Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament

2016 — CA/US

Zahra Abadin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brian Adam Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anshu Agarwal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Monoj Agarwalla Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elbio Alberti Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sophia Alberti Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suraci Alessa Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeffrey Antonio Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mohnish Anumala Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aryana Asefirad Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ruth L. Ashkenazi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicole Avila Paradigm

Not Submitted

Luis Avila Paradigm

Not Submitted

Biju Babu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yuhua Bai Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anindita Banerjee Paradigm

I have been judging LD for the past 5 years, and I have a very limited threshold for anything that is not traditional LD. ie NO Ks, NO THEORY, NOTHING NON T. I do appreciate well thought out policy affs and anything stock. Philosophy is ok, but you have to tell me why a phil debate would be productive ie why anyone should care about what our moral obligation is when we have people dying etc.

Speed.

Spreading is fine but include me in the email chain when you are reading your case or any cards. AND SLOW DOWN AT TAGLINES

debbanerjee@gmail.com

Judging Style.

I pay a lot of attention to framework and impact analysis. Did you win the impact calculus and if so tell me why I care and why your arguments matter. If you don't mention a weighing mechanism, I default to Util. Clash is important, don't just reiterate what you previously said.

Good luck and have fun debating!

Savita Banerjee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Deb Banerjee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Doug Baney Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eliana Banuelos Paradigm

Not Submitted

Orrei Barasch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Celio Barron Paradigm

Not Submitted

Naploeon Batalao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Noa Baumgarten Paradigm

Not Submitted

Himanshu Baxi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Patrick Berger Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bonnie Berger Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jesus Betencourt Paradigm

Not Submitted

Neil Bhagat Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vidhula Bhandarkar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gutan Bhattacharyya Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shyam Bhavsar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kristin Birdzell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sierra Blair Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lora Blessing Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sandip Borle Paradigm

Not Submitted

Adam Braver Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tony Cannestra Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nora Carillo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suzanne (Joy) Carlson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Patricia Carney Paradigm

Not Submitted

LoRainna Carter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jessica Carter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Christopher Castagnetti Paradigm

Not Submitted

Carol Cecil Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrew Chacon Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mihir Chaliya Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brendan Chan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alex Chang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Goju Chebiyam Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anisha Chemmachel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joe Chmielewski Paradigm

Not Submitted

Farhat Choudhary Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eugene Chow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rachel Clapper Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Clark Paradigm

Not Submitted

Beth Clarke Paradigm

Hello!

I have been coaching and judging mostly speech events for the past 17 years, but I do have some debate experience and I will keep a very detailed flow. In the round, I'll be looking for students to utilize evidence effectively and credibly, for students to be well-organized and to sign-post, and I'll also be looking for students to provide clear voting issues. The best way to earn my ballot is to make me do as little work as possible :)

I also see debate as a way to talk about difficult issues in an environment that fosters equity and decorum-- basically, be professional and treat everyone well and you'll have a very good chance to win my ballot!

Mimi Cohee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stacey Cohen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sean Coleman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Magdalena Constantino Paradigm

Not Submitted

Janet Cooper Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hope Cornish Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nikos Covey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karen Cruz Paradigm

Not Submitted

Benjamin Cruz Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vanessa Cruz Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sami Cubias Paradigm

Not Submitted

Matt Cuevas Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sami Cuvias Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicole Dalton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Priya Daryani Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ajay Das Paradigm

Not Submitted

Benaifer Dastoor Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ted DeVirgilis Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joele Denis Paradigm

Not Submitted

Abhay Dharmadhikari Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sushil Dhilpe Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kaveh Dilmaghani Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lillian Distefano Paradigm

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing values and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value.

Value, criterion and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides.

Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Points that I look for:

· Slow down on the Tags!

· Must be clear with your value and criteria

· Contention and it's value MUST BE crystal clear

· I do not allow flex time

· Speak at a reasonable pace

· Time yourself-I will also keep time

· Argue on logic not emotions

· Quotations have no meanings without explanations

· Make logical and sensible arguments AND explain your arguments.

· There’s a difference between a passionate and an abrasive or condescending debater

· Stay organized

· Be respectful to your opponent

· Construct a well impacted argument/s

· The debater that most clearly present a logical argument AND effectively refute the opponent will be the victor

· MOST OF ALL, ENJOY YOURSELVES WHILE PERFECTING YOUR CRAFT

Linda Dolan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marlon Doriah Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jim Dornan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tom Dunlap Paradigm

Not Submitted

Arup Dutta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cynthia Eccles Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katie Ellison Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eszter Erdelyi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Arnie Esslinger Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ishie Eswar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Donald Etheridge Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tawab Fakhri Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aikman Fang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Min Fang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stacy Fisher Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anna Fong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Morgan Fong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brandon Forinash Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kimberly Fradelis Paradigm

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience (speech events, policy, and CEDA)
St. Mary’s School in Medford, OR and Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents. Show up in pajamas or chew gum and I’m going to have a tough time paying attention to your arguments.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts.

Katie Fredrickson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brittany Freibott Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yvette Galvan-Hobbs Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Gam Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yun Gao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Frank Gao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Oscar Garcia Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stacie Gardner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eldo George Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cris Gille Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kimberley Gilles Paradigm

Not Submitted

Deborah Gilmore Paradigm

Not Submitted

Haranata Gnana Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jaymee Go Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swati Gokhale Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dori Goldberg Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vanesa Goldstein Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nataly Gonzalez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kate Gorman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kathy Graber Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jerry Guo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rohit Gurtu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sik Han Soh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Diane Harrison Paradigm

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing values and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Value, criterion, and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides.

Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross x will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win. Points that are imperative for me in order to judge an LD debate :

  • Slow down on the Tags!
  • Must be clear with your value and criteria
  • Contention and its value MUST BE crystal clear
  • I do not allow flex time
  • Speak at a reasonable pace
  • Time yourself
  • Argue on logic not emotions
  • Quotations have no meanings without explanations
  • Make logical and sensible arguments AND explain your arguments.
  • There is a difference between a passionate and an abrasive or condescending debater-check yourselves
  • Stay organized
  • Be respectful to your opponent
  • Construct a well-impacted argument/s
  • The debater that most clearly present a logical argument AND effectively refute the opponent will be the victor **Cross X is very important to me and at times defines the winner
  • MOST OF ALL ENJOY YOURSELVES WHILE PERFECTING YOUR CRAFT

For PF I want the debaters to deliver their arguments with eloquence and logic, therefore, I don't allow spreading. I prefer that the debaters keep the questions and responses format in the crossfire, so stay away from giving speeches at that time. It is not enough to simply advocate your position. You need to also analyze and rebut your opponents' position.

While you do not advocate a policy action, you still need to explain not only why your position is the best course of action, but why your opponents' advocacy is a bad idea. Also, make sure to be kind and respectful to each other in the crossfire. If the round is close, classy wins.

In the final focus, crystalize your arguments one by one so it is obvious to a lay judge.

You as debaters should try to have an educational round but most of all have fun!

For speaker points: Clarity. Articulation. Politeness. Advocacy.

Sophia Hartsch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shahla Hassani Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Hauge Paradigm

Not Submitted

Steven Helman Paradigm

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

  

Mario Herrera Paradigm

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

I competed in high school policy debate back in the day but haven't judged policy in a while. I have been coaching for 28 years and am a member of the Georgia Forensic Coaches Association Hall of Fame and the National Speech and Debate Association Hall of Fame. I have coached and judged all speech events, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas and Congress, with students from my team reaching elimination rounds at major national tournaments in nearly all speech events and in all debate events.

I believe Public Forum debate to be exactly that- a public forum. I also appreciate and enjoy the intricacies of argumentation. In the end, my jurisdiction is the resolution, therefore I need to hear argumentation stemming from the given resolution.

Speaking quickly in a round is a must, but it should not be at the expense of communication. Throwing arguments around to see what sticks is not the best strategy with me. I also believe that there is rarely a "silver bullet" type of argument, and argument that is so good that it is irrefutable. Don't try to isolate your competition- instead, clash your arguments with theirs. Debate is about the clash. That is what makes it engaging and important. Create that clash.

Theory arguments rarely persuade me, although I have been known to vote for theory. I prefer to hear about the point of conflict within the resolution.

The best advice I can give is to connect the dots in the round. If you don't, that means I have to and that means those dots may not connect to where you intended. Weigh the round, not just your impacts.

I've been hearing that nuclear war is going to happen since 1982. Just because something is said in a round does not make it true. Valid, reasonable positions and evidence are key. The impacts of arguments need to be sound and connected.

A dropped argument does not mean you win the debate.

In the end, debate is an exercise in discussion, discourse, rhetoric, argumentation and rebuttal. Logos, ethos and pathos are vital in the debate arena. Debate decisions are about who debates better in a given moment in time with a given situation. You've chosen a remarkable activity to participate in. Enjoy the round!

Craig Heyne Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michelle Heyne Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amy Hiestand Paradigm

Not Submitted

Silva Hiti Paradigm

Tim Wegener

Greenhill '19

Debated surveillance, China, education and legal immigration

Northwestern University '23 (2N/1A)

Debating space

Put me on the chain – tpwegs3@gmail.com

Thanks Buntin

Policy-----X----------------------------------------K

Tech---------------------------------X-------------Truth

Read no cards---------------------------X--------Read all the cards

Conditionality good------------X------------------Conditionality bad

Yes judge kick------X-----------------------No judge kick

Neg on theory---------------------X--------Aff on theory

Neg on CP competition----X-------------------------Aff on CP competition

T is dead----------------------------X-No it’s not

Reasonability----------------------------X-Competing Interps

States CP good----------X-----------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing----X-------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL---X------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

Fairness is a thing---X----------------------------Delgado 92

No perms in a method debate------------X-------------------yes perms

Limits------------------------------------X----------Other standards

Presumption-----------------------------------X---Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------X--------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"-X----------------------I only read what you read

2019 speaker points---------X--------------------2007 speaker points

Dallas-style expressive------------------X-------D. Heidt-style stoic

Phillip Ho Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stefan Hoang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kaelyn Holguin Paradigm

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.

Jim Holmes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mark Hong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joe Horton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mahbub Hossain Paradigm

Not Submitted

Melody Hsu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Charles Huang Paradigm

Parent judge, don't speak fast

Oliver Huang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alice Huang Paradigm

Policy Paradigm:
I want to say that I am Tabs, but my experience has made me realize that no one is actually Tabs. Every judge has his/her own preferences, and every judge has a slightly different way of evaluating rounds.I have listed a few of my specific preferences below.

I have been both a K debater and a traditional policy debater. However, throughout my debate career, I tended to go for the K, the Cap K in particular, more often than not.

T- I default to evaluating based on reasonability if no frame of evaluation is presented. However, if one team argues for competing interpretations, the other team must explain why reasonability would be a better way to evaluate the round. Blippy Ts aren't enough to win a round in front of me. In general, there must be proven abuse and an extremely well fleshed out T argument that is specific to the affirmative case.

Theory- I most likely will not vote for a team on just theory alone unless there has been proven abuse. Also, if you're trying to win on theory, please go all out on theory in your last speech.

Ks- If you're running a K, please know what you are talking about. You must be able to explain the K without having to look at your cards, and you must contextualize your K according to the affirmative. I love Ks, but I hate Ks that are terribly run. 

CP- I absolutely despise conditions CPs. They are plan-plus and usually just become a muddled mess. Advantage CPs with specific net benefits are great. Agent CPs are fine as long they are warranted. 

DAs- Do your thing. Know all parts of a DA. That is all. I love a well carved out politics DA. 

Eric Hyun Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bob Ickes Paradigm

Not Submitted

April Ireland Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shripriya Iyer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kalpit Jain Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sunit Jain Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephen James Paradigm

Not Submitted

Pradeep Javangula Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aileen Jiang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Adella Johnson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cecilia Johnston Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yeong Juang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Henry Jyu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anu Kabra Paradigm

Not Submitted

Linh Kang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aditi Karandikar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karen Keefer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nitin Khanna Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sati Kharam Paradigm

Not Submitted

Heonjoon Kim Paradigm

Not Submitted

Justin Kim Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Klyman Paradigm

PARLI PARADIGM FOR NPDI 2016:

I have judged high school parli before but sparingly. I do not understand how the event is conventionally judged or interpreted. I compete for Berkeley's APDA team and I did Public Forum debate in high school. I am competent at flowing although I cannot flow policy speed or the speed of the fastest circuit LD; if you ask me to do so I will say "clear" if you go too quickly, but without prompting I will remain silent.

I am open to all kinds of arguments; to me, an argument is a claim and a warrant (i.e. a reason why the claim is true). I default to an offense-defense paradigm, so if you want me to evaluate the round in a way other than that tell me to do so and warrant why I should do so. If the round is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm it is of paramount importance that you weigh your arguments and warrant why they are more significant than your opponents' impacts, otherwise I will be deciding without a good justification for either side. I am unfamiliar with Ks in parli but I am open to them (if you explain them well) and I am predisposed to enjoy arguments that deploy an unconventional strategy.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

TLDR: I am a flow judge who will try to give helpful feedback.

How I Make My Decision

I will vote largely based on the final two speeches. I prefer to only vote on arguments whose warrant and impact are in both the summary and the final focus. However, there are two exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from the rebuttal to the final focus, however, I greatly prefer them to be in the summary and I am more likely to feel that they are new if they are extended from second rebuttal to second final focus. Second, the first final focus can make some new responses to new arguments made in the second summary but be reasonable about it.

Weigh as much as possible. I flow weighing arguments, and you can and should reference them as cleanly extended weighing analysis if your opponents do not respond to weighing in rebuttal or summary. Try to beyond using weighing buzz words such as magnitude/probability/timeframe and instead really tell me why the resolution is still true or false even if your opponents win all of their arguments.

Argumentation

I try and fail to come into each round as a blank slate, meaning that I try to disregard my biases.

I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

I am probably comfortable with most speeds that will be reached in a Public Forum round, but if you are going too fast I will try to let you know. However, if you go slower I am on balance more likely to vote for you. Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what kind of argument are making, but please try to sound like a human rather than a jargon machine. If it stops being helpful my expression will let you know.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

Evidence

Evidence ethics in Public Forum are awful. If your opponents are lying about evidence tell me, and they will lose because of it.

During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence will be exchanged off of prep time, but the team reading the evidence will need to take prep to do so unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you gives me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Although this is thorough it does not mean that I often call for evidence; on the contrary, I set strict guidelines so that I do not call for evidence when it is unreasonable to do so, reducing the probability that I intervene. 

Speaker Points

I will reward debaters for clarity, kindness, humor, tech skill, strategy, teamwork, persuasion, topic knowledge, and genius. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance long after the round, you should teach other students how to do debate right. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- There is a lot of room for improvement. 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.  

My Background

I competed in Public Forum for Evanston Township High School, mainly on the national circuit, and I graduated in 2015.

If you have any additional questions feel free to ask. If you have an issue with my decision also please feel free to communicate with me about that after the round.

Darren Knox Paradigm

Not Submitted

Josh Ko Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeannette Koegler Paradigm

Not Submitted

Damon Korb Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cliff Kraner Paradigm

I'm an administrator at Northland Christian that has been traveling with our debate team for over 10 years. Over the years, I have judged a variety of events like PF, Congress, and IEs. Each year, I judge at a couple of tournaments for our school like Berkeley and Glenbrooks. When making a decision, I will look mainly at content and style. Students should not speak too fast and should make logical arguments throughout the debate; they should be considerate to their opponents and the judge throughout the round. I will not keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, but I will take notes to help me make a decision. For Isidore Newman, I will be judging Worlds. I have seen a couple of practice rounds and understand the style and expectation of students in this format, but this will be the first time I judge this event.

Karan Kulwalkar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Balemurughan Kumaresan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jessica Kyee Paradigm

Not Submitted

James Kyle Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lp 1 LP 1 Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Laakso Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrea Lairson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dan Leahy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nathan Leal Paradigm

Competition Experience:

Competed in Public Forum for 4 years at James Logan High School. I also competed in Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.

Coaching Experience:

I have been coaching for about 6 years now at varying institutions in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I predominately focus on Lincoln Douglas.

Preferences:

Public Forum

I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. Bring up important cross points in the next speech.

First summary needs to extend defense.Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.

I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.

Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal, impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.

Theory and K's have also been rumored to be circling higher end competitions. As a LD coach I understand the merit of such arguments. I believe that PF is the wrong forum to discuss such issues and bring up such arguments; however, I may vote on kritiks, as long as I understand them and especially their solvency mechanism and mutual exclusivity. I am not comfortable judging on the basis of your identity or anyone else’s.

Michael Lee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Your Lee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yvette Lee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kattie Leito Paradigm

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-Present)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments for eleven years. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

Xin Li Paradigm

Not Submitted

Susan Li Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xianzhan Lin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Lin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Steven Lin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gurleen Litt Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Lloyd Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Lloyd Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeanne Luong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suzanne Mandel-Mosko Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vankata Marrapu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jon Martin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joann Martin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Srinkawth Mattegunta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robin McClarren Paradigm

Not Submitted

Douglas McDonald Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vanessa McDonell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rich McKay Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anne McMurry Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dharmesh Mehta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robert Miller Paradigm

Not Submitted

Carly Miller Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mohammad Moradi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rohit Muraridharan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jayasudha Muthusamy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Angrith Na Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vishwanath Nadig Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kavitha Naidu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vinod Nair Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jamaque Newberry Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nga Nguyen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Richard Nguyen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Khalid Nour Paradigm

Not Submitted

Clare O'Brien-Lambert Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brent Oberg Paradigm

Not Submitted

Soel Ocana Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kimberly Oddi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Odeion Okott Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wendy Ooi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nancy Osuch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Annamalai Panchanathan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jaspreet Panesar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hwayeon Park Paradigm

Not Submitted

Christina Park Paradigm

Not Submitted

Moojin Park Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yesenia Partia Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bud Pell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tom Phan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Les Phillips Paradigm

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary. Ask me questions!

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I do not demand that the second speaking rebuttal or any summary speech do anything in particular. If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I also expect debaters to be able to state/defend the qualifications of every single piece of evidence they use. Though it is not the explicit NSDA standard, I believe that quals should be read out loud. I will bristle and/or throw my pen if I hear "according to Princeton." Evidence standards in PF are improving, but they are still not good. You will not get good points if you do not meet these standards.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. "Helps The Economy" is to impacts as "according to Princeton" is to cites. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a dcebater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Lisa Porter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Debashish Prathier Paradigm

Not Submitted

Satish Premanathan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joel Presley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nihal Punjabi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rod Rahimi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Phani Rajendra Paradigm

Not Submitted

Meena Ramaiyer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kumar Ramaiyer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Adrienne Razavi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sasha Reiisieh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cristy Resendiz Paradigm

Not Submitted

Simon Rhee Paradigm

Competed in College Parliamentary (2 years) and Coaching for 2 years.

I'll go through the more common paradign questions. Feel free to ask questions about judging philosophy before round if any.

TL;DR: Tabula Rasa, for the most part. Good with speed. Care about links > impacts. Clear voters needed. 

Speed/Speaks

I'm fine with all speed. Fast, slow, in-between. Trust me, I can follow, and if I can't, I'll yell "Clear" in-round so you know. If you're going to spread, make sure that your diction is still clear. 

SIGN POST! 

I find double-clutching annoying, but if you do it, okay. If you care about speaks, slow down taglines, Big Picture statements, and VOTERS. Also, you should be using up all your time. 

If phone goes off in round, you are rude to me or opponent(s), or you leave >1min on clock, expect low(er) speaks. Any of those in excess will probably = 0.

If you give a topical and/or funny joke that doesn't take up a lot of time (READ: NOT CASE), then you will probably get bonus speaks and a laugh. :)

Theory

If you can make it make sense and it wins on the flow, it wins.  I am a firm believer that the judge does not create the rules of the debate. Because of this, I tend to focus on the metaframing, detailed link articulations, impact calculation, and have a high threshold for 2AR/2NR warrant extensions. Often I will lower the priority of an argument if it is merely shadow extended in the last speech. The last thing you want is for me to interpret the debate or your evidence; interpret it for me.

I studied Rhetoric and Philosophy for my undergraduate, so I have a pretty decent grasp of most philosophies. Still don't assume I know anything. Explain it, link it, show me why it's important.

Run a K. Don't run a K. I'm good with whatever. If you run a K, at least understand your K. 

I will drop debater on T. I don't vote on RVI (VERY VERY rare). Seriously though, don't run the T if topical. Be clear in Interp and Vio. 

Judging Style/Preferences

LINKS. LINKS. LINKS. LINKS. I don't care if X leads to nuclear war and human extinction. You need clear and detailed link articulation. At the same time, it is the obligation of both teams to point out poor links. If not, I must assume X happens. I care more about links BEFORE impacts. 

I don't vote on RVIs. Provide clear offense in voters. I like theory debate, I like RW debate, I like all debate. Don't drop arguments, and if your opponents do, point it out. 

I WANT CLASH! :)

I don't want to do the work. Do the work for me. I will if I have to, but please don't make me. I.E. Weigh the debate out and give me clear voters. I flow, so don't worry if opponent says "they never responded to this, I win" when you clearly did respond. 

Rules

If there are any rules violations that you want to point out, I'll make a note of it, and we continue on the debate. We will deal with it after rd.

Crystal Robbins Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mark Rodocker Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicholas Rogers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Valeria Ross Paradigm

Not Submitted

Terry Rubin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vicki Sakado Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brittany Samson Paradigm

AFA NIET All American 2008.

5 years coaching I.E. and Congress at the high school level.

Competed 4 years collegiate forensics for Northern Illinois University in the events: DI, DUO, PROSE, POETRY, IMPROMPTU, ADS, INFORMATIVE AND POI.

1 year High School Forensics in HI and RADIO speaking for Prospect High School at Sectionals level.

3 year AFA National qualifier(12 qualifications over 3 years in DI, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Info, POI, Impromptu.)

2 year NFA qualifier.

Graduate Second City comedy school.  Groundlings Advanced Program.

Professional Actress/Voice Artist/Stand Up Comic.

Debate: 3+ years experience judging POFO, LD, and PARLI. Values: organization, unique arguments, intelligence(specificity), balance.

*Fine with spread in LD/Pofo.  Not comfortable judging policy, so not good with spread in policy.

 

Carter Santini Paradigm

Not Submitted

Devin Sarno Paradigm

Not Submitted

Forrest Sayrs Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hitesh Shah Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karim Shaik Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gayathri Shanbhag Paradigm

Not Submitted

Pingping Shao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lakshmi Sharma Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shirin Sharma Paradigm

Not Submitted

Paul Sheets Paradigm

Debates:   I want you to convince me that your side is the "correct" one.   Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not.    I have judged lots of PF, Parli, and LD, but consider myself a "Flay" judge. 

Spread at your own risk!  Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me with information and data vice being "on point" with your arguments it will most likely work against you.  On the flip side providing me lots of relevant information and facts can help you, as long as it is all germaine and meaningful.  There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value well founded points that are delivered deliberately and effectively more than those that are delivered haphazardly or in a flurry of words.  Take your time and DON'T WASTE WORDS!

I will reward elequent / articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins, so focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points - that is what will decide whether you win or not. 

Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex!  I realize your tempers may flare depending on what your opponents may say or do, but part of what I am looking for is your ability to remain professional and level-headed despite that.  I have been known to "ding" a team if I feel they were excessively rude and/or condescending.    

 

IEs:   I am looking for a presentation / performance that has a solid underlying message / meaning and I really want to feel that it is coming from your heart vice just being recited.  I believe IEs can and should make people think as well as just be entertaining.  A topic that is "funny", "tragic" or "sorrowful" isn't necessarily thought provoking.  Your use of the whole "stage", eye contact, projection, inflection, etc. really influence how powerfully your message comes across.   I want to sense an aura of confidence and command of your material when you are performing.  Endeavor to "Own the Room!"   

Stanley Shiau Paradigm

Not Submitted

Barb Shofner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ashish Shrotriya Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sridhar Sikha Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kivrav Singh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anoop Singhal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bela Sohoni Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jatinder Bhayal Sood Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rob Sorensen Paradigm

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

Lisa Sperow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vivek Srivats Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Steeper Paradigm

Most Important Criteria

I'm a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn't respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I'll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won't do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I'm also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you'll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts).

Predispositions

The only thing I'm predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you've been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I'll still vote on it even though I won't want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it's warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative's case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I'd rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren't, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations.

Speed/Jargon/Technical

I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I'm not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don't speed the other team out of the room. If they call "clear" or "slow", slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed.

NOTE: I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It's your debate, it's up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn't a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say.

NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES: Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.

Daniel Steinhart Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brandon Stewart Paradigm

Full disclosure - I am a coach. As this is first and foremost an educational activity, I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

1) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you bring up a point in C1 and it's never mentioned again, I'm dropping it from my decision. Obviously none of you thought it important enough to bring up again, so it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

2) Respect your opponent. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

3) Deeply engage the topic, don't just recite a case. Yes, you absolutely must back up your claims with evidence, but don't make the sources do all the work. You've got to do your own analysis. Pro tip — creative arguments will get your judge's attention, since they've probably heard all the standard ones before. You're only going to make that happen if you take the time to really think hard about it on your own. And on a related note, I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

4) I judge what happens in the debate. I will judge the outcome based on the merit of your arguments, regardless of how charismatically they were delivered. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on. If you don't agree on framework, then I'm left to determine my own, which will probably be based on what I judge to accomplish the Greater Good within the scope of the majority of the arguments. If aff defines a term or the motion in some way and neg doesn't contest it, than in the course of this debate that's what it means. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case better solves for all the harms. You should also know that while my ballot comments will probably bring in outside information, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not influence my decision.

Victor Stone Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jim Struble Paradigm

Not Submitted

Seema Sud Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rish Sudar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zaheer Syed Paradigm

Not Submitted

Srinivasa Tagirisa Paradigm

Not Submitted

Theja Talla Paradigm

Not Submitted

Danica Tanquilut Paradigm

judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Tanquilut%2C+Danica

Dustin Tao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sherwin Tavakol Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kristen Taylor Paradigm

Not Submitted

Puran Tewari Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tyler Thompson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sujata Tibrewala Paradigm

Not Submitted

Abigail Toye Paradigm

Not Submitted

Victoria Tran Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mike Tristano Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicholas Truong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Steven Tsai Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lucas Tung Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrea Turner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeffrey Valdivieso Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ellen Valladares Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nick Van Baak Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ravi Varanasi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vijaya Varanasi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Satyanarayana Vempati Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sridhar Venkataraman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sankar Venkatraman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cynthia Vu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Todd Wagner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Melody Wan Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Wang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kyle Weber Paradigm

Not Submitted

Madison Weisbarth Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cathie Whalen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephanie White Paradigm

Not Submitted

Louise Wise Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeff Wise Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephanie Witte Paradigm

Not Submitted

Scott Witte Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cynthia Wong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jen Woodley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bria Woodyard Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jenny Worledge Paradigm

I believe spreading in debate has no educational value so I am extremely prejudiced against it.

Grace Wright Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mark Wright Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jill Wu Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Wu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrea Wulff Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bhavani Yerrapotu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bhavani Yerrapotu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yim Yim Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eddie Young Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chi-Lin Young Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nilo Zaratan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Adia Zhang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hang Zhang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sylvia Zhang Paradigm

Not Submitted

christine tsai Paradigm

Background: I debated policy back in high school, but it's been years since then so I would slow down (speed).

K's: OK but it needs to be VERY clearly explained.

T: if you're going for T or theory then voters need to be extended and your case of abuse/potential abuse needs to be articulated.

Flash time counts as prep (policy). Please don't shake my hand.