Judge Philosophies
Alvis Yang - Nova 42
Amber Cao - ModernBrain
n/a
Amy Murphy - QDLearning
Ana Reyes - ModernBrain
n/a
Anna Razo - Emerson
n/a
Annie Chen - ModernBrain
n/a
Asha Taylor - ACLA Network
n/a
Asha Taylor - ACLA Network
n/a
Ashley Wee - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Audrey Yoon - ModernBrain
n/a
Belinda Lantz - ModernBrain
n/a
Ben Unanaowo - GSA
n/a
Bruno Mastrodicasa - Nova 42
Camille Acosta - El Sol
n/a
Carlos Pelayo - Cog Deb
n/a
Carol Chong - AofHL
n/a
Carol Chong - AofHL
n/a
Colin Ho - Nova 42
Daniel Kyle - Nova 42
Elaine Hsieh - Emerson
n/a
Fang Pang - ModernBrain
n/a
Francis Kim - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Goomo Yoon - Honor Academy
n/a
Gordon Ip - Wilshire
n/a
Helen Huang - ModernBrain
n/a
Jasmin Sharp - ModernBrain
n/a
Jasmine Washington - ACLA Network
n/a
Jasmine Washington - ACLA Network
n/a
Jenna Murphy - Emerson
n/a
Jennifer Leal - BASIS
n/a
Jerry Zhu - V-LYLA
n/a
Jessie Chen - ModernBrain
n/a
Joanna Marie Fernandez - GSA
n/a
John Lewellen - ModernBrain
n/a
Julianna Pingol - Nova 42
Justine Park - Honor Academy
n/a
Karlee Currin - ModernBrain
n/a
Kelly Sohner - McFadden
n/a
Kristina Rietveld - Cog Deb
EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, I prefer mandates that are in the news, have be done before or have at least been proposed; No random plans that you think are good. Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, No aff K's ever (kritikal advantages are fine, but not an all out K). Rule 2, make sure your K somehow links to the resolution for the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 3, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 4, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
Speech
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (for the rest of my paradigm that is not specific to CPFL but still relevant to all debate styles, reference the remainder of the paradigm):
Do:
-Include a value/criteria
-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)
-Communicate when you are using prep time
DO NOT:
-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)
-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other teams case substantively)
I will vote for the team that best upholds their sides burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.
Lara Stuback - Emerson
n/a
Laura Cui - ModernBrain
n/a
Mark Jensen - AofHL
n/a
Matt Contreras - MLA
n/a
Meaghan Loeffler - MLA
n/a
Mei Lani Poindexter - Emerson
n/a
Meng Xia - JMS
n/a
Michael Yee - Emerson
n/a
Minny Zhang - ModernBrain
n/a
Nancy Yang - QDLearning
Natalie Yates - AofHL
n/a
Nova Judge 4 - Nova 42
Nova 42 judge Valeria - Nova 42
Nova 42 judge Valeria - Nova 42
Nova 42 judge Valeria - Nova 42
Nova 42 Judge 1 - Nova 42
Nova 42 Judge Dawson - Nova 42
Olivia Cheng - QDLearning
Paul Zive - Willard
n/a
Rahim Hassanali - Nobel MS
n/a
Rebecca Cannon - Wilshire
n/a
Rico Reyes - ModernBrain
n/a
Robert Cannon - Wilshire
n/a
Sabina Lin - ModernBrain
n/a
Sarah Wilson - MLA
n/a
Stephanie Levitt - Emerson
n/a
Steven Leal - BASIS
n/a
Subha Alluri - ModernBrain
n/a
The Guerreros - ACLA Network
n/a
Tiffany Zhu - QDLearning
Uma Kakarlapudi - ModernBrain
n/a
Vandana Karthikeya - ModernBrain
n/a
Victor Rivas Umana - GSA
n/a
Wei Wang - QDLearning
Willie Washington - ACLA Network
n/a
Xavier Torres - Nova 42
Xavier Torres - Nova 42
Xiaobin Yan - ModernBrain
n/a
Yilin Mao - ModernBrain
n/a