Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament

2016 — CA/US

Terence Abad Paradigm

Congress judging paradigm

No canned speeches, please.

Provide evidence/citations for key assertions.

Clash is a good thing, re-hash not so much.

Interesting or novel arguments are always appreciated, especially if they show you've done solid research.

Daniel Ahrens Paradigm

Not Submitted

Fasih Ahsan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jana Basili Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ritu Bathwal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ingrid Bergquist Paradigm

Not Submitted

Steve Berkman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shelly Bright Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marievic Bulosan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Janice Caldwell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Derek Carter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ella Chan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Madhavi Chimata Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alagia Cirolia Paradigm

Not Submitted

Roberto Contreras Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rupa Dasani Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hyunho Do Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kellian Dowd Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anapurna Durga Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dan Fishlow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yan Gao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rama Govindaraju Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ursula Gruber Paradigm

LD:

If you seem like you are having fun and maintaining civility, I will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't intentionally obnoxious or repugnant (death good, racial equity bad, etc.). I prefer lines of argument that don't rely on nuclear war or extinction, but if your case is strong, go for it.

Clash and analysis are key. Use your case to analyze and refute your opponent's arguments. Don't just toss out cards; explain WHY and HOW. If your logic/reasoning is sound, you don't need to extend every card to win. I prefer strategic condensing over shallow line by line rebuttal.

I thoroughly enjoy critical debate. I think it fits super well with the intent of LD. Logic must be sound and you MUST use the conceptual framework of your K as the basis for your argumentation (i.e. don't read "We can't draw conceptual lines between people," and then respond to case with phrases like "those people")

Make sure you weigh your impacts for me. I may have a different perspective so if you don't make the weighing explicit, you are leaving it up to my interpretation. This includes ROBs, etc.

I expect timers and flashing to work without much delay. Having issues more than once in a round will lose speaks.

My speaks start at 28 for circuit tournaments. I'll dock a varsity debater more often for nonsense or rudeness than a JV debater. Making me laugh is a good way to bump up your points. Enunciation is also a bonus.

CX is important and ought to be used for more than just clarification questions. Don't be rude or talk over each other, especially if you are up against a less experienced debater. I will dock points for badgering novices.

Speed/Spread:

I don't mind speed, as long as you are clear. I will only call "clear" twice in a varsity round. Taglines, authors, and card interp should be noticeably slower. It is up to the speaker to communicate their arguments and be aware of the audience's attention level.

Congress:

I evaluate the full participation of the chamber, from docket maneuvers to quality and variety of questions. Successful legislators are those who drive the debate, present new/unique arguments, extend/refute/deepen previous arguments, choose sources carefully, and use parliamentary procedure appropriately. Debate on the merits/flaws of the specific legislation is given more weight than general issue arguments. Delivery style can enhance the persuasiveness of your analysis, but will not make up for canned speeches, poor supporting materials, or rehashed arguments.

POs are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attitude of the chamber. It is a risk, and that is taken to account when I score. POs with a good pace and no major errors are very likely to be ranked.

Note on authorships/first pros: The price for establishing recency is that your speech must provide some background for the debate and at least one reason why this legislation in particular is/is not the answer.

Evidence

The purpose of evidence in all forms of debate is to support your arguments with expert testimony, not to BE your arguments. I will only ask for cards if something sounds exceptionally wonky. Have some understanding of the bias of your sources (Are they all from conservative think tanks?, etc.). It is generally up to your opponent(s) to point out blatantly wrong evidence, but I will dock for egregious offenses.

Anurag Gupta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Christine Hayhurst Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tracy Hennington Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ethan Hu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hong Hui Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chris Jo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ted Kim Paradigm

Background

I have no speech and debate competition experience. My first foray into this world was in early 2014 as a judge; I have been involved ever since and have judged continuously at a rate of at least 30 tournaments per year. I am now involved in the debate program at my school as a public forum coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

While I do consider myself to be more experienced than any lay judge, I do not consider myself as knowledgable as a former competitor turned judge or coach. Here is a list of things not to expect from me:

  1. Do not expect me to know the things you know. I don’t. Simple as that. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
  2. Do not expect to change my mind after a debate is over in the hopes of changing a decision. That should be only done in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
  3. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to.
  4. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitors too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means that there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
  5. While I do attempt to keep my biases outside the round, there may be occasion where I will hear an argument and it will confuzzle my brain terribly. That doesn't mean I won't count it; it means that you will visibly see me look very confused. Take that as a sign that the argument needs to be thoroughly explained or re-explained. Failing to do so will more likely than not make me drop the argument regardless of whether your opponent dealt with it appropriately.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Things I do not appreciate occurring in round and will be appropriately penalized:

  1. Do not lie in round. Or at the very least, do not get caught lying in round. This includes but is not limited to: cooked evidence; misrepresenting evidence; misrepresenting your opponents’ position; putting words in their mouths that they never said nor meant; and so on. Please refrain from such uncouth behavior. My reaction will be to give you a 0 and the L. Please remember that I have the power as a judge to call for evidence at the end of the round before my decision to verify any perceived indiscretion.
  2. Do not yell at your opponents in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. I don't require explanations of what your FWs are unless there are particularly unique.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their respective W or L.

A few exceptions to this rule:

  • Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
  • Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack didn't happen. It will not go your way.
  • Regarding links: I need things to just make sense. Do not use terrible links. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What?” then you have lost me. If using a link chain, link well with appropriate warrants. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

I'm not a big fan of theory/kritiks. If it comes up and it's warranted, make sure I know it. But most of the time, I won't be happy that it's happening. I advise against it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

  1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Maria Kivel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karan Kolwalkar Paradigm

PARLI:

-Frivolous T/theory will make me more likely to vote you down.

-Please extend your impacts and do weighing in rebuttal speeches.

-I can handle speed but speak CLEARLY.

-Ks without an alt will most likely lose you the round.

-You can terminalize impacts if you want to but you should be prepared to fight tooth and nail for every single link.

-Try not to make arguments that NEED evidence to back them up, analytics trump everything in this event.

Mikhail Korsunsky Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ketan Kotak Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aditiya Kotecha Paradigm

Not Submitted

Filipp Krasovsky Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jonathan Lee Paradigm

I don't like spreading.  If you speak too fast and I do not understand you, I would have to give you a loss for the round.

Bin Lu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tarun Mahadwar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nathaniel Mahowald Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jane McCoy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kathryn McFeely Paradigm

Not Submitted

Thomas McMurray Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ashley Mendivil Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tenaya Morningstar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karen Mountain Paradigm

Not Submitted

Quynh Nguyen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Austin Northamer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vicki Orrico Paradigm

Not Submitted

Han Pham Paradigm

Not Submitted

Namita Praharaj Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jimmy Qian Paradigm

Not Submitted

Melissa Riezler Paradigm

Parent judge, has judging experience with slow-paced public forum, lincoln-douglas, and congressional debate.

You need to explain the functionality of the argument when giving the argument, and should be adaptable in the debate round.

I'm not a fan of spreading, students should speak only slightly faster than in conversational speech and should place emphasis on clarity.

Jamal Rizvi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Micheline Savarin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nilay Sharan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Uma/Anand Shirur Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anne Sulprizo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Faheem Syed Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tom Vavra Paradigm

Not Submitted

Barry Vogel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Pamela Woloscz Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cara Woodard Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brandon Ye Paradigm

Not Submitted