SCU Dempsey Cronin Invitational

2016 — Santa Clara, CA/US

Lalitha Abraham Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amit Agarwal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anuj Aggarwal Paradigm

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.

DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too. 

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD .  If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.

 

HAVE FUN DEBATING ;)

 

Srilatha Ajjarapu Paradigm

I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional arguments. Please try not to run theory, Ks, or any other circuit arguments. I will have a hard time understanding them. However, if you do choose to run circuit arguments, spend a little more time explaining them.

These are my preferences:

Speed: I can not judge speed. It is still a challenge for me. Slowing down makes it much easier to follow your arguments.

Signpost: Signposting is important.

Links: The links between each contention and its value must be clear.

Extensions: Try just not to extend the tag and the date, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round.

Crystallization: A very crucial technique. You should be able to sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Final notes: Be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Good Luck!

Marie Angelique Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ayyappan Arasu Paradigm

I am aparent judge and have experience judging LD Novice rounds last year. I generally do not disclose the decision after of the round, but, will leave inputs on the ballot.

I am not comfortable with speed, but if you decide to you must be extremely clear.

If you spread you must flash the case/rebuttal to both me (email) and your opponent. Go slow and sign post on the taglines, analytics and especially during rebuttals. If you don't I probably won't understand the arguments you are making and won't vote on them. If you don't see me flowing/typing or I have a confused expression, I probably don't understand what you are saying and you should slow down. For each card you extend explain the impact and how it functions under the debate, the same goes with framework. I will only vote on things that are extended in your last speech.

K's:

Read slowly and explain clearly. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

Plan/Counterplan:

I will more comfortable with the plan/counterplan debate and will prefer if you run these types of arguments over K's and phil.

Theory:

I am only familiar with conditionality but I will be able to understand other theory arguments if they are clearly explained and have a real implication to the debate. Slow down on the interp and counter interps.

Have fun debating!

Uma Asthana Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rahul Asthana Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brinda Balagopal Paradigm

I have been judging LD for 3 years. Not many rules:

1. I appreciate a good clash but don't be rude. I will deduct points for rudeness to your opponents.

2. Don't spread. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

3. Signpost & Crystallize. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention and try and crystallize.

4. Don't make up spurious facts. If your opponent catches you and points that out ~ that is automatic deductions.

Apart from that, enjoy yourself.

Vinod Balakrishnan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Prakash Balakrishnan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suresh Balasubramanian Paradigm

Please don't spread

Well constructed arguments will always win me over compared to aggressive behavior

Omar Baldonado Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anindita Banerjee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lorenzo Barberis Canonico Paradigm

I flow pretty intensively, but I prefer to vote off of voting issues (a larger analysis of multiple points) than just one card.

I'm open and appreciate well articulated philosophical positions (Ks included), and I'll listen to anything but obscene worldviews such as evolutionary justifications for racism and what not.

I can vote off of theory, but no one has fun when the violations are frivolous. As such, I'm very persuaded to make theory an RVI to deter bad theory. If you plan on running a shell, go all in and articulate every section with logical justifications. The violation should be very specific, and the standard or standards should be fleshed out. At the end fo the day, it's a value debate like everything else in LD, so you are unlikely to persuade anyone by just shouting one liners.

Having done events outside of LD, I appreciate great presentations skills. They mostly affect speaker points, not the outcome of the round. I will give a 30 to a strong presenter. This means that even though I'm fine with speaking quickly, clarity is really important.

Lastly on the subject of speed, I really encourage both debaters to weigh arguments as opposed to trying to out-spread each other. Deep thoughtful analysis of core issues is more important than underscoring concessions. To that end, framework debate plays a huge role in the round.

Mohammed Battisha Paradigm

I am a Parent Judge. Unfortunately I have not debated before, but I have judged at several LD tournaments. I like the competitive nature of debate, but I believe it is only enjoyable if combined with civility, clarity and honesty.

General Considerations:

  • Try to be organized and competent in traversing and responding to the flow. This combined with the logical construction of your argument is one of my main criterions in deciding the winning ballot.
  • I appreciate honesty and clarity. The main goal of the debate is to present a clear argument and support it with solid evidence, not to trick your opponent or the judge with a hidden argument. Avoid sneaking in evidence during your last speech or giving baseless claims to refute your opponent's argument.
  •  I'm not a fan of spreading, or generally speaking too quickly, so try to avoid it as much as you can. Usually, I'll warn you once about it. If you keep speaking too fast, I will deduct speaker points and may not bother trying to follow your argument.

 

Value and Value Criteria

  • It is always great to have a value and value criteria that are deeply thought about. Your contentions and evidence should be linked clearly to them.

Contentions/Evidence

  • After presenting your contentions, I usually grade each of them with a number from 1 to 10 based on the following criteria: 
    • How it is related to your value and value criterion.  
    • The strength of the provided evidence
  • Throughout the debate I may increase or decrease this number based on your argument and your opponent's rebuttal, and I will use the final grade as guidance for my final decision
  • The evidence provided should be substantial. I would prefer a few solid, well thought about pieces of evidence rather than a lot of superficial/illogical evidences.
  • You should follow up your opponent's contentions and refute them in an organized manner.

Cross-examination

  • Cross-examination is a great time to exhibit your communication ability and advance your arguments. Do not be mean, rude or unhelpful. I do not think the goal of CX is to bully your opponent. Doing this will result in a reduction of your speaker points and it may cost you a round if it is too close.

Dave Becker Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anjali Bedekar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Narayan Bhagavatula Paradigm

Not Submitted

Milan Bhardwaj Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrew Bigler Paradigm

Not Submitted

Medha Bodas Paradigm

Not Submitted

Barbara Bryan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Becky Bull Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rosanna Callegari Paradigm

Not Submitted

Naveen Chandra Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Chao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joan Chen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Carrie Chen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Fang Chen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Winnie Chiang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mallikarjun Chillal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Young-suk Choi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chih-Ling Chou Paradigm

I am a LD judge and have been judged for 4 years. I weigh the round of value and value criterion. Please link back to framework. Also make sure all arguements are topical.

Kamakshi Choudhary Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephen Chow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Josh Clark Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Cutinha Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ajay Dawra Paradigm

  1. Debaters can speak as fast as they can … but remember if I don’t understand the debater’s point I don’t give debater a point, given that I can understand fast speaking but not ultra-fast speaking;
  2. I don’t give a win just because someone is better speaker; I look at how good the case is and how well it is supported throughout the debate.
  3. I take Cross X Q/A (and clash) seriously and how debaters use them to attack opponent case or support their own case.
  4. If case or argument doesn’t support Value and Value Criterion debater lose. Establish the connection between case and V/VC, don’t assume that it is self-explanatory.
  5. Confidence is good but arrogance is no go; a strong attack on the opponent case is expected without crossing the arrogance line.

John Dawson Paradigm

I am a parent or lay judge, a low form of life just above single-cell.  In policy judging I am a stock issues type of judge.  If you have a counterplan it must negate the resolution.  I favor claims with evidence.  I prefer quantitative evidence to non-quantitative, and am open to hearing why your evidence is more on point than your opponent's.   I am open to kritik and theory but will reject most of it.  I count frivolous and weak arguments (including kritik and theory that I think are very weak or far-fetched) as weighing in the opponent's favor, ie I don't simply discard them but view them as losses to that side.  An unanswered strong argument will influence me greatly.  But, if you drop a very weak argument or element of an argument, particularly if your opponent made several arguments and you spent your time rebutting the more valid ones, I will mostly ignore the very weak argument and the fact that you dropped it.  I am open to some narrative but not to the exclusion of evidence etc.  I weigh ad hominem attacks including offensive diction as in the opponent's favor, or in extreme cases as deciding the round.  I am tolerant of going very slightly over time limits such as finishing a sentence but not more.  I flow; I am OK with moderate spreading but not 500wpm.  I am also ok with persuasive speeds; in the case of persuasive debate I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity etc (along with artfulness of cross-ex) for speaker points but not for deciding the round.  I like signposting (remember I am just barely multi-cellular) and explicit linking.  I will do my best to not fill in the blanks if there is a linkage you should have made, but didn't explicitly; I won't count it against you, but not for you either.  When in doubt, draw the dotted line for me.

thanks for debating.

Sankar Dhinu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Fan Du Paradigm

Not Submitted

Laleh Ebadat Paradigm

Not Submitted

Satish Fernandes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ken Fong Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eric Foster Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jerry Gao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nitin Garg Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shilpa Garg Paradigm

Not Submitted

Neeta Garimella Paradigm

Parent Judge with little debate experience in work-life :-)
I am a traditional judge ONLY and do not understand circuit argument and spreading.

I'm a Software architect with very deep and equally wide experience in cluster-based storage/file system technologies. If that does not make sense, think of the data consumption needs of supercomputers or backends of facebook, Yahoo and google that you use everyday. You can learn more about me as a professional at LinkedIn

I have two kids who have done debate in high school, younger one is still in sophomore. My judging experience time-wise is not as long, though it has been super rich in experience where I have judged LD, Congress, and Public Forum. In my short tenure, I have judged final rounds, been officially challenged on my decision and debaters challenging key evidences. The decision challenge (4th round) was an interesting experience in learning how hard it might be for some folks to lose and come up with biased reasoning why a judge was biased. I was thrilled to discover the debater I voted for ended up winning all six rounds and challenger went onto winning  5-1

The reason for that background is that I'm highly logical and strictly follow arguments flow  as run by the debaters. This means I will view  your evidences, arguments and refutations exactly as you present them (I will not read your data, unless there is an exception). So its important that you speak in a manner that is crisp, clear, comprehensible and respectful. Make it easy for me to compare and contrast your position against your opponent's. The better I understand, easier it gets for me to do my job. Do not leave a lot of post debate thinking to your judges. I must admit that sometimes it is very hard to vote and then I lean on finer elements like the "value criteria" I have chosen to go along, strength of the argument/rebuttals and most importantly quick-thinking/adaptation demonstrated.

The most important is that I personally view this as a learning opportunity and to that end I go extra mile to provide meaningful feedback to each debater regardless of my vote. Having lived long enough, I now know that I'm quite critical in constructive way. So you will get enough from me for ongoing improvement. Also, I try very hard to be aware of my sub-conscious biases and preferences and cast them away by second guessing and questioning my own line of reasoning to rest the case purely based on your very own presentation.  

So its your debate, your performance is the single most critical factor in the outcome, as I leave everything at the door except my pure intellect to process only what you present. 

Relax, enjoy the round and be in the moment and trust that your preparation will rescue you.

 

 

 

Sanjiv Ghate Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sunondo Ghosh Paradigm

I'm a lay / parent judge. I have judged policy debate for a couple of years, and LD debate for several years prior to that. I don't flow, but do take detailed notes during rounds in order to make a judgement. I focus on the strength of arguments and counter arguments to make a judgement. I try not to be biased, and am willing to vote purely based on the strength of arguments. I don't like spreading, so please speak at a pace that is understandable. Good summaries of arguments and counter arguments in the last few rounds are important to me to identify the key reasons to make my judgement - so make sure you cover all all your points clearly. However, don't make any new arguments in the last few rounds if you haven't already covered it in the initial rounds.

I do not like rude behavior or interrupting the other team while they are speaking - so please be respectful during the rounds. I like to give feedback to the teams to explain my thinking for my judgements and help them get better for future rounds.

Pradiptya Ghosh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Janakiraman Gopalan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dinesh Gopinathan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sandeep Gopisetty Paradigm

My name is Sandeep Gopisetty and I am a parent of a former LD contestant and now currently a parent of an IE contestant.

Although I prefer a traditional Lincoln Douglas debate, I am open to flow as long as the arguments are at a speed that I can understand the points being made. My evaluations are always based on the debate and not on the loudest or even the best speaker. Historically, I have provided feedback to the candidates right after the debate based on arguments, its evidences and cross-examinations with suggestions to improve.

Mandeep Gupta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vinay Gupta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Max Hagelthorn Paradigm

Not Submitted

Baishali Halder Paradigm

Not Submitted

Santosh Hambir Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ki-Jana Hernandez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hamilton Hitchings Paradigm

Not Submitted

Richard Ho Paradigm

Not Submitted

Qingyang Hu Paradigm

I am an amateur parent judger with a few years of occasional judging experience. I usually make a decision based on who addressed all the points sufficiently, either by logic or fact. A good speaker will win points but not necessarily the debate itself. I don't like spreading because I can't catch all the points if you speak too fast.

Charles Huang Paradigm

Parent judge, don't speak fast

Edith Huang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Raymond Huang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wei Huang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Frank Huang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Micheline Isaac Paradigm

Not Submitted

Manjunath Iyengar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Leo Jiang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kim Jones Paradigm

Not Submitted

Luciana Joseph Paradigm

Not Submitted

Devendra Joshi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dublin Judge Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kavitha Kamarthy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sanjay Kapoor Paradigm

Not Submitted

Samir Kapoor Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vandana Kaul Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hannah Koh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mahadev Kolluru Paradigm

I have been judging LD and Speech events at different Bay Area competitions including Santa Clara and UoP, over past 2 years.  

My philosophy is very straight-forward:  

  1. Participants can ask Judges their preferences before the debate starts.
  2. Debaters need to be courteous to and respectful of their opponents - no personal attacks.
  3. I am OK if debaters want to spread, though am not a big fan. Participants are free to ask this question before start of competition.
  4. Debaters can make any relevant points substantiated with evidence to support their argument, within the guidelines stipulated by the competition organizers.
  5. I always look at the impact made by the debaters.     Prefer debaters to summarize their viewpoints supporting their AFF/NEG stand, before concluding their argument.
  6. I do follow their debate flows, and monitor dropped lines of thought. Will not readmit dropped flows, in accordance with contest rules.

 

Jayashree Krishnamurthi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Umesh Krishnaswamy Paradigm

I have been a parent judge for 3 years. I flow but consider me a flay judge and I try to be completely unbiased going into the round. I cannot flow spreading make sure to speak as fast as you would with a novice judge.

I do not evaluate crossfire for the result of the round other than your speaker points. Any concessions made in cross must be brought up in a speech otherwise I will not evaluate it. Please make sure to be courteous during cross otherwise your speaker points will reflect that.

The way I evaluate the round is based on extended impacts in summary and final focus. Make sure that you impacts are warranted otherwise I will not consider the impacts. Everything you reference in final focus must be extended through summary otherwise I will not evaluate it in the round. Most importantly WEIGH otherwise I will have to do my own weighing analysis and you might not like the results.

Gita Kulashekar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amol Kulkarni Paradigm

Not Submitted

Manish Kumar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Muhesh Kumar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Parul Kumar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shalu Kumar Paradigm

I judge on how well you are organized, how well you support your points, how well you refute your opponent's points, and your speaking skills.

Tharun Kuppireddy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sridhar Lakshmanamurthy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Queenie Leung Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xianfeng Li Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yafeng Li Paradigm

I only have judged novice round and lay rounds before so I prefer you to talk slower and construct and explain your arguments well. 

Please don't run any extremely complicated arguments or any arguments that are too "out there"

During your last speech, give clear reasons why you won and why I should vote for you.

Cynthia Li Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ziangyang Li Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Lin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ge Liu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Revatha Loghashankar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wei Fah Loo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wes Loofbourrow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hannah Lu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xin Lu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suman Madadi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Monte Malhotra Paradigm

Not Submitted

Giridhar Manda Paradigm

Not Submitted

Pushpa Manickam Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mukesh Mathur Paradigm

Not Submitted

Roopa McNealis Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vaishali Mehta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Preeti Midha Paradigm

I've been judging lay debate for two years. I'm fluent enough to understand terms like "extend across the flow", but make sure to explain everything when making arguments. I'm fairly competent at flowing, but going too fast means that I'm not able to write everything down. On the topic of speed, please slow down! Speak as you normally would, but anything faster means I either won't be able to understand it or flow it. 

Please keep it simple in terms of non-specalized arguments. Reword anything like a DA or K to a contention and make sure to explain it very clearly (if you still think that's the best strategy). Any philosophical debate outside the areas of Util and Deont will need explaining. 

Just be a nice person in round. I prefer quality over quantity, so arguments need to be well developed and thoroughly explained in order for me to vote on them. I have no specific argument preference, but anything explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a definite "no-no". 

Roadmap: I love roadmaps, but make sure you aren't using too much time that doesn't count towards your speech.

Extensions: Extend arguments yourself. Don't just tell me the card name; explain the specific piece of evidence. 

Speed: GO SLOW!

FW: Please have a clear framework that's well explained. 

Theory: Don't go here.

Signposting: Do this! It helps me a lot with flowing otherwise arguments just get all jumbled up and mixed together.

Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity. 

Prep: Manage your own prep time with your own timer. 

Kumer Mukesh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rohit Mukherjee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Daniel Muller Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suhas Mutatkar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sim Kaliyur Narasimhan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sri Narasimhan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shantharam Nekkar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Thanh Nguyen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hang Nguyen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Niu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Davis Parent One Paradigm

Background:

I am a coach of the Davis High School Debate team.  I took on the position without experience but have gained quite a bit by following my team around and judging everything from local, to private school, to state and national tournaments.  I have judged LD and Policy on the national level as a result of their tenacity.  I am thankful for these experiences and have really enjoyed judging and learning as I go.  I now teach the speech and debate class at the school.

I can give you generally how I vote and what I am looking for.


Speed: Go any speed you want but make sure you are clear. Make sure you road-map and signpost very clearly.  Although I can follow the spread just fine, I want your points to be clear and I want to be able to understand what you are saying. slow down when you tag and cite if it is a new source.

Evaluation: I will judge based mainly on the flow.  I want to see organization of your arguments and clear clash.  I will  base my decision on flow, but also good solid adherence to your argument and value criterion.  Set up a strong framework.  This will be the ultimate basis of the case and the flow will prove whether your framework is solid


Theory: I am familiar with theory and philosophical debates and have judged quite of few of these.  Just make sure you support it and don't have it be just fluff to distract from the debate.  I will definitely entertain the idea of a good K if you really explain it and handle the cross x of that idea.

Lastly, I like good decorum.  I like you to treat your opponents with respect and keep the debate about the issues so no ad hominem.  Win on good debate skills and not bullying.  

Have fun 

 

 

Diana Pang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sumathy Panicker Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vibhuti Patel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Deepika Pathak Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cristina Paulus Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sakthi Ponnuswamy Paradigm

 

Update: Please only use e-mail chains. No flashing! 

I am a sophomore at UC Berkeley and debated at Presentation High School for 4 years. Two of those years were on the circuit

 

Theory/Topicality:

-      RVIs are fine 

 

K’s

-     I don't understand them and have realized I can't judge them either. Don't run them in front of me. 

 

Disads/CP

-       Go for it! I’ll understand it!

 

Framework:

 

-      I don't understand complex framework - was a util debater and that's what I'm most comfortable evaluating. 

Seema Prabhakaran Paradigm

Not Submitted

Roopa Prakash Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vishakha Prasad Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yan Qu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ravikumar Raghavenderrao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Annika Ragnartz Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ramya Rajagopalan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vijay Ramalingam Paradigm

Congress:

My experience is being a parent of a Congressional debater. My ranking system is based predominantly on content, and I will be flowing clash on both sides. That being said, I value clash significantly, and is a factor that I take into account when ranking (Don't worry if you are giving the first few speeches; I understand that clash isn't possible in the beginning). Overall participation is key, and I will be paying attention to the most detailed questions in cross-examination. Parliamentary procedure is not much of an issue for me. I couldn't care less about it, and not everyone is familiar with all procedure, so I won't rank off of it. Although I value content in the speech, I still look at the basic requirements of delivery. All I am looking for is that you enunciate and project, while remaining confident and limiting speaking speed to a normal or just above normal pace.

Just to be sure, please don't use language or actions that are disrespectful to others in the round.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN

Rajesh Rangnekar Paradigm

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Rangnekar%2C+Rajesh

I am a parent judge and have enjoyed judging many LD debates. I appreciate structure and clarity in presenting the contentions and look for logical arguments supported by evidence where possible. I do not follow spreading which may lead to a disadvantage in my allocation of speaker points and assessment of overall performance. I appreciate engaging debates that are done in a mutually respectful manner and without exaggeration. Feel free to ask me questions at the time of the debate.

Moniva Rangroo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Meghana Rao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jagadeshwari Rathinam Paradigm

Not Submitted

Winston Ratnam Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rajrupa Raychaudhuri Paradigm

Not Submitted

Raj Reddy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Levy Richmond Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wolfgang Roethig Paradigm

Not Submitted

Pai Rohith Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bhupinder Saluja Paradigm

Not Submitted

Meenakshi Sambasivam Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jaspi Sandhu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Maya Sanghavi Paradigm

email: maya.sanghavi@gmail.com (please feel free to reach out by email/fb if you have pre/post round questions or if you're a small school debater and need help of any sort)

i debated circuit LD for MVLA for two years, graduated in 2018, and received one bid to the TOC my senior year. i've taught at NSD Flagship (2018, 2019) and TDC (2019), and i now attend UCLA.

theory/t: 1

framework/tricks: 1-2

util/larp: 2-3

kritiks: 3-4

**update for cal 2019** it seems that i am actually better at evaluating k debates than complicated util debates. do with that what u will

also if ur reading reasonability and don't give me a brightline or tell me to gut check i will gut check competing interps <3 ("good is good enough" is not, in fact, a good enough brightline)

here is all u need to know: debate is your activity, so i'll vote on any argument that is warranted and won. the pref shortcut above is solely based on my familiarity with certain types of arguments and any ideological preferences that you may think i have will not affect my evaluation of the round. i'll determine speaks based on execution and humor, rather than argument choice, so please read what you are best at in front of me, as opposed to what you think i'd like to see. i will evaluate the round how you tell me to, and the last thing i want to do is intervene, so please weigh a bunch and give clear overviews - make the round as clear as possible. don't be offensive. i like theory (idc how friv your shell is). i'm not well read in most k lit - i'm still happy to vote on kritiks, but my threshold for explanation in a k debate is probably higher than most judges.

defaults (if you make me default i will be sad and your speaks will suffer so make the appropriate args pls and thank u):

· strength of link weighing on impacts/layers

· theory: drop the arg, no RVI, competing interps, fairness and education are voters, fairness > edu

· epistemic confidence

· truth testing

· aff presumption/neg permissibility

· theory/t > kritik (if strength of link is irresolvable)

· tech > truth

have fun :)

Abhijit Sant Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jennie Savage Paradigm

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

Shivanand Sawant Paradigm

Not Submitted

Melissa Scheve Paradigm

Not Submitted

Charles Schletzbaum Paradigm

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate

PHYSICS TEACHER


History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

In all events: Assume if the resolution is true, then I'm voting aff. If it is not proven, then I'm voting neg, and unless told explicitly otherwise or the gymnastically twisted resolutions, tie goes against "taking an action" (presumption/perceived aff burden to prove the res).

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:


While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, as I have seen a bizarre one once, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.


I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin america topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on T if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.


LD (p.s. Sep/oct 2016 pronounce NEW-CLEE-ERR *sigh*)

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event I judge. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments. It didn't work for the racism k kids in policy in the movie resolved, and drop the debater because fairness is a voter won't work either in my round (for example)

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW.....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.


I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.



GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Scu 6 Scu 6 Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ihs Scu 7 Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ihs Scu 8 Paradigm

Not Submitted

Younes Shabany Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kuntal Shah Paradigm

Not Submitted

Samir Shah Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nagendra Shukla Paradigm

Not Submitted

Singh Singh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sonia Singhal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ryan Skolnick Paradigm

Debate is a game. Play to win. Run your theory shells, specs, whatever you need to. Be strategic.

Speed is fine.

If you're going to run a K, clarity becomes paramount, since I likely won't be as well read on the subject as you.

Love a good CP debate

Write my ballot for me. Make my job easy.

Euna Song Paradigm

Not Submitted

Viji Srinivasan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amit Srivastava Paradigm

Not Submitted

Seema Srivastava Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dhruv Srivi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ruk Sundaramurthy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Smitha Sureshbabu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jagannadh Tangirala Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jerry Teoh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Madhukar Thakur Paradigm

Not Submitted

Steve/Kathy Thibault Paradigm

Not Submitted

Murali Thirunagari Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jatinder Thukral Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amit Tiwari Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ajoy Tiwari Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jenny Tran Paradigm

Not Submitted

Camila Vasquez Paradigm

Assistant Director of Palo Alto Speech and Debate Team
have been judging LD, and the odd Policy or PF round for the past three years.
The essentials:
-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.
-Give me voters. Tell my why you win(without being abusive, please) or else I'm gonna come up with my own way to judge who won.
-Value Debate:

Give one. Don't argue morality vs justice or some value that's almost the same thing. That's silly.

But also give one or else I'll judge by some arbitrary standard
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.
-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that means.
What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow
-If I'm judging a policy round and the CP is AC + something else, DON'T ARGUE SOLVENCY, like seriously, why? That makes no sense, you're now arguing against your case and that's silly.

Sudheer Vemula Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nagaraj Venkatapuram Paradigm

Not Submitted

J Vetteth Paradigm

Not Submitted

Virek Vipul Paradigm

Not Submitted

Harish Kumar Voodarla Paradigm

Not Submitted

Odaiyappan Vs Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amit Wadhwa Paradigm

Not Submitted

Winnie Wan Paradigm

I want debaters to present their case clearly. I don't like it when debaters spread. I do not give points to others who say things that don't make sense, every single sentence of your case need to prove a point.

David Wang Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Wang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Candace Wang Paradigm

I am an ex-LD debater with an emphasis on framework arguments. I do not like theory. If this is an LD round, I want a values debate, with persuasive, coherent, and eloquent arguments. Sign-posting is important! If you don't sign-post, it is very easy for the debate to get muddy very quickly. We don't want that. I can't be as fair and as effective of a judge if that happens. Also, please come prepared, be professional, and you'll perform well. So let's make this a great round: sign-post, weigh, crystallize, win. Looking forward to evaluating your round and good luck!

Jenny Wang Paradigm

I'm a parent judge. My expectations are:

1. Speak clearly so that I can understand

2. Be professional

Art Wellersdick Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cathy Williams Paradigm

Not Submitted

Becky Wong-Insley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yinglian Xie Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gayatri Yadavalli Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yanru Yang Paradigm

  • 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. 

Jun Yang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Subba Yantra Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xiaobing Zhang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeff Zhao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Audrey Zhao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Larry Zhu Paradigm

Not Submitted