SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational
2016
—
Santa Clara,
CA/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Shishir Agarwal
Mission San Jose
None
Vish Agarwal
Palo Alto Debate
Last changed on
Fri January 31, 2020 at 2:14 PM PDT
I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. That being said, treat me as you would any other lay judge: refrain from speed, jargon, tech, etc. I don't usually disclose after rounds.
Aarushi Agrawal
Lynbrook
None
Last changed on
Tue January 19, 2021 at 3:49 AM PDT
I am a lay judge, and have been judging for over three years. 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
Foothill
None
Ruth Ashkenazi
Cupertino
None
Amulya Athayde
Palo Alto HS
None
Suneet Bahl
Foothill
None
Bhuvana Balaji
Leland
None
Last changed on
Sun June 14, 2020 at 3:25 PM PDT
I am a parent judge and have judged over 50 PF rounds. I am a lay judge, but will try to flow arguments. You can view me as a knowledgable member of the public who has an open mind.
I believe that spreading has no value, educational or otherwise. If you spread, you are very likely to lose my ballot.
I do not look kindly on theory unless you are using it to check some form of abuse that your opponents are exhibiting in the current round.
I am usually knowledgeable on the topic and will be able to understand/know your arguments. I highly highly highly value logic. Support the logic with evidence.
I value the presentation of a well articulated top-level world-view from which your arguments flow. I prefer a small number of well thought out arguments as opposed to a large number of them.
I would like you to engage with your opponents and respond in a coherent and logical manner to the arguments that they bring up as opposed to just re-stating your position. Do not be two ships passing in the night.
Speaker points are based on how you appeal to a lay judge. If you give a good speech that has solid logic and is understandable by a lay person, you will get good speaks.
Stand up straight, don't slouch, make eye-contact and smile once in a way.
Act like you are winning and don't give up till the debate is over even if matters look dire. If your posture indicates that you think that you are losing, I will probably think the same.
Last changed on
Fri November 17, 2017 at 1:07 AM PDT
I competed in parli in college and I currently coach Public Forum Debate. I understand stock issues and I look for them to be used during the round. I am big on the structure of arguments and expect the entire round to follow NSDA rules. With that being said I pay close attention to the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, so to me, it is more important to make good arguments than to make a lot. On the subject of arguments, while they are allowed, I do not prefer debates about evidence or debates about a debate. I would prefer that T arguments and evidence questioning be limited during the round. I think a debate is supposed to be educational and I prefer debates that are exactly that. So have fun, make good arguments and do not get caught up in the details.
Rajesh Bawankule
Miller
None
Krish Bhargavan
Champion
None
Ganapati Bhat
Monta Vista
None
Teena Bhatia
Fremont
None
Rebecca Biswas
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Mon January 15, 2024 at 6:53 PM +13
FOR STANFORD 2021 REFER TO: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=65515
ignore below for Stanford 2021
I have judged for 5 years at HS level. I will be providing detail feedback including who won verbally right after the debate is over.
I care less for speaking style, but focus more on the content and logic. You can use debate jargon as well.
Shailu Chauhan
Fremont
None
Last changed on
Tue September 24, 2019 at 1:51 PM PDT
I am a flay judge. I will flow, but what I write down is limited to what I can understand, so please speak clearly and not-too-fast, and do not assume that I will know what your argument is if you do not explain it(if it is not a stock argument).
I prefer line-to-line refutations that are sign-posted in order to help me follow the round. Clash is good. Emphasize your impacts and clarify ideas/arguments if it looks like I don't understand what you're talking about.
Pet-peeves:
- When a debater claims that he did not actually drop an argument, and had already "addressed it as a whole," whatever that means. Please just sign-post each argument on the flow.
- Debaters who argue about the validity of the evidence over the validity of the argument. Clash is important to me. -
- Arguments about non-uniqueness are weak and unlikely to be convincing. If you argue that an argument is non-unique, you should probably provide some type of solvency to back that refutation.
Christine Cheng
Cupertino
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 2:46 AM PDT
It’d be great if you can spend a little time establishing your framework and structure in the beginning to let me know what’s important and what to expect. Please don’t drop the key arguments during the crossfire. In the final focus please show how your arguments outweigh the opponent’s.
Chen-Huan Chiang
Milpitas
Last changed on
Sun September 30, 2018 at 11:22 AM PDT
I'm a parent judge, so please go slow. Be sure to weigh arguments to make the decision clear.
Last changed on
Mon July 13, 2020 at 8:59 AM PDT
E
Last changed on
Sun August 11, 2019 at 9:19 AM PDT
The need to speak, even if one has nothing to say, becomes more pressing when one has nothing to say, just as the will to live becomes more urgent when life has lost its meaning.
My actual paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCHII3qVhIbGtqdos6dUGkuGa0WZZzw-L305yb8_43U/edit?usp=sharing
Maneesha Dalmia
Mission San Jose
Last changed on
Sun November 22, 2020 at 1:11 AM PDT
My kids wrote this for me: I'm an experienced parent judge who has been judging for 5 years. I like turns (sometimes I'm even ok with impact turns), weighing and impacts. I hate bad evidence, and will call for cards if I think evidence is suspicious.
I'm familiar with some jargon, but not all of it. I don't really know how to evaluate theory or K's. Please be civil during cross. I do understand the flow, I just don't use jargon to describe it. I will know if you dropped something. FF matters a lot to me.
Ramachandran Damodaran
Lynbrook
None
Nihar Desai
Communication Academy
None
Ajay Dogra
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Wed September 26, 2018 at 8:31 PM EDT
I have more than 3 years judging experience.
I prefer speakers not speak too fast and use understandable talk speed.
Melisa Elko
Woodcreek
None
Oscar Estell
Mountain View
None
Benjamin Fagan
Palo Alto Debate
Last changed on
Tue January 16, 2024 at 2:13 AM PDT
I've beeen the Debate Director for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years. I competed in debate for all 4 years of high school, where I mostly participated in Lincoln-Douglas. I also debated Parli in college on the NPDA circuit.
I'm okay with basically every form of progressive argumentation provided it is run well. While I prefer topical interpretations, I really enjoy it when those interpretations branch out into the critical and theory levels of the debate. My threshold for theory debate in relatively high; in that there needs to be an actual tangible impact on the round, not just whining about hypothetical potentials for abuse. I'm unlikely to vote on Parli RVIs unless they go completely dropped. Be creative, have fun, run good analysis, but don't assume that I make connections for you.
Finally, I have a form of progressive hearing loss which means that, while I generally don't have a problem with the volume debate rounds are conducted at, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to prosses debate when the pace is much faster than conversational. I don't like to force debaters hands in terms of presentation or strategy, but it is crucial for me to be able to understand what you are saying.
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2019 at 9:10 AM PDT
Lay Judge
Please don't spread. thanks.
Argumentation
Basic policy arguments and stock cases are preferred. Plans are fine as long as the focus doesn't come down to a T debate.
On neg
Preferably stock negs with a VC. No Ks. No Theory. CPs and Pics are ok.
Like every other lay judge, be nice to each other and have fun.
-This is written by the debater if there are any questions go email cf51888@gmail.com
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:38 PM PDT
I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.
Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.
Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)
Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.
I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.
Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.
Above all, have fun.
Tracy Genesen
Miramonte
None
Steven Gensler
Palo Alto Debate
None
Last changed on
Sun September 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM PDT
I am a LAY JUDGE. I have been judging Public Forum and Lincoln - Douglas for the past two years. You will need to speak slowly for me to understand your arguments. Signpost and weigh your arguments clearly. I expect you to know your speech times and keep track of them yourself. Please do not use unnecessary jargon, this means no Kritiks, Theory, or Topicality. If you believe there has been a rule violation, please bring it up after the round while your opponent is still present. Do not be aggressive or rude, otherwise it will hurt your speaks. No shouting or raising your voice, emphasizing words and phrases is fine. Please be civil.
Last changed on
Thu November 17, 2016 at 1:47 AM PDT
- I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
- Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
- Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
- Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
- Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
- Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
- No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
- Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events.
- Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect.
Shalabh Goel
Fremont
None
Shalini Govil-Pai
Saratoga
None
Last changed on
Sun September 23, 2018 at 8:24 AM PDT
Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.
I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.
Harkanwal Halait
Foothill
None
Ken Hiremath
Sunnyvale Independent
Last changed on
Sun March 1, 2020 at 2:14 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. That means in order to effectively communicate to me, you should be slow, concise, and intentional throughout your argumentation. I have been judging slow debate for a while now and I try my best to be fully attentive during each debate. I will keep a detailed flow of each of the speeches and the cross examinations. In general, I appreciate well-developed arguments and despise late breaking debates where the crux of the affirmative/negative argument appears in the final rebuttal. Blatantly new arguments in the last rebuttals will not be evaluated.
Policy:
I am a stock issues based judge. If the affirmative does not fulfill their burdens under the stock issues, I will vote negative. Conversely, if the affirmative proves to me that they have fulfilled their burden on the stock issues, I will vote for them. What is up for debate, however, is exactly what each side's burden is on the stock issues. For example, if the negative says that the affirmative must solve for the entirety of the Yemen war to establish solvency, then I will hold the affirmative to that threshold (if they do not respond). Although I try to be as neutral as I can in this regard, I personally believe that the affirmative is a good policy option if it makes a significant positive departure from the status quo. That means for the negative, I would appreciate a substantive disadvantage to the affirmative or clearly articulated burdens for each of the stock issues.
I believe argument resolution is underutilized in debates. When judging, I am left with two opposing arguments but no guidance on how to resolve them in your favor. The best debaters utilize framing issues and evidence comparison to write my ballot.
Please be respectful in cross-ex. I understand you may have many questions to get through but cutting off your opponent crosses the line when they have clearly not gotten to the substantive portion of their answer. I will award high speaker points (29-30) to debaters who combine my above thoughts with respectful argumentation/composure in the debate.
Joanna Hong
Young Genius
None
Last changed on
Tue January 14, 2020 at 12:25 PM PDT
I am a lay judge, a parent of a current competitor, who has judged for approximately 3 years in public forum and 1 year in lincoln douglas.
Please do not be disrespectful to other competitors and don't interrupt each other during cross-ex, or else I will deduct your speaker points.
I highly value logical reasoning and will vote based on my understanding of your argument.
Huang HUANG
Young Genius
None
Jiabin Huang
BASIS Independent
None
Yonca Ilkbahar
BASIS Independent
None
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 1:18 AM PDT
Hi everyone,
I'm a college junior from the Bay Area and debated for 5 years throughout middle and high school. I primarily competed in Varsity Public Forum (3 years) but participated in Varsity Lincoln Douglas as well (2 years).
I judge on logic supported heavily by credible evidence. Please do not spread. I will flow speeches but will not cut you off. Respect your opponents; do not raise your voice. I enjoy a good cross-examination. I'm comfortable with framework debates and am open to hearing counterplans in LD only. Weighing is critical, especially in summary and final focus.
Please share with me a document where cards for each of your speeches can be found. Please also share a copy of your case so I can follow along as you read.
I will award speaker points as I see fit based on your rhetoric and eloquence and will not discriminate on the basis of accents/speaking disabilities.
Good luck and see you in round.
Sandya Janapaty
Presentation
None
Vijay Janapaty
Presentation
None
Li-Fu Jeng
Eand Independent
None
Hyonggi Jeon
Cupertino
None
Wenqing Jiang
Leland
None
Last changed on
Mon September 16, 2019 at 1:25 PM PDT
Hello, I am Sudhakar Jilla and I have judged for various schools over the last 5-6 years. I'm an average lay judge with no significant biases. nor am I ideologically opposed to voting for any argument. I think there's a side to be heard on everything - no hard and fast rules.
I am not a flow judge and I try to weigh arguments in terms of how convincing they are, do they back up with concrete evidence, defend their point of view and so on. Speed talking, being rude, condescending attitude, lack of clarity, not being respectful are definite turn-offs. If I can't hear or understand something important, it is your loss. I also don't appreciate misconstruing of evidence; if the card does not make sense to me, I will call for it and check to see if it states what you claim it says. I also expect opponents to call for evidence as well.
I don't understand all the debate jargon and would appreciate if you create clear link chains and explain them clearly. Interact with your opponents argument and tell me why I should prefer your argument over theirs.
Happy Debating !
Mathew Joseph
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Srinivas Kadiyala
Golden State
None
Nitin Kalje
Champion
None
Vishwas Karandikar
Leland
None
Last changed on
Fri October 11, 2019 at 9:56 AM PDT
I've been judging for a few years.
I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources.
Make eye contact with me and convince me with a carefully made argument. Please explain your arguments, and make it clear how your argument is relevant, or the logic of it.
Khalid Kazmi
Champion
None
Karma Kennibuss
Wilcox
None
Sandeep Khanna
Champion
None
Sunil Kothari
Mission San Jose
Last changed on
Sun September 30, 2018 at 3:25 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. Please try and keep the debate at a conversational speed. I prefer logic and persuasion more than just evidence and an illogical argument. Those who speak the most powerfully and have the best arguments will win the round.
James Kramer
American
None
Shekhar Kshirsagar
Leland
None
Last changed on
Wed January 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM PDT
I am a parent who has been judging PF for the past 7 years. The best way to win my ballot is to read thoroughly explained and well warranted arguments. I will do my best to flow, but please speak slowly and clearly.
Meera Lakhani
Palo Alto Debate
None
Shobhan Lakkapragada
Miller
Last changed on
Sun September 30, 2018 at 8:06 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with approximately 3 years of judging experience in PF and LD. I maintain a light flow but I am closer to a LAY judge than to a flow judge. Please NO SPREADING - please speak at a slow to medium pace so we can follow you along.
Also, I ask that you be respectful to opponents and not interrupt them during their time to talk. Please allow them to finish their point before you ask questions. Please do not shout or be too aggressive because that will lower you speaker points.
I am not a fan of Kritik or theory arguments, but will allow it if you take extra time to walk through your points slowly.
If there is a clear winner in the round, I will disclose. But more often I will take necessary time after the round to decide and then submit RFD and feedback through Tabroom.
Nguyen Le
BASIS Independent
None
Peyton Lee
Palo Alto Debate
Last changed on
Wed October 14, 2015 at 5:43 PM GMT
I debated at Pace & then Northwestern. I graduated NU in 2013. I'm currently in law school.
Things to note:
1) 1) I lean a little more tech over truth – as a debater I always felt like a dropped argument (note - "argument" requires a warrant) even when silly, should carry the weight of truth.
2) 2) keep in mind I’ve probably done no work or judging on your topic – that means acronyms need explanation, don’t take for granted background knowledge about your arguments, and T examples for what affs people have been running might require more explanation for me to get your point.
Substantive issues:
CPs – I probably lean neg on most CP theory issues. Most things are a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and conditionality probably means you should stick them with it. Lots of conditional worlds might be a voting issue. Affs should be more aggressive with permutations against silly cheating counterplans.
T – I love T debates. I think good cards are helpful but good explanation of your vision of the topic is essential. I think T is an under utilized tool for limiting the scope of the topic.
Ks – I basically never ran K’s. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t – but keep in mind that my background knowledge about the literature will be limited, so explanation is essential. As someone who usually thought of debate through the lens of CPs, the alternative is extremely important. You should have a good explanation of what I’m voting for, whether that is a more concrete explanation of the alt or a well-developed framework argument etc.
Affs that don’t defend the resolution – I will do my best to judge the round as debated. However, I find arguments about education and fairness extremely persuasive as reasons teams should defend the resolution. Tying your discussion to the resolution is a good start.
Other random things:
Stylistic point – I think arguments can be presented in any form. That said, if you do not follow a typical “line by line” structure I might find it difficult to match up your arguments as responses to the other teams. I would highly recommend some form of guidance in your speech for how you think your arguments interact with the other teams.
Card clipping policy – I won’t enforce this without it coming up in the debate, but if someone makes an ethics challenge I’ll stop the debate and decide only on that question. Don’t throw accusations around lightly. The burden of proof is on the accusing team and you should have video or some other method of showing that the other team clipped.
CX – It matters. I will listen and probably flow parts of it. Don’t waste it.
I have always found debate to be fun, and more so when people are nice to each other. That includes cross-ex and general interactions. If nothing else, rude behavior might affect your speaker points.
Alana Lemarchand
Young Genius
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2017 at 11:07 AM EDT
Solid factual, quantitative evidence with good sources and methodology provide superior evidence
Speak slowly enough to make your points clearly
Jing Li
BASIS Independent
None
Senzi Li
Palo Alto Debate
None
Last changed on
Sat October 6, 2018 at 5:50 PM PDT
I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging PF. I accept evidence by cards as well as logic and analysis. I prefer you provide me with a roadmap before the speech so I can follow each of your arguments and their supporting evidence. Reiterate your arguments in summary and final focus and weigh. Tell me what's the most important issue in the round of debate and why I should vote for you in your FF. If your opponent brings up new argument(s) in summary or final focus and you want me to ignore, please point it out for me. Time yourselves.
I award speaker points based on how well I can understand you. So please speak with clarity and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend. Do not use debate jargon because you risk not being understood.
Good luck and have fun!
Richard Liu
Mountain View
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2018 at 11:41 PM PDT
I have been doing PF judging for two years, in both preliminary rounds and elimination rounds. I pay more attention to rebuttal and how each side picks the other side's weak points and respond during cross fire.
Rahul Madnawat
Milpitas
None
Punitma Malhotra
BASIS Independent
None
Ram Manchkanti
Evergreen Valley
None
Hyma Marakani
Young Genius
None
Dave McClure
Champion
None
Mike Miller
Palo Alto Debate
None
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 3:06 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I have judged LD and PF in the past years and like both formats.
Please email me your cases so that I can better understand what you are speaking in a virtual round: manumishra@yahoo.com
I appreciate well constructed arguments and clear speaking. There is no need to show over aggression in your speeches. Please don't spread but if you do that there is a chance I may not hear you and flow. Yes, I do flow a little though if it is in the context. I consider cross-X sessions also in my evaluation, so be clear when you answer and respectful when you question. Do not interrupt your opponent excessively and let them speak. If I am unable to hear clearly I will not be able to give any credits.
Please respond to all of your opponents arguments with proper justifications. Have proper evidences in support. Be truthful. If I find any indication of falsifying any evidence, that's a disqualification.
Off-time roadmaps are OK. Please stay within the time limits for your speeches.
Be well behaved and respectful to your opponent(s) and enjoy the debate rounds, good luck!
Last changed on
Fri September 25, 2020 at 2:41 PM EDT
I am a lay judge. Pretend I don't know anything. I would prefer no counterplans, theory, or kritiks. Add me on the email chain sritamayush@gmail.com
Ramesh Mogili
Leland
None
Last changed on
Thu November 17, 2016 at 5:43 AM PDT
About me:
- I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
- Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
- Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
- Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
- Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
- Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
- No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
- Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events.
- Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect.
Amal Mulaomerovic
Milpitas
None
Claudia Munce
Presentation
None
Last changed on
Wed February 5, 2020 at 12:07 AM PDT
I am a parent judge for the last 4 years my kids have been competing in debate, and judge usually 3 times per season.
General
I don't favor jargon or technicalities, I prefer to be persuaded with logic and evidence, not theatrics, technical details or showmanship.
I’m fine with people watching the round as long as they are not a distraction. I would ask a spectator to leave if I felt they werent there to watch to debate politely and were distracting me or the debaters.
Speed: I rather you speak clearly and articulately. If I can follow you and your logic, then you cannot persuade me.
Speaker points: Things that will improve your speaker points are speaking clearly, responding effectively, making great eye contact. Speaking versus reading a script, and making your points easy to understand. Debating well is about making your points with logic and evidence, and performing well in the cross fires.
Evidence: If a team calls for a card you should be able to fairly promptly give it to them. If for some reason you don’t have a card I’m fine with you giving a PDF if you’ve already highlighted what you read in the PDF.
Please don’t hand an entire PDF over to your opponents and say you summarize like 5 pages of it because there is no way they can read that. In other words if you are reading a summary of a card and it’s 2 sentences you shouldn’t hand your opponents a card or PDF with three paragraphs highlighted.
If teams read a card and cannot produce it I will take it off my flow automatically. If their opponents then argue that not having cards you read is unethical and I should drop you I will definitely consider that argument.
Prep: Keep track of it.
Additionally: this shouldn't have to be said but of course don’t be rude, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc
Last changed on
Fri February 8, 2019 at 12:30 AM PDT
Hello,
My name is Hugo and I’ve been a lay judge for hire for 3 years. I do not have any experience competing as a speaker/debater. Please do not spread or I won’t be able to keep up. Speaking quickly is alright though, but if I can't follow along then I might miss the main point of an argument. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.
Last changed on
Fri January 13, 2023 at 4:24 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I will be taking notes during the round.
Please speak clearly and a fast conversational pace is fine
Please be courteous to your opponent.
Ramakrishna Nekkanti
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Sammy Oh
Palo Alto Debate
None
Kamala Palaniappan
Saratoga
None
Deepak Pimparkar
Evergreen Valley
None
Sunandini Radhakrishnan
Saratoga
None
saraswathi ram mohan
Cupertino
None
saraswathi ram mohan
Cupertino
None
Vara Ramakrishnan
Gunn
None
Last changed on
Thu January 23, 2020 at 12:02 PM PDT
i flow the round but i'm not tech and i can handle some speed (be safe and just go slow). i'm pretty well-read on most topics, especially economic ones, but i'm tech over truth. logic > evidence w/o warranting. if the tournament allows me to i'll disclose w/ a detailed rfd
Geetha Reddy
Mission San Jose
Last changed on
Thu March 14, 2019 at 4:38 AM PDT
hi i am a parent judge. i will try to do my best to take notes and flow but spreading and talking abnormally fast will make that hard for me. arguments that make sense to me are going to be evaluated with more weight than arguments that have a lot of evidence for them. for the market rate housing topic : i dont really know anything about this topic but will try to read up on it before i get to the tournament. even so, please try to do your best to explain all the terms and warrant your points please.
As always enjoy what your doing and have fun debating !
Geetha Reddy
Mission San Jose
Last changed on
Thu March 14, 2019 at 4:38 AM PDT
hi i am a parent judge. i will try to do my best to take notes and flow but spreading and talking abnormally fast will make that hard for me. arguments that make sense to me are going to be evaluated with more weight than arguments that have a lot of evidence for them. for the market rate housing topic : i dont really know anything about this topic but will try to read up on it before i get to the tournament. even so, please try to do your best to explain all the terms and warrant your points please.
As always enjoy what your doing and have fun debating !
Last changed on
Thu February 10, 2022 at 12:21 PM PDT
I currently work as a Director - Product Management at Salesforce. I have worked for various software companies like Oracle, Safenet/Gemalto, and Vormetric.
I have judged various high school level debate tournaments for last six years when my sons participated debate tournaments from Monta Vista High school, Cupertino. I have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate tournaments at Santa Clara University, Stanford, James Logan MLK etc.
If there are any other questions feel free to email me at ssaha9@yahoo.com
Argumentation:
Framework
Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.
Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them.
Speed
While I an fine with speed, I prefer convincing, clear, not too fast argumentation.
Jargon
I understand most PoFo and LD debate jargons, but if there are any new ones that you think that I may not know, explain to me.
Affirmatives
Provide an in-depth analysis along with strong evidences.
Negatives
Provide powerful in-depth analysis along with strong evidences
Cross
Be respectful, examine professionally with counter points
Jasmine Saini
Monta Vista
None
Veera Sandhiparthi
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Last changed on
Mon January 27, 2020 at 12:18 PM PDT
I am a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Be respectful of your opponents.
Brandon Schletzbaum
Milpitas
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 6:11 AM EDT
I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.
I will be flowing.
Good luck !
Jammie Schletzbaum
Milpitas
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:30 AM PDT
I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.
My Preferred Pronouns: she/her
For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.(You do not have to stand during grand crossfire in PF- this is the only exception).
Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not. I will write feedback on the ballot though, including an RFD and other relevant information for you to read. I am a flow judge. Keep that in mind and try not to drop things on the flow.
LD
For novices:
I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.
For Varsity:
Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.
I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.
Public Forum
Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.
Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. If I do not hear an author/date, I typically just write "blah blah" or "no source" on the flow, since I assume you are saying it yourself and it is not coming from a source. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials. Do not drop things on the flow. As a flow judge, that means if you drop something, you agree with it.
Policy
I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)
Parli
Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.
Himanshu Seth
Leland
None
Anil Shah
Monta Vista
None
Anish Shah
Monta Vista
None
shilpa shanbhag
Miller
None
Poonam Singh
Milpitas
None
Tanuja Singh
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Mathew Stanley
Milpitas
None
Lixue Sun
Palo Alto Debate
None
Rama Taraniganty
Miller
None
Last changed on
Thu November 17, 2016 at 12:48 AM PDT
- I am a Harker Parent Judge. My child participates in some form of policy, ld, public forum, congress, and/or IE so while I may know some basic concepts I will unlikely know any specific terminology. Below is what every harker parent judge has been taught.
- Non-Internventionist: I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.
- Style: Please speak slowly, clearly, and number your points. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.
- Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified soures, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.
- Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.
- Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact calculs why that outweighs your opponents main points. I wll limit my decision to soley arguments extended in the last two speeches. Competely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.
- No Double Wins: I will vote for, at most, only one team.
- Fair Speaker Points: My speaker points range from 24 to 29.5 in public forum and 26 to 29 in ld/policy. Both are with tenths of a point, no ties, unless otherwise noted by the tournament. The average mean is a 28 across all events.
- Have fun. Be courteous. Treat eachother with respect.
Shufang Tian
Palo Alto Debate
None
Pradeep Trivedi
Champion
None
Kelly Tsudama
Leland
None
Prasad Upadhyayula
BASIS Independent
Last changed on
Thu September 14, 2017 at 11:13 AM PDT
PF: please speak at a reasonable pace as I value breath over death. Everything said in Final focus must be in summary and make sure to weigh a lot.
Armen Vardapetyan
Fremont
None
Suresh Velayudhan
Miller
None
Kavitha Venkatesan
Evergreen Valley
None
Rashmi Verma
Saratoga
None
Guillaume Vives
Presentation
None
Last changed on
Sat December 15, 2018 at 6:00 AM PDT
I am a parent. This is my fourth year judging debates, and third year judging public forum. Refer to my judging record to gauge my judging experience.
I know some debate jargon, but am still learning. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most experienced judge, I would rate myself as a 6. I prefer to watch a debate as a civil and intelligent professional exchange of opinions. Be courteous to everyone. Do not mis-interpret any evidences and have your cards ready in case I call them. (Mis-representing a piece of evidence is enough reason to lose a round. So be careful here. )
On speaking style, I prefer well organized and clearly articulated speeches.
Good luck and have fun!
P.S. I don't disclose in prelim rounds unless it is required by a tournament.
P.S. When judging, I base my decision on information presented to me in the round and how it is presented. Use your judgement when deciding how to engage me in conversations.
David Wang
BASIS Independent
None
Cecily Winiecki
Leland
None
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2017 at 8:16 AM PDT
I am a new judge with very limited experience. I judge based on what you presented that I understand. So speak clearly.
I always try to ignore my own opinion on debate topic and focus on your quality of evidence, how you link them to your argument logically, how to find opponents' evidence quality and the weakness in their links between the evidence and their argument.
I prefer teams to time themselves and their opponents so that I can focus on taking notes and give a fair judging decision.
The final decision is very much on overall impression. I will ask myself who convinced me more. Then I will review my notes, make sure my personal opinion on the issue is not reflected in the judging decision.
Last changed on
Mon September 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM PDT
I am a parent judge
speak slowly
Leslie Xu
Palo Alto HS
None
Hassan Yaghoobi
Saratoga
None
Debi Yip
Mountain View
None
Last changed on
Sun March 6, 2022 at 1:09 AM PDT
I 'm a lay judge. Please:
1. Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot weigh an argument if I can't understand what you are saying.
2. Be polite to your opponents. Do not interrupt mid-speech. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
3. Please do NOT take too much time nor ask for too many cards. If I notice that you are doing it to extend your own prep time, I will be deducting speaker points.
4. It's extremely helpful to have more meaningful taglines. For example don't just say "Violence", instead say "Decrease in Violence".
5. Please keep your own time. If your opponent's go overtime, let them finish their sentence then cut them off, if necessary.
6. Don't expect that I understand the debate lingo or the topic.
7. If your opponent's drop an argument, you MUST extend it if you want me to weigh it.
Good luck and have fun!
Last changed on
Sun March 6, 2022 at 1:09 AM PDT
I 'm a lay judge. Please:
1. Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot weigh an argument if I can't understand what you are saying.
2. Be polite to your opponents. Do not interrupt mid-speech. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
3. Please do NOT take too much time nor ask for too many cards. If I notice that you are doing it to extend your own prep time, I will be deducting speaker points.
4. It's extremely helpful to have more meaningful taglines. For example don't just say "Violence", instead say "Decrease in Violence".
5. Please keep your own time. If your opponent's go overtime, let them finish their sentence then cut them off, if necessary.
6. Don't expect that I understand the debate lingo or the topic.
7. If your opponent's drop an argument, you MUST extend it if you want me to weigh it.
Good luck and have fun!
David Zhang
Los Altos
None
Last changed on
Fri October 16, 2020 at 2:22 PM EDT
Lay Judge. Speak slowly, enunciate clearly. Speaker points will be allocated by fluency, 27-28 very good.The debate should be respectful. Crossfire shouldn't have people talking over each other.
I like Medicare-for-All to talk about US but I will consider developing world arguments.
I will not disclose unless it is mandatory.
Howard Zhou
Saratoga
None