31st Annual Stanford Invitational
2017
—
Stanford,
CA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Uma Achutha
The Golden State Academy
None
Prakash Aditham
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Amit Agarwal
Leland High School
None
Shami Ahuja
Notre Dame HS
None
Libby Almeida
Oak Ridge High School
None
Pam Alster-Jahrmarkt
ILEAD Schools
None
Indira Anupindi
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
zoleikha asefirad
Leland High School
None
Amir Ali Asgari
Rancho Bernardo High School
None
Miguel Asturias
George Washington CO
None
Priya Balachandran
Leland High School
None
Bhuvana Balaji
Leland High School
None
Monika Bansal
Saratoga High School
None
Michele Bauer-Bean
Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy
None
Teja Bedi
Young Genius Academy
None
Sonu Bedwa
The Golden State Academy
None
Vijay Bellam
Cupertino HS
None
Neeraj Bhatia
Evergreen Valley
None
Tina Bonilla
Jesuit High School
Last changed on
Thu November 16, 2017 at 12:23 PM PDT
Hello everyone! I'm a relatively new judge so please bear with me. :)
Parli Debate:
Please refrain from the use of speed/spreading (I can handle a faster paced speech but not too fast)
Please do not present K-theories
It would be preferred if you kept your voices to a medium/low tone (don't shout)
Avoided to many POIs (I don't mind the use of them, but don't abuse them)
If you can, please use a source or two (although you don't have to)
Organization is key! (I judge primary on flow)
Impromptu:
No canned speeches!
Mike Borgsdorf
Granada Hills High
None
Cole Boyer
Claremont
None
Sean Burgess
Davis Senior HS
Last changed on
Thu January 3, 2019 at 7:14 AM PDT
I am a parent with experience judging at league and invitational tournament events since 2016. I have no personal experience competing, but I appreciate creative and well-argued approaches to the resolutions. I frown upon cases that appear to be lifted from the internet since conventional and formulaic case presentations tend to sound more alike as the season progresses.
Please do not spread at the expense of diction. If you see me put down my pen, I am no longer following your argument. I judge based on clear logical flow of arguments and proper clash. While I try to follow the technical aspects of the debate (e.g. if contentions are addressed or not in the rebuttal), I do not appreciate when students argue that they win the debate based on technical principles alone.
Absent unethical behavior, I expect to award points in the 27-29 point range, holding 30 for exceptional and rare cases. I put a high value on professional demeanor and frown upon overly aggressive attacks on your opponent. I also frown upon asking opponents to repeat what they just said, with the exception of asking to see cards. Full points will not be awarded if a competitor's ultimate case is based on mass extinction or nuclear annihilation where I have to suspend my otherwise tabula rasa foundation.
Yuan Cai
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Gavin Chan
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun February 4, 2024 at 4:02 AM PDT
Just go with your preparation and keep it relevant to your topic and do your best. You'll be judged by each of the judging criteria outlined for each event. I'm given equal weights for each criteria at this time (may do weighting in near future).
Indranil Chandra
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat December 5, 2020 at 4:24 AM PDT
About Me:
My name is Indranil Chandra and I work in IT. My son goes to Dougherty Valley HS, and I have been judging for 2 years for debate.
Paradigm:
Don't be overly aggressive in cross or I'll immediately dock points. I would like all debaters to speak at a slower level, so I can understand the true extent of what everyone is saying. I may interject with the occasional "clear" if I feel like I'm not understanding what you're saying.
I may take notes on what I think is important in the round. Please make voting easy for me, and do some serious impact calc. in final focus. I like to see the real world effects of these topics, and I'm going to vote for the side that has impacts that are clear and outweigh their opponents.
The following is a rating system that says how much certain aspects of the debate will have a say in my final vote:
Clothing/ Appearance: 1 : Literally doesn't matter, express yourself however you want
Evidence: 3 : Specific cards may not have a say in the final vote, but strong evidence will win me over. However, don't just cite the card as a refutation, please briefly go over the card and what it entails
Impacts: 4 : As I said before, I like good impact calc.
Cross Ex: 2 : Doesn't affect my judging decision. Keep it clean, be courteous and you'll be fine.
Debate Skills vs. Arguments: 4 : I will vote more off impacts rather than speaking style.
Remember to keep the debate a safe environment, but most of all have fun :)
Naveen Chandra
Leland High School
None
Hsiu-ju Chang
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Wed November 9, 2016 at 9:24 AM PDT
I am a judge who does not do well with fast speaking. I like it if points are explained very thoroughly and logically. I do not have much experience in debating, so debate terminology may need to also be explained. I do not like it if points are backed up by false facts or no facts, so make sure to have evidence!
Additionally, I do not understand theory or Ks very well and would prefer on-case, traditional debates.
Sharon Chang
Leland High School
None
Chih-Ling Cho Chih-Ling Cho
Los Altos High School
Last changed on
Sun September 30, 2018 at 3:06 PM PDT
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.
Madhavi Chimata
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Kamakshi Choudhary
Leland High School
None
Moon Chun
Leland High School
None
George Clemens
Lake Highland Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri November 6, 2020 at 7:27 AM EDT
Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.
Since I am judging more PF these days:
Clear ballot story. I care about evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case constructive, you had better have tagged, cited, and lined down carded evidence to support what you say. If you are looking for evidence in your prep time or in cross ex or I have to wait 5 minutes for you to find something before prep time even starts, you are debating from behind and your speaks will reflect your lack of preparation.
CX: Don't talk over each other. They ask a question, you ask a question. Bullies are bullies. I don't like bullies.
If it wasn't in the summary, it doesn't become offense in the Final Focus. Sign-post well. Have a ballot story in mind.
I hate generic link stories that culminate in lives and poverty. The link level matters a lot more to me than the impact level. Develop your link level better. High Probability/Low Magnitude impacts > Low Probability High Magnitude impacts.
Don't be a baby. If you and your coaches are trying to get cheap wins by bullying people with Ks and Theory and hand-me-down shells from your teams former policy back files, go to policy camp and learn how to become a policy debater. Disclosure is for plan texts. If you are running a plan, disclose it on the wiki. If you are not, no need to disclose. Disclosure privileges resource-rich debate programs with a team of people to prep your kids out.
Magdalena Constantino
Carter HS
None
Hope Cornish
George Washington CO
None
Don Crabtree
Park Hill High School
None
Lauren Cuellar
Korea International School
None
Dave Curtis
Carlsbad HS
None
Minnia Curtis
Carlsbad HS
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 11:47 AM PDT
I believe that all debates should be an educational activity, with inherent qualities of persuasion and logic. I want to hear debating about the topic, not technicalities of rules. I also want a persuasive, well-presented debate, and NOT speed delivery.
Susan D'Angelo
Leland High School
None
Sherwyn D'Souza
Wesley Academy
None
Ashmi Desai
Monte Vista
None
Veena Devaraj
Leland High School
None
Rama Devulapalli
The Golden State Academy
None
Sujatha Doraiswamy
Saratoga High School
None
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2020 at 1:41 AM PDT
Tom Dunlap
Monte Vista High School, Danville, CA
Ten years judging Lincoln Douglas
Eight years judging other events
I'm an assistant speech and debate coach, a former English teacher with 18 years of experience, a substitute teacher, and a tutor.
I favor a moderate, measured speed of delivery--I detest spreading. I value an eloquent, coherent, well-supported argument over stylistic flash. I prefer the big picture to line-by-line analysis in summary speeches. Conventional arguments are more persuasive to me than kritiks, many of which seem contrived. I flow during the debate.
Gregory Eng
San Marino HS
Last changed on
Sun February 5, 2017 at 3:05 PM PDT
General Thoughts:
I like it when people debate like how they would argue in real life before an audience. If a lawyer or someone was trying to convince a group of people, they generally wouldn't spread, run Ks, or use tenuous link chains that culminate in extinction impacts.
In a similar vein, I love evidence comparison and well thought out cross examinations. Especially in debate formats with lots of conflicting evidence, I'll appreciate it if you break down why your expert/metadata/etc. is more credible than your opponents. Theres nothing I love more than a good series of leading questions in cross to get a crucial concession.
Above all, be respectful and considerate. It can be easy for debates to get nasty if both sides get caught up in trying to achieve "perceptional dominance," so I greatly appreciate it when debaters treat the other side respectfully.
Theory:
I see theory as a check on abuse; please use it to refute legitimately abusive arguments and not to make a strategic argument that the other side has to respond to to burn time.
Mohammad Fattah
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Zahra Fattah
Monte Vista
None
Kimberly Fradelis
Monte Vista
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:23 AM PDT
Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience
I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".
I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.
By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?
Emma Franzen
Los Osos HS
None
Eileen Fuller
Redlands High School
None
Rajan Gangadharan
Monta Vista High School
None
Dengfeng Gao
Leland High School
None
Sapna Garg
Saratoga High School
Last changed on
Sat September 26, 2020 at 12:31 PM PDT
I have been judging various Speech events for the last 4+ years and familiar with most formats of speech. Enjoy speech & debate very much and happy to be a judge. I want this to be an enjoyable activity for all involved so expect the participants to be courteous to the judges, organizers and to each other.
I judge on:
1. Content organization: cutting, easy to follow story line, structure, Attention Grabbing Intro/closing that connect the story together. Memorization of your speech is table stakes !!
2. Delivery Style: Your overall energy, blocking voice modulation, use of space , conveying the emotion of your piece. Try to speak at a pace that someone who is going to listen to your speech only once can still follow along and understand.
Wish you the very best of S&D Experience !!
Jessica Garman
Thomas Jefferson High School
None
Vikas Gautam
Lynbrook High School
None
Cathryn Geyer
Lodi HS
None
Rittu Gill
Velasquez Academy
None
Sangeet Gill
Claremont
None
Kimberley Gilles
Monte Vista
None
Susan Glenn
Gig Harbor
None
Deepti Goomer
Cupertino HS
None
Shivani Goyal
The Golden State Academy
None
Alec Grey
Redlands High School
None
Jennifer Griffith
Gig Harbor
None
Richard Guarino
Davis Senior HS
None
Linfeng Guo
Cupertino HS
None
Rajesh Gupta
Del Norte Independent
Last changed on
Fri December 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM PDT
Speech:
It's pretty straightforward. Articulate clearly, don't use filler words, be witty, and be better than your competitiors. :)
Past Experience: I have judged LD for about 30 rounds. In addition, I started judging Parli and Speech last year, with about 10 rounds judging in each field.
Paradigm:
General: I am what my son calls a "lay judge." My main focus is in communication ability. However, I tend to be generous with Speaks (if you get below 28, you must have REALLY done something to get on my nerves, like being rude).
Theory, K's, (Counter)Plans: Don't even bother trying to run "lay theory" while I am your judge. Theory/K's are a waste of debate time, and I would rather have solid refutation than mere complaints. That's not going to get you a win anytime soon. As for Plans, in a Policy resolution, you better have it well laid out for me, with EXACTLY what you want to achieve along with HOW you will accomplish your goal.
Satire: Funny. Don't expect me to understand it.
Spreading: If you speak quickly and communicate your ideas effectively, you will be fine. Try not to go above 275 wpm, though. At that point I can't keep up.
Weighing: Look, if you are going to pay over $50 to come to a tournament, the least I can expect you do is weigh your arguments against theirs. Don't forget to connect every argument you have to the weighing mechanism in question.
Arguments: I am not going to understand arguments that require comprehending a huge number of links (I don't even know what that means; my son told me that I should write that, though.). Make it simple and to the point and you will have me rooting for you to win.
General Knowledge: It's really interesting when debaters connect a topic to a current event, as it crystallizes the argument for me a little more. Of course, I understand that there are some topics that just can't have that happen. However, if you can, kudos to you :).
Etiquette: I don't need your "thank you for coming" and "we appreciate you being here." I appreciate it, but it is not helping you to win/gain Speaks.
TL;DR: I am a lay judge, and don't run anything a common man wouldn't understand. Most importantly, SPEAK CLEARLY. I give the ballot to the person who speaks the most effectively.
Last changed on
Thu February 1, 2024 at 8:49 AM PDT
I am a parent judge, and vote on debate events based on clarity of the argument supported by evidence, examples. Quality wins over quantity. Be respectful to the other speakers. I judge speech events based on good structure identifying the problem and solution with examples and conviction on both. Additionally looking at impact of the speech with poise, vocal variety and strong delivery with effective body movement.
Max Hagelthorn
Davis Senior HS
None
Mary Harriss
Phoenix Country Day School
None
Kelly Herman
Claremont
None
Samantha Hirst
Leland High School
None
Mike Holtzclaw
Amador Valley High School
None
Melody Hsu
Leland High School
None
Syn-Yem Hu
Cupertino HS
None
Hazel Huang
Rosemont Speech and Debate
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 1:43 PM EDT
I am a lay, parent judge.
Please make it EXTREMELY CLEAR why you should win IN COMPARISON to your opponent, do not leave the weighing up to the judge.
I will drop progressive arguments (Ks, theory, other things like that). If you run progressive arguments, you should have a second, more straightforward case as well.
Speak slowly and clearly.
my email is huanghazel65@gmail.com
Scott Huang
Leland High School
None
Larry Hung
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Wed January 30, 2019 at 1:03 PM PDT
1. Confidence and fluency of Participant.
2. Presence of mind of participant.
3. Relevance to the topic: Construction, content, presentation and Delivery.
4. keep in mind the time limit.
Gabrielle Immelman
Young Genius Academy
None
Srikanthan Jagannathan
Monta Vista High School
None
Matt Jakstis
Redlands High School
None
Aparna Joneja
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri February 12, 2021 at 2:55 AM PDT
About me:
I am a mom of a student competing in Impromptu from Dougherty Valley High School.
I usually judge speech events and am more familiar with speech itself.
I have been judging since my older daughter was part of the program. This was back in 2013, and have been judging since.
I award speaker points based off of how articulate the speech is, how relevant it is to the topic, how organized their thoughts are and if they speak with confidence.
I look back at my notes and see which speech I felt was most articulate, relevant, organized, and confident to make my final decision.
I take lots of notes because it helps me get down my thoughts during the speech.
I prefer civility in the room, and I think it is important to be respectful and kind to everyone.
Ravi Joshi
Leland High School
None
Reema Joshi
The Golden State Academy
None
Henry Jyu
Monta Vista High School
None
Srinivas Kadiyala
The Golden State Academy
None
Ashwini Kantak
Mission San Jose HS
None
Vidhya Karthik
Leland High School
None
Rebecca Kessinger
ILEAD Schools
None
Shubhavalli Kestur
Leland High School
Last changed on
Wed February 5, 2014 at 9:54 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. DO NOT SPREAD. This is my first year judging LD debate. I appreciate arguments on philosophical grounds that make logical sense. Explain each argument as though it is a new argument I have never heard before. Make sure to weigh arguments, and I will vote for the more convincing side.
Do not run k’s, plans, disads, theory,etc.
Anjum Khan
Young Genius Academy
None
Sati Khurana
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Heonjoon Kim
Leland High School
None
Hyeon Kim
Rosemont Speech and Debate
None
Michael Kim
Monte Vista
None
Nicole Kim
Redlands High School
None
Michelle Kito
El Cerrito
None
Ramesh Kodnani
Mission San Jose HS
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:47 AM PDT
About Me
I have 10 years of experience judging for various schools. I have mostly judged for Mission San Jose High School and periodically for independent entries like Stonewall Academy. The majority of my judging has been in Public Forum and I am familiar in the fundamental concepts of the format.
Preferences
I always come in with an open mind and vote based off of each side's arguments rather than personal bias. In order to win the round it is important that each side weighs each of their impacts. If impacts aren't weighed I won't flow them. If you want higher speaker points and want me to be able to flow your arguments, it is important that you speak clearly and at a good pace. I also appreciate it if you give me a little background into the topic and clear up a few things. Each side should provide a standard for me to weigh on so I can vote for a side based on the impacts. Both sides can also argue which standard is more relevant to the debate and which I should be judging on. If neither side proposes a standard for the debate I will just be judging on which side makes the world a better place. As for links, make sure that your links are logical and aren't huge jumps. If you suddenly jump from the EU joining the BRI to a nuclear war, I won't buy it. Please don't run theory. I will only take it into account if it is actually justified and reasonable (which it almost never is). Lastly, if a side brings up a new argument or point in Final Focus, I will ignore it. You're just going to be wasting your time.
Speaking Points
I will reward a debater with more speaker points if they remain clear and speak at an understandable pace. I dislike spreading as I feel its unnecessary. It is also important that each speaker is respectful in crossfire and other speeches. If any debater starts yelling and is overly aggressive I will lower their total speaker points for the round.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask me during the round. I hope you provide me with an interesting debate!
Madhavi Koneru
Young Genius Academy
None
Rodney Kornegay
Mountain Brook HS
None
Bo Kovitz
Redlands High School
None
Maya Kundassery
The Golden State Academy
None
Murty Kurella
Evergreen Valley
None
Ceeja Kurian
Independent Kuruvila
None
Alexis Lake
ILEAD Schools
None
Greg Lannan
ILEAD Schools
None
Brianna Lara
Yucaipa HS
None
Lee LaVanway
ILEAD Schools
None
Ezabel Lazarof
Leland High School
None
Bao Le
Leland High School
None
Alana Lemarchand
Young Genius Academy
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
Chunbill Liu
San Marino HS
None
Michael Lloyd
Granada Hills High
None
Diane Low
La Costa Canyon HS
None
Rajiv Maheshwari
Saratoga High School
None
Matt Maki
George Washington CO
None
John Mao
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:01 PM EDT
Updated for 2020-21
Pronouns: she/her/hers
If you have questions about anything here, just ask!
Congress:
-I don't have a preference between early/mid/late round speeches - just give the best speech. I evaluate each speech for the role it needs to serve in the round. So, if you're sitting on a neg and we go to a 2-minute recess because you're insistent on doing a crystallization speech and no one else has a neg, I'll be annoyed. If you're able to show me multiple types of speeches throughout the session (especially if I'm the parli), that's great.
-I hate one-sided debate - it isn't debate. I don't have a set rule "if you speak on the same side as the previous person I'll mark you down x # of ranks," but it definitely has a negative impact on the final ranks. If you speak on the same side as the previous person, it is very, very unlikely (albeit not impossible) I will rank you in the top 3. This is even more true for a crystallization speech.
-Expectations for authorship/sponsorship/1st aff: problem/solution; identify a framework/burden/scope to evaluate debate; have a central narrative
-Expectations for mid-round speech: Refute; have a central narrative
-Expectations for late speech: Refute & boil the debate down to a main issue or 2; have a central narrative
-Have a clear, specific, and offensive thesis coming out of the introduction.
-Have clear warrants; if they stem from the legislation directly, even better. Particularly in mid/late speeches, weighing/clash is super important.
-Clear, humanized impacts are key.
-I'm not going to open the legislation packet - it's your job to bring it to life for me. If I know a detail of the leg from coaching my own students but you don't mention it, it won't help you - I'll be as tabula rasa as possible with the docket.
-No rehash. It's possible to extend something from your own side with new warrants/impacts, but new data is just rehash.
-Neg speeches can't say the leg is bad because it doesn't do something unless that thing is mutually exclusive with the action of the legislation; if the leg is that we should all eat more bananas and your neg is no we should eat more apples, unless you can prove that we can't eat apples AND bananas the point doesn't work. I also don't love points about complacency - they generally feel stock to me (unless you're talking about a social issue when the issue attention cycle is a legitimate concern). Both of these types of points (do x not y; complacency) feel like avoidance of engaging with the actual legislation - neg speeches must demonstrate the inherent harm(s) of passing.
-No stock intros/conclusions - if it could work for any piece of legislation, it's too vague. I like an attention-grabbing intro of some kind and when the conclusion ties a bow with the opening.
-I don't have a preference for being in the simulation or avoiding it. If you start talking about your constituents and your office in D.C., I will likely roll my eyes. On the other hand, talking about your current high school Bio class doesn't work either.
-Stay involved throughout the entire session. If you give an A+ speech but ask zero questions, you'll get ranked below an A- speech and strong, well-spaced questions.
-I will rank you as the PO if you're a strong PO (fast & efficient, knowledgeable about RR, clear command of chamber). Being the PO is neither a guarantee of a rank nor of a drop for me - if you do an A job as the PO, it'll be ranked the same as if you did an A job as a speaker.
PF:
-I don't flow cross; if you want me to evaluate something out of cross, you need to mention it in a later speech.
-If you want me to evaluate something from FF, it also needs to appear in the summary.
-Make sure to identify moments of clash. Don't let the two ships just pass in the night; tell me where the boats crash and why yours stays afloat.
-Make sure to weigh arguments. Tell me what the key points of the debate are so that I don't have to determine them myself.
-I won't make a decision based on politeness, but being excessively rude/abrasive in cross annoys me and will negatively impact your speaker points.
-Unless there's true abuse in the round, I won't vote on theory.
-I haven't judged circuit PF since Stanford 2019, so you're better off avoiding "progressive" PF stuff. Treat me as more flay.
Jessica McCallum
Redlands High School
None
Felicia McCrossin
San Marino HS
None
David McGlocklin
Cajon High School
None
Scott Mercer
Tahoma Senior HS
None
Zainab Mezban Mezban
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sun March 3, 2024 at 1:02 AM PDT
I am a lay judge, no spreading. I prefer to judge Lincoln Douglas debates, but am fine with judging speech as well. In debate I look for clear arguments and strong supporting points. I am fine with controlled spreading but you must be clear. For speech I judge based how you approach character or position, and you must be presentable.
Matt Mohr
Leland High School
None
Simin Mokhtari
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2018 at 4:13 PM PDT
I take a holistic approach to judging debates - the winner will be the person/team that has the most convincing overall presentation. The quality of the reasoning and the evidence used to support contentions carries more weight than the number of contentions. I do flow and will consider the failure to refute or address a significant point to be a basis for giving the win to the other team. A minor point that flows through will rarely be a determinant of the outcome.
You will likely lose if you make unsupported assertions; make up or misrepresent facts; or abuse your opponent or the process. The likelihood of winning are greatly enhanced if you are able to clearly rebut your opponent's voters and emphatically point out why your contentions should prevail.
Ramin Naimi
Saratoga High School
None
Lekha Nair
Notre Dame HS
None
Tara Neighbors
Citrus Valley High School
None
Anh-Dai Nguyen
Leland High School
None
Anna Nguyen
Leland High School
None
Hoang Nguyen
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun November 19, 2017 at 11:33 AM PDT
I have a few years of judging debate, mostly congress however. I am most familiar with Congress and Parlimentary debate, and have no experience in CX,PF, or LD. I am unfamiliar with theory arguments, kritiks, and other non-traditional debating, so either explain it extremely well or don’t run them at all. I do not understanding spreading so I will lower your speaker points if it is unclear to me. I consider myself as a half-flow judge and more lay than flow. I will try to get down your arguments and taglines but I can’t always write down everything you say such as all evidence and impacts/warrants. Make sure to explain clearly the warrant link chains and the impacts. I enjoy someone that speaks well and clearly which helps me try to make the best descision.
Krishna Noru
The Golden State Academy
None
Tracey O'Rourke
Leland High School
None
Belona Odisho
Leland High School
None
Ertugrul Oner
Leland High School
None
Heechoul Park
Leland High School
None
Peter Park
Leland High School
None
Malav Patel
Saratoga High School
None
Jessica Patterson
ILEAD Schools
Last changed on
Thu June 18, 2020 at 6:37 AM PDT
Been judging speech and debate competitions for about 7 years. I'm a theatre teacher, so I tend to gravitate towards IEs. I'm pretty lay when it comes to debate. I've judged enough over the years so that I can follow along with fast speaking, but not with spreading. I really really love it when arguments are clear, contentions are loudly numbered, and definitions are offered to me if the topic has to do with international relations or foreign policies. Be nice to each other.
Rajiv Pendyala
Monta Vista High School
None
Jian Peng
Leland High School
None
Cody Petterson
George Washington CO
Last changed on
Sat February 27, 2021 at 1:34 PM PDT
If you are reading this, that means I'm judging you. The important thing to know is that you can do whatever you want as long as its cool and you are having fun. Also, I'll probably get lost in your kritik if you don't make it simple enough. That doesn't mean I won't vote for it, just that I want to be able to understand it before I vote on it. Also this is the first tournament I've judged in a year and a half
With topicality, I prefer proven abuse over potential, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on T if its far enough out there, but don't try and run "T:The" cause you aren't going to win that, and I am going to be frustrated. My threshold for T normally lies with the education voter.
With kritiks, I'm probably not the most well read judge, but I've read enough to understand the basic kritiks if you feel like that is the ground you have been given in the round (cap, imperialism, etc. Just please don't run deluze) I do my best to understand what you are telling me in round, but please break it down for me. I'm not going to be the most well read judge, so don't expect me to understand what you mean when you say the trees are fascist
Disads, go for it. Give me the weirdest most plausible story you can think of. I'm willing to vote on either probability or magnitude with probably a minor bias towards probability, however if you are both going for the same thing, time frame and reversibility are good tie breakers.
Counter plans: Condo isn't to bad, but don't run 3 counterplans with no expansion in the first neg speech and expect to win the condo debate
Memes? I fucking love memes and I fully appreciate the strategy of using memes in round
Quals: Debated for 3 years, coaching/judging for 2 years. And a year and a half of working in sales
John Pettit
George Washington CO
Last changed on
Tue June 15, 2021 at 11:11 AM MDT
I am a coach-adjacent (married to one) judge, and I have been judging policy, PF and LD for 15 years. I was also a policy debater in the last century. That said, I am not necessarily dialed in to the most current strategies and shorthand, especially in policy. My overall approach is basically tabula rasa- I will consider any argument that you can explain in terms of engagement with your opponent, i.e. if you can tell me WHY what you are bringing into the round should win my vote. That could be evidence, impacts, kritiks- whatever- I just need to know that you are listening to your opponent, engaging them directly and weighing their response to you. I’m not really drawn to debates about debate (theory?) in a debate round, but I value thoughtful kritiks about the appropriateness and shortcomings of topics/resolutions in the real world. I will vote on topicality, but it needs to be rigorously adapted to the case in round by specifying exactly why something is non-topical. I’m well aware of the implications for educational purposes.
In terms of mechanics, I can flow fairly speedy rounds, but I have always been a quality over quantity judge. Debate is still about communication and persuasion, and presenting a great volume of evidence/sources accomplishes neither goal.
For Public Forum rounds, much of what I like to see in policy applies, only more so because the time to make arguments is so abbreviated. The winning team will have narrowed their best argument down to one or maybe two by final focus, and will keep it tight, clear and concise.
In LD, I am old school, and I appreciate the idea of a ponderous, reflective and challenging philosophical discourse on a contentious topic. I want to see well developed cases and arguments that explore the moral implications of respective sides of a resolution. A good LD round, in my view, is one in which both participants can speak like orators and use the power of language to bring the listeners to hear the righteousness of their position.
Santhosh Pillai
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Caroline Pineda
Presentation HS
None
Keshav Prasad
Saratoga High School
None
Neeraj Purandare
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Matthew Pyrch
Jesuit High School
None
Sasha Rabich
ILEAD Schools
Last changed on
Fri February 23, 2024 at 12:58 PM PDT
Hi there, I've done 4 years of parli, one in open High School, three in the Community College Circuit, at one point or another have competed in every debate format. I enjoy clash in my debates. Run whatever you want I'm front of me as long as you take the time to impact it out. Don't make me do the work for you, Tell me why i should vote and where. Been out of the debate scene for a bit, always excited by interesting ideas and we'll thought out strategy.
Rama Ramachandran
The Golden State Academy
None
Balu Ramappa
Notre Dame HS
None
Kartik Ramaswamy
Leland High School
None
Esmirna Ramirez
Albany High School
None
Jagadeshwari Rathinam
Monta Vista High School
None
Stephanie Rivera
Cajon High School
None
Valeria Ross
Ashland HS
None
Neeraj Sahejpal
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Margeory Samayoa
North Hollywood High School
None
Devin Sarno
George Washington CO
None
Cindy Scott
Leland High School
None
Mrinalini Seth
Leland High School
None
Judy Seto
Leland High School
None
Kuntal Shah
Cupertino HS
None
Zakia Shaikh
Leland High School
None
Sveta Shandilya
Saratoga High School
Last changed on
Sat September 29, 2018 at 2:16 PM PDT
LD
Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Being rude is not OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least.
Speed: Slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, and texts. Pause after cites. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, super-double breadths.
Cross: Be polite If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.
Plans: Plans are good since they provide a clear sense of your advocacy. Note that you will be held to that plan.
Monica Shangle
Dublin Independent
None
Jennifer Sims
Yucaipa HS
None
Anoop Singhal
Cupertino HS
None
Georgia Singleton
Gabrielino Academy
Last changed on
Tue October 11, 2016 at 9:50 PM EDT
Lay judge
Sonal Sinha
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Jacob Smith
Claremont
None
Brandon Spars
Sonoma Academy
None
Niraj Srivastava
Leland High School
None
Jennifer Stark
Claremont
None
Natalie Steinbrink
Phoenix Country Day School
Last changed on
Wed April 15, 2020 at 6:19 AM MST
Hi all- my name is Natalie Steinbrink and I am an assistant coach at Phoenix Country Day School, where I've been since 2015. I graduated from Arizona State University in 2018 with a degree in English Literature. I am primarily a speech coach, but I do enjoy coaching and watching Congress when I can. Here is what's important to me in a Congressional Debate round:
-Clear argumentation. Don't make me work to understand your argument. Your structure, evidence, links, and impacts should be clear and easy to understand. I can appreciate a complex argument, but if I'm still wondering what your point was by the time we've moved on to the next speech, you haven't done the job.
-Be INVOLVED in the session. Be an active listener and don't get wrapped up in your own speeches (i.e. please don't practice your speech while others are talking). Ask good, varied questions. Be a congressperson who's going to foster good debate in the round (the most fun part of congress!).
-Give me some genuine emotion! This may be the speech coach in me jumping out, but the bills you're debating impact real people in the world, and you should treat them as such. How is anyone going to believe in your argument if you don't act like you believe in it yourself?
-Good delivery is a must. Try to get away from your legal pad as much as possible.
-Be respectful. If you're rude or aggressive to other debaters, you'll be dropped. Plain and simple.
I'm excited to listen to you all, and I hope you're excited as well!
Brandon Stewart
Mission San Jose HS
Last changed on
Sun January 8, 2023 at 3:17 AM PDT
I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.
Debate
1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.
1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.
2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.
2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).
2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.
3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.
3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\
3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.
4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.
4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.
5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.
6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.
Melissa Stewart
Mountain Brook HS
None
Joanne Stowitts
Cajon High School
None
Shashi suravarapu Suravarapu
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Abhijit Tambe
Saratoga High School
None
Eugene Tarasyuk
Sherman Oaks Center Enriched Studies
None
Darin Taylor
Leland High School
None
Helen Te
The Golden State Academy
None
Madhukar Thakur
Notre Dame HS
None
Leena Thakuria
Monta Vista High School
None
Priya Tivare
The Golden State Academy
None
Boston Topping
Redlands High School
None
Lisa Tran
Leland High School
None
Sunil Tripathy
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Steven Tsai
The Harker School
None
Benjamin Tully
Presentation HS
None
Bruce Vassantachart
Velasquez Academy
None
Ricardo Velasquez
Velasquez Academy
None
Sudhanshu Verma
Saratoga High School
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2017 at 10:21 PM PDT
Stay focused. Be factually correct. Think big. Be very clear
Last changed on
Mon February 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM PDT
Background:
I attended high school Southern California, where I debated for four years. I experimented with the many styles of debate in high school. In various events I have qualified and placed at some of the most competitive tournaments in California and in the country. I am currently studying Economics and Government at a women’s liberal arts college in California.
In General:
Debaters should feel free to run or argue anything they feel is most advantageous in the round, that being said I cannot stand debates where K/T are not executed properly. I insist on fully developed arguments, I require arguments to have warrant/evidence and impacts. Framework is extremely important, that being said, needless time wasting definition debates make no sense unless the opponent is being abusive in their use of definitions. I try to avoid judge interference, unless I think it is necessary for the round.
FAQ:
Speed: Students should feel free to go as fast as they like; however, students with poor speaking ability (less than satisfactory annunciation, etc.) need not hurt their own chances by making it hard for myself or other judges to understand.
Flow: In high school I was a flow debater and remain a flow judge. I expect students to have an extensive flowing ability, particularly at the varsity level.
Other:
I want debate to be an informative and fun experience for students as it was for me. I encourage students to ask for oral critiques assuming the tournament allows.
Anitha Vijayakumar
Young Genius Academy
None
Sudha Vuyyuru
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Tue January 19, 2021 at 9:56 PM EDT
School Affiliations:
Dougherty Valley High School
Judging/Event Type:
Speech Events
How many years have you been judging?
7 years
How will you award speaker points to the debaters?
I will look for fluency and well rounded speech.
What sorts of things make a decision at the end of the debate?
Confidence and clarity of thought, expression and conveying the topic to any one with or without knowledge on the topic.
Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?
No
Preferences on the use of evidences?
Make sure that they are recent and credible.
Thoughts on real world impacts on the debate?
It is important to articulate the impact.
How do you judge cross examination?
I have no experience in judging debate events
How do you value debate skill over truthful arguments?
If the speaker knows what they are saying about. Both truthful arguments and debate skill are equally important.
Miller Walker
Episcopal School Of Dallas
None
Dylan Wan
Mission San Jose HS
None
Angela Wang
San Marino HS
None
Eddie Wang
Saratoga High School
None
Hongbo Wang
Lynbrook High School
None
Justin Wang
Miramonte High Independent
None
Lei Wang
Leland High School
None
Linda Wang
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT
2022 Update
Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!
2021 Update
You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.
2/4/2020
Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!
4/4/2015
I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.
My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.
I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.
Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.
I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.
I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.
Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.
Louise Wise
Carter HS
None
May Wong
Leland High School
None
Jenny Worledge
Leland High School
Last changed on
Fri March 9, 2018 at 12:04 PM PDT
I believe spreading in debate has no educational value so I am extremely prejudiced against it.
Last changed on
Thu October 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM PDT
I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.
Cecilia Young
Leland High School
None
Abel Zambrano
George Washington CO
Last changed on
Fri November 12, 2021 at 2:54 PM PDT
email chain —-> amedinazambrano@gmail.com
** Head speech and debate coach at Torrey Pines HS, I am currently competing in CEDA for Southwestern and I have 3 years of parli/LD experience prior. If you have specific questions about literature bases I’ve read or are familiar with; just send me an email and I’ll get back to you. If not, ask before the round or just read it and explain it to me. Read my entire paradigm if you can, otherwise scan for the bold text for the “Reading My Paradigm during Prep Time,” version.
1. I'll vote on anything (so long as it's not morally abhorrent). I am not going to create an exhaustive list of every morally abhorrent position but trust me, if your arg falls under this category you will be able to tell via my facial expressions in round.
2. I have a lower than average threshold on Theory. I’m biased towards potential abuse being enough but a case can definitely be made for a proven abuse burden. With a few exceptions I typically defer to a framework of competing interpretations unless told otherwise so tell me otherwise. If you’re deliberately spreading someone out of a round, I am likely to pick up their speed procedural regardless of who is winning the standards debate. Inclusivity and access are important. If it’s egregious, I’ll drop you on sight.
3. K debates are cool coming from either side. FW is a valid strat v Kaffs.
4. I don't have strong feelings for or against any specific type of counterplan. Just shoot your shot and be ready for the theory debate.
5. I think turns are very underused, while also being very under-explained, "straight" turns probably need to be paired with an argument on the uniqueness level otherwise they are functionally defence but with that being said, the opposing team needs to do that work in round.
6. There’s a really good chance I may have to intervene if you don’t tell me what I’m voting for in rebuttals (you probably dont want this) so git gud and do the explaining. Your rebuttal should write my RFD. Tell me about what impact scenario beats the other team’s. Give me framing and calculus. PLEASE. Whether it be the theory level or the link level or thesis level or alt solvency, whatever. Why are you winning this round? If you’re right, you’ll know it.
7. Pls remember that your framework can determine how (if at all) your arguments are received and interpreted.
8. Collapse.
9. I’m super down to have a faster than normal debate. You probably won't be able to lose me from speed alone but pls be as Clear as you can. If I am judging you in an ev. based format I care much less but I’m gonna ask that you slow for tags or send me a copy of the speech doc. (amedinazambrano@gmail.com)
10. Pls don’t make me judgekick a plan or theory shell. Tell me what to do with it, Bc you’ll be mad when I vote on the perm or rvi that was left unresolved. If you make shadow extensions from something said earlier that’s chill.
11. Abusing Power Dynamics will not win you this round. I like a sassy debate, I love seeing two close friends hash out a tough round but both opponents must be on the same page. If you’re a guy shouting down a girl in cross ex Bc you think it’s “dominating” or any other form of “machismo,” to put someone else down, I will tank your speaks and have a hard time voting for you and I will probably drop you. Ask for pronouns, names, etc. Also time yourself. I should be able to trust y'all.
12. Partner to Partner comm is fine but make sure your partner wants the help. Pls don’t control your partners speech time, I will not flow what the partner says, you gotta say it.
13. Have fun and feel free to ask me any questions about things I should be comfortable with in your round, Bc remember, it’s your round. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
PS: Shouts to Khamani Griffin from whom I stole the format for this paradigm.
Shubing Zhai
Leland High School
None
David Zhang
Leland High School
None
Sheng Zhang
Velasquez Academy
Last changed on
Mon June 26, 2017 at 4:44 PM PDT
LD Judging Paradigm -
I am a flay judge.
As a scientist, I will prefer a debate founded on evidence and statistics as opposed to unwarranted analytics and theoretical claims going back and forth.
If you go through a card that is really wordy and difficult to understand, spend a few seconds giving me a short summary of what that argument was and its impact in the round.
Clash: I'd like to see more of this. Engage with your opponent's arguments, tell me why they are wrong, and say why your arguments should be preferred. The more persuasively you frame your arguments, the better.
Spreading: If I don't understand what you are saying, I will stop flowing.
Sylvia Zhang
Sonoma Academy
None
Wenhua Zhao
Leland High School
None
Hang Zhou
Leland High School
None