Cal Invitational at Berkeley HS Tournament
2016 — CA/US
Ramana Adusumilli Paradigm
I am a parent judge who has been judging for about one year. I don't mind speaking fast, as long as I can still understand you. Make sure to sign post and be organized so I can tell where you are in each speech. Go ahead and be aggressive, but don't bully your opponents.
Lisa Aronovitz Paradigm
I am a lay judge, but have been judging for a couple years now. Although I am aware and cognizant of the framework debate, the technicalities of it are not as important to me as the clarity of your argument and speaking. Please make sure to be polite to your opponent (being rude or abusive does affect your speaker points), signpost clearly, and speak at a reasonable pace (NO spreading or circuit debate please!).
Chandrika Arul Paradigm
Monoara Begum Paradigm
Rajib Bhakat Paradigm
I’m a lay judge, so treat me as such. However, I will take notes and try to follow along with the debate to the best of my abilities. If I have clarifying questions at the end of the round, I may ask them after the debate is over.
Neeru Bhargava Paradigm
Kevin Burke Paradigm
William Chan Paradigm
Amy Chen Paradigm
Vivian Chen Paradigm
Allen Chien Paradigm
Sushama Chowdhury Paradigm
Naresh Daggupati Paradigm
Anne Domescek Paradigm
Gary Dungca Paradigm
Li Fang Paradigm
Name: Li Fang
School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 4
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? N/A
What is your current occupation? Engineer
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery
· - I am a parent judge, so please don’t go too fast. I would rather you develop a cohesive narrative throughout the round so that I am able to follow you effectively.
· -That is not to say that you have to speak as if I was a child, but rather you speak at a moderate rate (similar to that of a conversation)
· -I prefer the quality of the argument over the substance of material you present (i.e. more pieces of evidence DOES NOT mean you will win)
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)
· -I believe that anything you want me to vote for should be in both the summary and the final focus, especially if you are the second speaking team
· -I prefer a big picture summary. As I said earlier, I am a parent judge and therefore I cannot comprehend if you go on the line by line
Role of the Final Focus
· -This speech I find to be most important. Please tell me what your final arguments are AND why they are important in the context of the round
· -I would appreciate it if you were able to condense the arguments that you present, along with what is going on the round. I don’t have the experience that you have and therefore I can’t sufficiently adjudicate the round.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches
· -I do not flow to the extent that former debaters and/or coaches do. I have no experience in actually debating so I can’t flow very well
· -However, I will still take notes down and pay attention to what you are saying.
· -In order to compensate for my inability to flow like other debate and/or coaches, speak slowly and explain your argument and why they outweigh your opponents.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?
· -I value the argument more than the style in which you debate
· -If you are debating as if you are in another event such as Lincoln Douglas, I will not appreciate that. Public Forum, to me, is meant to be understandable to the public, so please be respectful of your opponents while explaining your arguments.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?
· -If you want me to consider an argument that you believe to be winning, please mention it in both the summary and the final focus. I don’t think it is necessary for it to be mentioned in the rebuttal (the rebuttal is for responding to your opponent’s case, not mentioning your own).
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?
· -No. You do you.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?
· -Not at all.
· -Any argument I vote for must be in the last two speeches (Summary and Final Focus).
If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.
· -If you are to say anything that blatantly racist, sexist, or offensive. I will drop you immediately with very bad speaker points
· -Make sure to have fun.
Susan Foley Paradigm
I have been a coach for 7 years at Campbell Hall School in California. I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.
- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)
- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")
- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus
Things that are important for me:
- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)
I do not want you to:
- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document
- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction
- be rude/condescending/curt in CX
I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.
Carl Gordon Paradigm
Lynn Halvorsen Paradigm
Adhiraj Hassan Paradigm
Harsha Hegde Paradigm
Alvin Hsu Paradigm
Frank Huang Paradigm
Benjamin Hughes Paradigm
In college, I took semesters of parliamentary debate. Today, I'm a coach at the middle school level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with 15 years of coaching experience. I'm also the founder of OC Debate League in California - affiliated with the MSPDP (if you're familiar).
In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I try to be a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me. I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish.
Students will earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.
I'd recommend using good speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon. Please no spreading!
Mimi Ju Paradigm
Taylor Kane Paradigm
Anthony Khodanian Paradigm
Alexia Khodanian Paradigm
Christopher Kim Paradigm
Nicole Krausert Paradigm
Nicole Krausert Paradigm
Ed Kwan Paradigm
I am a parent judge and have judged debate for 3 years.
Please speak clearly and not fast.
When presenting contentions, clearly state the main point at the beginning of each contention before starting subpoints.
Highlight key voting points.
Always show respect to your opponents!
Madelyn Lanham Paradigm
Jason Lee Paradigm
Alyssa Navapanich Paradigm
Kiem Nguyen Paradigm
Chris Nguyen Paradigm
Sampann Nigam Paradigm
Clare O'Brien-Lambert Paradigm
Grace O'Toole Paradigm
Nitin Okhade Paradigm
Odeion Olcott Paradigm
Adai Palaniappan Paradigm
Shane Palmer Paradigm
Sundar Pasupathy Paradigm
Dan Perdomo Paradigm
Thesis: I WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY POLICY DEBATE IS WORTH SAVING
Experience: I was a debater for five years (4 years hs, 1 year open college policy) a long time ago. The last time I made a speech or cut a card was in 2009. I judge lots of debates a year. For the past two years I have mainly judged LD, Parli, and PuFo. I do not listen to a ton of fast rounds anymore. I flow on paper.
I like critical/performative debates*. I am a "big picture"-style judge. I don't like the "heg good" debate. I don't like procedural debates.
I don't dig "heg good," "cap good," or full-blast circuit speed very much but I will do my best to place myself in whatever framework you give me (read: Give me one). I have a reputation as a K hack even though I vote on topicality all the time. See below for more detailed thoughts on critical debates.
You won't win the round on defense, but you can beat the offense. One contextual, well-explained perm is better than 2 dropped blippy perms. Perms are a test of competition, but that still means I weigh the opportunity cost of world of the perm vs. world of only the counter-advocacy. "Judge-kick" is not a thing unless you tell me it is, by default I evaluate every world present in the 2NR as best I can.
I think a multiplicity of debates is good. I am usually not persuaded by most arguments in favor of excluding "non-traditional" debate, and generally hesitant to drop a team on T or theory if I can avoid it (unless it's dropped, you prove blatant in-round abuse, or you crush it technically). I don't like playing the debate police. If you're going to go for T or theory in front of me, you need to really go for it. You should have some sort of big-picture abuse story that demonstrates the kinds of debate you wanted to have that they have prevented you from having, and reasons why those debates are important enough to reject the team. To be persuasive, the procedural needs to be the centerpiece (preferably your entire) 2A/NR--I think presence of another decently-developed generic argument in the 2NR could sometimes be enough to solve the offense on T, and case-specific turns or link stories pretty much prove no in-round abuse. Condo can be a voter if there are multiple mutually-exclusive worlds in the 2NR. I am often persuaded by reasonability, and I often reject the argument but not the team. Despite these preferences, don't hesitate to go for these arguments in front of me if you really think they are the best strategic decision, lots of my neg ballots are for topicality.
I tend to be very laid-back in terms of decorum: I really don't care if you tag-team CX or speak from your seat as long as your delivery doesn't suffer. I don't time evidence flashing unless it begins to take an inordinate amount of time. Oral prompting is fine, but I only flow what comes out of the designated speaker's mouth. I listen to CX but usually don't flow it. I don't call for speech docs and will try not to call for evidence unless the quality of specific cards or warrants are explicitly brought up in the round.
There is no 3rd rebuttal: your job as a debater is to clearly communicate your arguments to convince me to sign the ballot your way and adapt a little if I don't happen to be your ideal judge. If you have not done this than no amount of post-debate hassling will change the decision. This is in fact a great way to get a 25 from me.
Notes for surveillance topic: I haven't done research on it, and haven't coached any kids on it. I have judged policy at one bid tournament (La Costa) and two regionals this year. I don't know the commonly used cards by name. You need to be specific and explain stuff to me like I am a small child.
*So here's the deal: I only did critical debate for a couple years and I'm not a philosophy or rhetoric major or anything, but I am into a lot of these authors in an amateur capacity. Don't assume I already understand your k, or know what it is based solely on the author's name. You will need to explain which Å½iÅ¾ek you happen to have brought to our debate round, and tell a good clear story about what your k means for the debate. In k debates I tend to prefer the style of delivery to somewhat gel with the content of the argument, so I'd really rather not watch you say you create a critical pedagogy of the oppressed at 300 wpm as one of 3 possible 2NRs. Extending tags and saying "they cause genocide" is not persuasive. I don't like hyper-generic "you use the USFG"-style link arguments and can usually be persuaded by a well-explained perm in those cases. I think that sometimes specific legal reforms can create specific material gains for specific oppressed people that impact their daily lives, but I also think that real radical change probably would require a revolution. I believe no debate is outside the world: this round has a social/historical/spacial location and does not happen in a magical non-place. This applies to both sides of a clash of civilizations debate: your arguments are advocacies in an educational space--external impacts are only valuable as far as they inform debate practices/discussions which may or may not produce good education. This means they do not on-face outweigh arguments which indict the kind of education your methodology produces. This is honestly the only model of debate that makes sense to me, and I'm often at a loss when teams ask me to weigh nuclear war scenarios against the K because they are "more real world." As you may have guessed my natural bias is definitely toward the left but I try my best to vote within a framework laid out by the debaters--that means comparing competing frameworks and explaining what my ballot does and how I should evaluate impacts. I am fine with critical affs, non-topical affs, performance affs, whatever, but like anything else you need to justify what you do in the round. Though I encourage teams to make the debate round whatever they want it to be, I don't feel comfortable when teams ask me to actively participate/intervene in the discussion; this puts me in a weird position in terms of choosing a winner and I don't really feel it's possible for me to participate without in some way telling the debaters what to say. All this means is that in such a situation it is impossible for me to be an impartial adjudicator; I am open to arguments that I shouldn't be--but this is definitely something that needs to be addressed.
If you are running anti-blackness, you should read this article first: http://fivefouraff.com/2015/08/21/on-white-afro-pessimism/
Sarina Raghavan Paradigm
Liz Rochlin Paradigm
Shital Savarkar Paradigm
Alex Schulz Paradigm
Sandeep Sharma Paradigm
Kathy Sher Paradigm
Jonathan Singleton Paradigm
There are three major things to keep in mind for my paradigm
First, I'll keep track of what is and isn't extended, including any part of framework, so extend.
Second, You have to win on a clear value and value criterion, and if neither side is able to, I go neg on presumption.
Third, use impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame) Magnitude being the most important as long as its probability is more likely than not. An argument needs to be well rooted for me to consider it, so I won't vote on a weak extinction argument.
Ask me anything else you'd like to know before the round starts!
John Sloyan Paradigm
Denise Stackman Paradigm
Ashlynn Timmerman Paradigm
Sophie Volpp Paradigm
Deanna Walsh Paradigm
Mike Welty Paradigm
I am an 8 year PF coach but never competed in debate myself. I love it when teams make arguments that make sense. I am not a fan of jargon and believe public forum debate was intended to be accessible to amateur judges so I hate spreading. I never vote for a team who cannot articulate an understanding of the opposing argument. I entertain framework arguments and definition battles but calls for evidence need to be followed up by a use of what you found or I will punish you for wasting everyones time. I don't flow crossfire and expect any admissions you reveal there to be used in follow-up speeches. The summary is for impacts and the final focus is for weighing voting issues. If you are still arguing cases after the rebuttal I will think you believe you are losing and I will agree with you.
You are young and intelligent and spend your leisure time on competitive public speaking. You are a nerd. Don't take this round, your opponents or yourself too seriously. Your future is very bright, so have fun, treat each other with respect and you may just earn my vote.