31st Annual Stanford Invitational
2017
—
Stanford,
CA/US
JV Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Satish Agrawal
Miller Middle School
None
Lujain Al-Saleh
Foothill Technology High School
Last changed on
Thu February 9, 2017 at 6:34 PM EDT
The primary components of a good debate incorporate a critical analysis of the topic along with evidence to support the position or claim. In order for the argument to flow, a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos must be utilized.
Joseph Arokiaraj
Miller Middle School
None
Manish Asnani
Archbishop Mitty High School
None
Kenyatta Barton
Palo Alto Debate!
Last changed on
Fri November 17, 2017 at 1:07 AM PDT
I competed in parli in college and I currently coach Public Forum Debate. I understand stock issues and I look for them to be used during the round. I am big on the structure of arguments and expect the entire round to follow NSDA rules. With that being said I pay close attention to the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, so to me, it is more important to make good arguments than to make a lot. On the subject of arguments, while they are allowed, I do not prefer debates about evidence or debates about a debate. I would prefer that T arguments and evidence questioning be limited during the round. I think a debate is supposed to be educational and I prefer debates that are exactly that. So have fun, make good arguments and do not get caught up in the details.
Stefan Bauschard
Lakeland
Last changed on
Fri September 6, 2024 at 12:17 PM EDT
Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.
I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.
I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.
My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.
I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.
Brian Bengler
Granada Hills High
None
Rajib Bhakat
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sun February 17, 2019 at 12:20 AM PDT
I’m a lay judge, so treat me as such. However, I will take notes and try to follow along with the debate to the best of my abilities. If I have clarifying questions at the end of the round, I may ask them after the debate is over.
Drazen Borkovic
Mountain View High School
None
Ann Boutin
San Marino HS
None
Wendy Brew
Leland High School
None
Kavita Burra
Young Genius Academy
Last changed on
Sat November 21, 2020 at 2:54 AM PDT
I follow the flay pattern. I like to focus on the flow of the argument and also place emphasis on the presentation of the content.
Ideally, each contention should be called out before you deep-dive into it so that I can correlate the substance/examples of your argument to your contention.
If the above is taken care of, I can easily make out what you are presenting, regardless of whether you speak fast or slow.
In CX, please be courteous to your opponent and allow them to finish responding to your question(s).
Jace Camarillo
Los Osos HS
None
Leah Carolan
American Heritage
None
Richard Chan
Mission San Jose HS
None
Shankar Chandramouly
Monta Vista High School
None
June Chang
Miller Middle School
None
Erik Charp
Albany High School
None
Jennifer Chen
The Golden State Academy
None
Christine Cheng
Cupertino HS
Last changed on
Fri February 7, 2020 at 2:46 AM PDT
It’d be great if you can spend a little time establishing your framework and structure in the beginning to let me know what’s important and what to expect. Please don’t drop the key arguments during the crossfire. In the final focus please show how your arguments outweigh the opponent’s.
jane cheng
Los Altos High School
None
Amardeep Chhatwal
The Golden State Academy
None
Andrew Chizewer
Hire
None
Johnny Choi
Young Genius Academy
None
Rachel Corn
Los Altos High School
None
Alisa Currier
Claremont
None
James Cusack
Tsinghua International School
Last changed on
Fri February 15, 2019 at 1:33 PM EDT
Argument
Be able to clearly link your claim, evidence, and warrants
Understand your argument and be able to explain it in clear and simple terms
Make sure to show a clear impact on your arguments.
The weighing of Impacts including their likelihood will play an important role in the debate.
Speaking
Always be polite
Speak at a good pace. It is not a race
Misc.
You may finish your sentences at the of a speech, but please keep it within reason.
Be prepared to provide evidence if asked. If you do not provide the cited article, I will be forced to consider the evidence invalid.
Celisa Date
Los Altos High School
None
Young Day
PalmTree Academy
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2018 at 12:26 PM PDT
I am a lay judge, so I am a parent. Don't speak too fast! Speech skill counts for 50% of my judging, and the other 50% is the content and accuracy of the arguments.
John Eichman
Yucaipa HS
None
Stan Eigenbrodt
John Paul II HS
Last changed on
Mon November 13, 2017 at 5:37 AM CDT
I was a policy debater in high school a long time ago, and I am now an attorney. I will judge on what is argued in the round. I tend to vote on impacts, so please use your summary and final focus to weigh the impacts in the round for me. If you don't, I will have to dig through the flow to do so, and you may not end up with the result you want.
Cross-fire is a time to ask questions, not simply argue back and forth. If cross-fire degenerates into arguing, I will take it into account when assigning speaker ranks and points.
Last changed on
Fri November 17, 2017 at 4:06 AM PDT
Just convince me. Less debate jargon preferred. Be courteous. Don't give up easily.
Serena Fuchs
Los Altos High School
None
Yongmin Ge
The Golden State Academy
None
Elisabeth Girke
Riverside STEM Academy
None
Geetika Goel
Miller Middle School
Last changed on
Mon October 5, 2020 at 5:28 AM PDT
PARADIGM WRITTEN BY SON:
I am a (f)lay judge and have been judging for 4 years, please go slow and articulate well but that doesn't mean ignore the flow. No theory or K's. I am truth>tech. I approach the round without my biases but won't vote off very farfetched/squirrely args even if they are conceded. I probably won't vote for you because of a turn/DA either. UNLESS THEY ARE VERY EXPLICITLY WON AND WEIGHED AND COLLAPSED ON. I vote off impacts, weighing doesn't matter to me if you don't win the link. Be respectful in cross, speaking style dictates speaker points.
Laurel Goycoolea
St. Francis High School
Last changed on
Fri February 15, 2019 at 7:45 PM PDT
My background: I debated public forum in Colorado from 2005-2009 (also competed in DX). I'm now a PF coach at St Francis HS in CA.
Public Forum
I would consider myself a pretty old-school public forum debater which means I am looking for "the people's debate" not policy. I want to see solid argumentation and rhetoric. If you want to get meta, do policy or LD.
Do not spread if you don't want me to lose half of your arguments. I can follow normal human speech at a higher speed than regular conversation, but again, no spreading.
Be organized and know your own cards. I have little patience for debaters who can't easily find their own cards or don't know which of their cards go with their own contentions. Give correct citations: author last name and year at minimum!
Be civil. I am a big fan of stoic confidence, and I hate aggressive, steamrolling "confidence"/cockiness.
Be honest with your prep time, but don't be a hawk of your opponent. I don't want to see arguing over 2 seconds.
Earn your speaks. 27 is average/passable to me. Non-verbals matter - eye contact, shifting feet/balance, hand movements/toying with objects, etc.
Feel free to ask me questions!
Lincoln-Douglas
I am very new to LD judging and have only judged a handful of local, slower LD rounds.
I want to see good, solid argumentation: strong rhetorical skills, good persuasion. I will likely have a hard time following intricate theory or policy strategies. I'm a PF debater, I can't follow K's very well. 'Nuff said. I am frequently telling my PF debaters to use less debate jargon, so take that as you will for LD. In other words, I do not like unwarranted jargon and will ignore it.
I like to see a defined value and value-criterion and encourage creativity (util is fine, but is often run very cursorily/boringly). I am not great at quickly evaluating dense FW, so If you choose to read a dense FW, give me a decent overview of how offense operates under it; i.e. what do I evaluate, how it affirms or negates, how/if it precludes your opponent's argument and offense.
Do not spread if you don't want me to lose half of your arguments. I can follow normal human speech at a higher speed than regular conversation, but again, no spreading.
Be organized and know your own cards. I have little patience for debaters who can't easily find their own cards or don't know which of their cards go with their own contentions.
Be honest with your prep time, but don't be a hawk of your opponent. I don't want to see arguing over 2 seconds.
Earn your speaks. 27 is average/passable to me. Non-verbals matter - eye contact, shifting feet/balance, hand movements/toying with objects, etc.
Feel free to ask me questions!
Susan Gundell
San Marino HS
None
Ashish Gupta
Miller Middle School
Last changed on
Sun September 23, 2018 at 8:24 AM PDT
Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.
I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.
Sanjiv Gupta
Miller Middle School
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2017 at 3:58 AM PDT
Quality of arguments.
Communucation with Quality.
Professional decorum.
Alex Herrera
Riverside STEM Academy
Last changed on
Thu February 9, 2017 at 5:01 AM PDT
I’m a lay judge with few tournaments under my belt but I try to flow meticulously.
I prefer a slow and steady pace during the speeches and a clear, logical flow. I base my decision entirely on arguments so I will award a low point win - but if I can’t understand you then I can’t understand your argument so please be clear.
I am most convinced during crossfire. Aggression and sass during crossfire is indicative of a passionate debate, but remember to always remain civil. Anything rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic will result in a deduction of speaker points. Make sure that you extend anything of substance from crossfire into your next speech if you want me to take note of it.
I like numbers, so give me statistics if you want my vote. However, random numbers mean nothing to me if there isn’t a logical explanation to back it up. Big words sound cool but they don’t impress me or sway my opinion in any way, if you can explain your point/case/evidence in simpler/basic terms then I’m more likely to understand you and you’re therefore more likely to get my vote.
Tell me how to judge you. Give me a framework (though don’t get caught up in a framework debate). Give me voter issues. Give me impact calc. Tell me why you win and why your opponent does not. If you want to make sure I flow something, tell me directly.
I do not judge with any bias. With that said, I have very little prior knowledge of this topic so make sure you adequately explain the terms, phrases and arguments you’re trying to extend. If I don’t understand, you don’t win.
I trust both teams to time themselves and each other so I will not be timing cross or any of the speeches. However, I will keep track of prep time.
Constructive criticism to the debaters will be given at the end of the round. I also prefer to disclose if the tournament allows.
Ken Hiremath
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sun March 1, 2020 at 2:14 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. That means in order to effectively communicate to me, you should be slow, concise, and intentional throughout your argumentation. I have been judging slow debate for a while now and I try my best to be fully attentive during each debate. I will keep a detailed flow of each of the speeches and the cross examinations. In general, I appreciate well-developed arguments and despise late breaking debates where the crux of the affirmative/negative argument appears in the final rebuttal. Blatantly new arguments in the last rebuttals will not be evaluated.
Policy:
I am a stock issues based judge. If the affirmative does not fulfill their burdens under the stock issues, I will vote negative. Conversely, if the affirmative proves to me that they have fulfilled their burden on the stock issues, I will vote for them. What is up for debate, however, is exactly what each side's burden is on the stock issues. For example, if the negative says that the affirmative must solve for the entirety of the Yemen war to establish solvency, then I will hold the affirmative to that threshold (if they do not respond). Although I try to be as neutral as I can in this regard, I personally believe that the affirmative is a good policy option if it makes a significant positive departure from the status quo. That means for the negative, I would appreciate a substantive disadvantage to the affirmative or clearly articulated burdens for each of the stock issues.
I believe argument resolution is underutilized in debates. When judging, I am left with two opposing arguments but no guidance on how to resolve them in your favor. The best debaters utilize framing issues and evidence comparison to write my ballot.
Please be respectful in cross-ex. I understand you may have many questions to get through but cutting off your opponent crosses the line when they have clearly not gotten to the substantive portion of their answer. I will award high speaker points (29-30) to debaters who combine my above thoughts with respectful argumentation/composure in the debate.
Elaine Holliman
Albany High School
None
Last changed on
Tue January 14, 2020 at 12:25 PM PDT
I am a lay judge, a parent of a current competitor, who has judged for approximately 3 years in public forum and 1 year in lincoln douglas.
Please do not be disrespectful to other competitors and don't interrupt each other during cross-ex, or else I will deduct your speaker points.
I highly value logical reasoning and will vote based on my understanding of your argument.
Justin Huang
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Kimberly Huang
Mission San Jose HS
None
Xiaodong Huang
PalmTree Academy
None
Last changed on
Wed February 7, 2018 at 12:39 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. Used to judge for public forum until my daughter recently shifted to LD. Please stick to traditional arguments that are clear and warranted. Your last speech (on aff) and part of your last speech on the neg should spell out very clearly what I should be evaluating in this round and why.
Hyonggi Jeon
Cupertino HS
None
Chelsea Ji
Yucaipa HS
None
Wenqing Jiang
Leland High School
None
Kai Jing
Miller Middle School
None
Cecilia Johnston
Foothill Technology High School
None
Firouzeh Jorabchi
Wilcox High School
Last changed on
Fri February 10, 2017 at 1:40 PM PDT
Words need to be enunciated and clearly argue your points.
Monica Joshi
Miller Middle School
None
Kamat KAMAT
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri March 23, 2018 at 11:03 AM PDT
Experience:
I am a first year parent Policy judge. I make attempts to understand how Policy debates should be evaluated and judged. I have judged Public Forum in the past, but am a novice at Policy.
Delivery and Structure:
I require the debaters to talk slowly and make their points clear. I like to understand the framework and strategy. K-Affs may be a debate strategy, but in my opinion, a debate topic is given to debate on it to figure out if the resolution should pass or not.
Cross-Ex:
Be respectful. Do not talk over others. It is not only confusing, but very unfruitful for the judge if I cannot evaluate your arguments.
Please add me to the email chain at rajeshkamat@hotmail.com .
Manisha Kand
Miller Middle School
None
Hojat Khelghati
Presentation HS
None
Brian Kim
La Canada High School
None
Jamie Kim
Valencia High School
None
Jin Kuang
PalmTree Academy
None
Krish Kumar
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2017 at 3:50 AM PDT
1. A small number of strong points is better than a large number of weak points.
2. Bring some passion and conviction!
3. Speak slowly enough for proper comprehension for the audience.
Sunil Kumar
Milpitas
None
Andrew Labott
Oak Ridge High School
None
Mike Lacy
Ivy Bridge Academy
None
Shobhan Lakkapragada
Miller Middle School
Last changed on
Sun September 30, 2018 at 8:06 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with approximately 3 years of judging experience in PF and LD. I maintain a light flow but I am closer to a LAY judge than to a flow judge. Please NO SPREADING - please speak at a slow to medium pace so we can follow you along.
Also, I ask that you be respectful to opponents and not interrupt them during their time to talk. Please allow them to finish their point before you ask questions. Please do not shout or be too aggressive because that will lower you speaker points.
I am not a fan of Kritik or theory arguments, but will allow it if you take extra time to walk through your points slowly.
If there is a clear winner in the round, I will disclose. But more often I will take necessary time after the round to decide and then submit RFD and feedback through Tabroom.
Joyce Li
Los Altos High School
None
Tina Liu
Peter's Debate Institute
None
Heather Magee-Hill
Carlsbad HS
Last changed on
Wed December 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM PDT
I like clear moderate paced engaged but professional debates. I will need k philosophies explained thoroughly. I am truth over tech. I am a parent judge who has been judging Policy, PF, LD and World schools at the state and national level for 2 years.
Shobha Mandayam
The Golden State Academy
None
Ravi Mannem
Lynbrook High School
None
Reid Marcus
Vancouver Debate Academy
Last changed on
Sat February 12, 2022 at 1:12 PM PDT
While I've been coaching Public Forum for a number of years my background is in British Parliamentary debate. So I'm partial to logical and narrative explanations that are backed up by solid evidence, rather than just evidence-dumping.
Stevie Miles
Palo Alto Debate!
None
Manvendra Mishra
Miller Middle School
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 3:06 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I have judged LD and PF in the past years and like both formats.
Please email me your cases so that I can better understand what you are speaking in a virtual round: manumishra@yahoo.com
I appreciate well constructed arguments and clear speaking. There is no need to show over aggression in your speeches. Please don't spread but if you do that there is a chance I may not hear you and flow. Yes, I do flow a little though if it is in the context. I consider cross-X sessions also in my evaluation, so be clear when you answer and respectful when you question. Do not interrupt your opponent excessively and let them speak. If I am unable to hear clearly I will not be able to give any credits.
Please respond to all of your opponents arguments with proper justifications. Have proper evidences in support. Be truthful. If I find any indication of falsifying any evidence, that's a disqualification.
Off-time roadmaps are OK. Please stay within the time limits for your speeches.
Be well behaved and respectful to your opponent(s) and enjoy the debate rounds, good luck!
Last changed on
Sun February 18, 2024 at 2:04 AM PDT
Public Forum
I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)
My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.
Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com
Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.
Content:
-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons
-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate
-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange
Stylistic:
-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude
Misc:
-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round
-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer
-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained
-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.
Parliamentary
I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.
I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.
Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.
Carrie O'Leary
Cupertino HS
None
Nitin Okhade
Mission San Jose HS
None
Abitha Padmanabhan
The Golden State Academy
None
Deborah Park
Amador Valley High School
None
Yashwant Parmar
BL Education
Last changed on
Fri December 3, 2021 at 3:36 AM PDT
Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both teams' constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if a name isn't clear it's a lot harder to figure out from context). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. Don't make your off-time roadmap much longer than "our case then their case" (i.e. "I'm going to weigh our first contention against their second and then..." is too long). Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I coached Public Forum for a few years. Academic background in Economics.
Vani Pata
The Golden State Academy
None
Xufei Qian
Miller Middle School
None
Samir Rajadnya
Miller Middle School
Last changed on
Fri September 14, 2018 at 3:22 PM PDT
If you want a circuit judge, you should probably strike me. I'm a very traditional LD judge.
Talking Speed:
- I do not like spreading; please keep speeches at a traditional pace.
- If you spread, I probably won't flow your arguments.
Arguments and Cards:
- I will call for evidence if I am asked to.
- All arguments should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact.
- All cards should be tagged.
Theory/T:
- I do not like theory debates.
- I will absolutely not vote on theory/T.
Plans:
- I generally do not like to weigh offense from plans, but I will if I have to...
- Try and keep the resolution as broad as possible.
Framework:
- I am not well-versed in philosophy so keep it simple for me.
- Tell me why you win framework, and how your arguments link into it.
- I try to be tabula rasa with framework, but I do generally vote util.
Hema Ramaswamy
Mission San Jose HS
None
Amit Rastogi
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Diwakar Reddy
Los Altos High School
None
Renae Rhodes
Mountain View High School
None
Emad Saberi
Wesley Academy
None
Jasmine Saini
Monta Vista High School
None
Sundar Sankaran
Saratoga High School
Last changed on
Mon January 27, 2020 at 12:18 PM PDT
I am a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Be respectful of your opponents.
Kelly Scoggins
Episcopal School Of Dallas
None
shilpa shanbhag
Miller Middle School
None
Emnet Shibre
DSST: Cole HS
None
Jingjun Shu
Miller Middle School
None
Raphaël Sirvent
St. Francis High School
None
Erich Smeaton
Korea International School
None
Uma Sonthalia
Los Altos High School
None
Odessa Spore
Albany High School
None
Mandayam Srivas
The Golden State Academy
None
Paul Stein
Albany High School
None
Connor Stewart Hunter
Vancouver Debate Academy
None
Jitendra Subudhi
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Fri November 17, 2017 at 8:23 AM PDT
Han Suk
La Canada High School
None
Chao Tang
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Ashwath Thirumalai
Cupertino HS
None
Vidya Tiru
Miller Middle School
None
Freeman Tong
Wesley Academy
None
Rashmi Verma
Saratoga High School
None
Lining Wan
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Sat December 15, 2018 at 6:00 AM PDT
I am a parent. This is my fourth year judging debates, and third year judging public forum. Refer to my judging record to gauge my judging experience.
I know some debate jargon, but am still learning. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most experienced judge, I would rate myself as a 6. I prefer to watch a debate as a civil and intelligent professional exchange of opinions. Be courteous to everyone. Do not mis-interpret any evidences and have your cards ready in case I call them. (Mis-representing a piece of evidence is enough reason to lose a round. So be careful here. )
On speaking style, I prefer well organized and clearly articulated speeches.
Good luck and have fun!
P.S. I don't disclose in prelim rounds unless it is required by a tournament.
P.S. When judging, I base my decision on information presented to me in the round and how it is presented. Use your judgement when deciding how to engage me in conversations.
Curtis Wang
Peninsula High School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2018 at 4:39 AM PDT
I debated for Loyola High School for 4 years (policy), Wake Forest University for a semester (policy), and El Camino College for two years (parli). I now coach PF at the Harker School.
I've debated both traditional and nontraditional forms of debate. There really isn't an argument that I won't hear. I have a higher threshold for theory, and rarely vote on potential abuse. But beyond that I do not have any serious predisposition to any arguments you read. Or at least I shouldn't... Blatantly offensive arguments, like impact turning racism or etc, probably will lose you the round though. Just be smart.
Speaker point break down - I'm pretty fair about speaker points (though I don't think there will be a judge who will tell you they aren't fair about speaker points) but I'm quick to catch on to things on general impoliteness vs sass (love sass). Just be a good person and speak well etc etc. Y'all should be mature enough to know what that means.
PF -- "paraphrasing" your evidence is not evidence and will result in a loss.
Jenny Wang
Miller Middle School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 2:18 AM PDT
I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.
Ryan Wang
Peter's Debate Institute
Last changed on
Thu November 10, 2016 at 3:35 PM PDT
I spent the majority of my debating career doing PF, but I also have knowledge in Policy. I prefer clarity over speed. Making your argument clear is very important to me, and I value the warrants in your arguments a lot. I also want to see clear clashes between you and your opponents' arguments. I prefer "good cops" over "bad cops". I need to hear the impacts in your arguments.
Laura Xi
Miller Middle School
None
Janet Xia
Saratoga High School
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2017 at 8:16 AM PDT
I am a new judge with very limited experience. I judge based on what you presented that I understand. So speak clearly.
I always try to ignore my own opinion on debate topic and focus on your quality of evidence, how you link them to your argument logically, how to find opponents' evidence quality and the weakness in their links between the evidence and their argument.
I prefer teams to time themselves and their opponents so that I can focus on taking notes and give a fair judging decision.
The final decision is very much on overall impression. I will ask myself who convinced me more. Then I will review my notes, make sure my personal opinion on the issue is not reflected in the judging decision.
Dongji Xie
Leland High School
Last changed on
Mon September 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM PDT
I am a parent judge
speak slowly
James Xu
Monta Vista High School
None
Jiandong Xu
Miller Middle School
None
Jielei Xu
Albany High School
None
Ming Xu
Leland High School
None
Last changed on
Fri February 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM EDT
Content
- Evidence is key to any argument. You must be able to support all your claims with clear evidence
- Warrant must link the evidence to the claim in a logical manner.
- Weigh evidence and impacts
- Need to see a clear link to the impacts
Miscellaneous stuff
- Speech organization. Please signpost your arguments.
- Have evidence ready to present if needed
- Speak clearly
- Eye contact
- Be polite
Benglee Yeap
Milpitas
None
Last changed on
Sun February 20, 2022 at 7:23 AM PDT
*** Note: Instead of an email chain, I prefer you create a public Google doc (that anyone can access) to share your evidence this avoids the delays of email. Please post the doc link in the chat before the round; Be prepared to post evidence requested in a very timely manner and be selective of what you ask for. If you're reading evidence, you are expected to produce the card as soon as you're asked. Recently, rounds have been taking too long, and it seems like some teams are turning evidence sharing into extra prep time!
---------------------------------------------
I'm a parent judge. Been judging for the last 6 years. My kids did/do Public Forum. I was a policy debater in high school, and judged a few tournaments in college. Keep in mind that was several decades ago.
So far, my judging experience has been mostly Public Forum, some Parli, less Policy, and even less LD.
1) Have fun. Enjoy every round. Make friends between rounds. I met my best friends from high school on the team.
2) Assume that I'm new to the topic because I AM new to the topic. Take time to convince me of your side of the resolution. If you use topic specific acronyms, make sure to define them first before using them. I will come to the round with a clean slate and judge based on what I flow
3) You can speak faster than conversational, but you NEED to be clear and articulate. Don't go faster than your ability to speak clearly and persuasively. Make eye contact with me to make sure that you can assess whether I'm keeping up with you and understanding your arguments. If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote on it
4) Whenever you can, establish frameworks to help me weigh the round
5) Help me by giving me a short roadmap before your speech. It's not required, but it can help me (and I think, you) know what you will be doing. It also helps if you are effective in signposting during your speech.
6) Be cordial and polite to each other during cross-ex and throughout the round. Being rude, offensive, or arrogant is no fun and doesn't earn you speaker points. Being polite, smart, inquisitive, and strategic does. I don't believe rounds are won/lost in cross-ex alone, but I do think that cross-ex is great place to setup your arguments through strategic questioning.
7) Help me weigh the arguments in your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote a certain way. The side that makes it easiest for the judge to evaluate why they're winning the round is often times the clearest winner.
8) I don't really care much for arguments revolving around debate theory as I'm not familiar with it, so try to avoid it if you can. I much prefer the clash over either side of the resolution.
9) Read #1 again. :-)
Judy Zhang
PalmTree Academy
None
Sophie Zhang
Wilcox High School
None
Lynn Zhao
The Golden State Academy
Last changed on
Fri October 16, 2020 at 2:22 PM EDT
Lay Judge. Speak slowly, enunciate clearly. Speaker points will be allocated by fluency, 27-28 very good.The debate should be respectful. Crossfire shouldn't have people talking over each other.
I like Medicare-for-All to talk about US but I will consider developing world arguments.
I will not disclose unless it is mandatory.
Lei Zheng
BASIS Silicon Valley
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2017 at 9:10 AM EDT
Please respect the time limit.
Please make your statement clear.
I prefer a clear speeches rather than fast speeches. But if you can speak clear and faster, that is fine.
Jun Zhong
Dougherty Valley High School
None
Jiangli Zhou
PalmTree Academy
None