AM PDT
I competed in LD for four years in high school, and frequently broke to elimination rounds at invitationals my junior and senior years. I helped coach my team as a senior.
Any argument will do, as long as it is well-substantiated. Substantiation requires an argument to be logically complete, and for premises to be supported with evidence when appropriate. Do not expect to automatically earn victory when your opponent drops or mishandles a poorly-substantiated argument.
Preference for quality over speed and quantity. I enjoy thoughtful argumentation on complex topics. If you insist on speed, I'll do my best to keep up and won't penalize you for it. On the other hand, If I miss key stages of your argument, I can't account for them when rendering my decision, which would be very fortunate for your opponent.
Joe Zachariah
Cupertino High School
None
Christina Zhang
New Age Learning
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:02 AM PDT
Hello, I'm Christina Zhang. I don't have much prior debate experience, so I would count as a Lay Judge. Knowing that please arrange your prep accordingly.
General:
Just call me Judge. Please do not call me by my name.
Please signpost. If you do no signposting it will be exceedingly confusing. If the I don't know what you're saying then I can't weigh your arguments.
Arguments:
- Tech & Truth: A standard Advantage/Disadvantage round is probably the simplest, and while I do acknowledge tech over truth, I still do tend to occasionally favor truth over tech, so even if one side drops an argument, that doesn't mean I will automatically weigh it against them if the assertion is not properly explained enough.
Ie. You bring up nuclear war, but never properly explain it well enough and don't address simple things like Mutually Assured Destruction, even if the opponent completely drops, I might not weigh in your favor and just strike it from the round.
Basically if it doesn't make enough logical sense, then I won't consider it.
- Impacts. If I don't hear a properly quantified impact it might not have nearly as much weighing power.
Just saying: "Grows the economy", "Increases QoL" or "Saves lives" are not proper impacts. "Grows the economy by 153 billion USD over the next 2 years", or "Decreases cardiac deaths by 10%", or "Increases GDP per capita by 5%", or "Prevents 4000 deaths" are properly quantified impacts, so will be weighed to their fullest extent.
Theory:
I don't know any theory, so please don't run any theory. I'm not very experienced, so keep everything simple. Just because you win on theory on the flow doesn't mean that I'll take theory into heavy consideration or even at all
Kritiques:
Just don't run them. If you run a K, there's a good chance I might not understand it so even if you crush the opponent on the flow, you'll still probably lose. Debate is about accessibility and understanding, so if the layperson can't understand what's happening, you'll likely not get you point across.
Renee Zhang
New Age Learning
None
Michelle Zhao
Foothill High School
None
Roy Zheng
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Thu February 11, 2021 at 3:42 AM PDT
School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School
About me: Hi, my name is Roy Zheng, and I'm a parent judge who has judged for almost 6 years for my 2 daughters. One competed in Expository Speech all throughout high school, and the other is actively competing in Policy/LD Debate in high school right now.
Judging/Event Types: Policy, PuFo, LD, Speech Events
Speaker points: You can get good speaker points by being confident and having smart, concise arguments that are well-warranted and explained well. Please make sure you respect your opponents as well!
At the end of the debate, I like to look at arguments again and review which side made the best claims and had the best evidence for comparison. Impact weighing during your rebuttal speeches helps me a lot with my decisions too, so please make sure you don't forget to talk about your impacts! I will evaluate any type of impact, as long as you explain it well.
I take notes/flow the entire debate and listen to cross examination.
Feel free to ask me before the round starts if you have any questions. Please be kind and confident, as debate is supposed to be fun and we're all here to learn :-)
Pin Zhou
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 4:51 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with some speech and debate judging experience. Please talk slowly and make your logic and argument clear.
Jack Zhu
Leland High School
None