Judge Philosophies
Aaron Zhang - Kudos Leadership
Aaron Chung - QDLearning
Abel Medina Zambrano - Unaff
Achyut Shah - MIller MS
n/a
Adhar Walia - GSA
n/a
Adriana Chan - V-LYLA
n/a
Ajay Rawal - Athens Debate
n/a
Akira X Shelton - Emerson
n/a
Allison Chu - V-LYLA
n/a
Alyson Corgatelli - Unaff
I am a tech over truth flow judge. I value the strategy portion of debate over the communication factor. However, I will not evaluate link turns on structural violence impacts, no matter how well the argument is debated. If both teams are highly skilled and the arguments well contested by both sides, I will decide based upon card credentials and communicative ability. I am cool with theory, speed, kritiks, etc. It is your debate round. If you go too fast for me, I will just say clear¢ unless the debaters perfer a different method.
Amber Giang (KT) - Unaff
Amit Adalti - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Amruta Hendre - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Amy Gao - V-LYLA
n/a
Amy Nguyen - ACLA Network
n/a
Anand Bala - RMS
n/a
Andrew Li - Nova 42
n/a
Andrew Sandler - ACDS
n/a
Anika Lee - Wilshire
n/a
Anish Nair - RMS
n/a
Anitha Matta - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Annica Wu - JMS
n/a
Annie Borders - OOS
n/a
Annie Chen - ModernBrain
n/a
Annie Ding (KT) - Unaff
Anthony Liang MB - Unaff
Anuj Aggarwal - Infinite
Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 3-4 years.
DECISION:My decision evaluates all scopes of the debate: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence, links, etc. However, telling me why your IMPACTS are important and how you better achieve them than your opponent is key for you to win this debate. I do not care about what kind of impacts you give me, but it would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize with broad ones so I know where you are deriving your impacts from.
FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis, however, I prefer OVERVIEWS (not only in your 2ars or 2nrs) because they clear things up for me and make the ballot easier too.
OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD . If you speak marginally fast or faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY because I will probably not understand it or flow it. By chance if I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate and I will probably just ignore it.
HAVE FUN DEBATING :)
Arelli Munguia - ACLA Network
n/a
Arthur Chiu - MIller MS
n/a
Arun Ragunathan - SCA
n/a
Arvind Jain - MIller MS
n/a
Ashley Silva - ACLA Network
n/a
Atul Jalan MB - Unaff
Badrinath Sridharan - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Balu Sthanikam - MIller MS
n/a
Ben Goff - SocialEquityMagnet
n/a
Bianca Lua - JMS
n/a
Bijal Shah - Athens Debate
n/a
Bruno Mastrodicasa - Nova 42
Bryan Nuri - Unaff
I am at first, a flow judge, meaning that I want to see a debate run from beginning to end. Leaving large holes on the flow makes judging the round much easier. After that, I look to the actual caseloads. Core Values and Value Criteria must not only be presented, but supported by the contentions. Strategic use of an opponent's value, criterion, or contentions to uphold their own is risky, but a winner when done correctly. In the end, I wish to be convinced. I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into L-D. This is a philosophical event "we should", not a policy debate "here are all of the solutions". Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the debater points. Also, if a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1138". Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in L-D. Do not waste our time with off-time roadmapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it. Be courteous to your opponent. Allow them to answer questions, do not cut them off. Turn off all noisemakers, including your timers. Please do not make unnecessary noise and distractions during the opponent's speeches. If you require 14 different pens to flow speeches, change pens silently. You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of debaters. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing. So convincing me is key.
Camille Green - Unaff
Candilla Park - Wilshire
n/a
Cara Wilson - Westridge
n/a
Carol Chong - AofHL
n/a
Carolyn Hughes - ACDS
n/a
Cassandra Kuo - Westridge
n/a
Cecilia Xi - RMS
n/a
Chad Messer - ModernBrain
n/a
Chandra Sivasubramaniam - Dracarys Prep
n/a
Charisma Chen - Westridge
n/a
Charles Guo - MIller MS
n/a
Chaya Kamchetty - MIller MS
n/a
Chen Shen - QDLearning
Chetan Thakkar - V-LYLA
n/a
Chinmay Kanuga - V-LYLA
n/a
Chloe Gill - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Chris Tai MB - Unaff
n/a
Chrishma Karkada - GSA
n/a
Christian Vazquez MB - Unaff
Christina Park - ModernBrain
n/a
Cindy Ma - NAL
n/a
Clayton Engelby - Unaff
Clinton Lau - V-LYLA
n/a
Colin Mequet - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Colin Ho - Nova 42
Collin Ngo - Unaff
n/a
Curtis Cornell - Kudos Leadership
Dana Trunnell - Unaff
Daniel Kyle - Nova 42
Daniel Kim - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Daniel Candia - JMS
n/a
Danielle Williams-Nidome - ACDS
n/a
Danny White - ACDS
n/a
Danny Pineda - Emerson
n/a
Dave Shen - RMS
n/a
David Wang - NAL
n/a
Dexter Winn - Nova 42
Dhara Patel - V-LYLA
n/a
Diane Medina - ACLA Network
n/a
Diane Jeong - Wilshire
n/a
Dohyun Kim - Wilshire
n/a
Dominic Lesaca - Unaff
Dorothy Vassantachart - V-LYLA
n/a
Ebru Dogan - Nova 42
Elisa Kim - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Emily Li - ModernBrain
n/a
Emily Yang - ModernBrain
n/a
Erik Miller - JMS
n/a
Ethan Chang - Kudos Leadership
Eunice Kang - Wilshire
n/a
Evan Feldman - Kudos Leadership
IF YOU DID NOT GET FEEDBACK ON YOUR BALLOT FROM ME, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT EVANRFELDMAN@GMAIL.COM
Background:
HS Competitor at Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies (SOCES) from the West LA district in California. High School Competitive Experience : Mainly in Congress, Impromptu, Parli, Spar and Duo. Qualified to states in Congress, Duo, Original Prose and Poetry, and TOC bid in congress.
Collegiate and Professional Competitive Experience:
CC Competitor at Los Angeles Valley College (LAVC) from AFA D1
Uni Competitor at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) from AFA D5
Pro Competitor at Archers, Acolytes, and Associates from LA
DEBATE:
1. Parli: NPTE Qualifier, 2nd seed and Semifinalist at CA State (2016) , 8th best Speaker & Semifinalist at Phi Rho Pi Nats (2016), Awarded best CC Parli team in the country as voted on by competitors (Bossard Twohy Award 2016).
2. IPDA: Semifinalist and 9th Spkr at CA State(2017), Co-National Champion at NOFC (2021)
IE'S/SPEECH:
CA Community College (CCCFA) States: (2016-2017) 2x champ in IMP(1 picket-fence) and Extemp, Finalist in ADS/STE (2016). Individual Sweepstakes Winner in non interp events (Tabor Collins Award 2016)
MI States (MISL) : Runner Up in Imp and Poetry, 3rd in Extemp and Persuasion, Individual Sweeps Winner (2021). State Champ in Poetry and Extemp, 3rd in After Dinner Speaking (2022)
Phi Rho Pi Nationals: Finalist in Imp Semifinalist in Ext (2016).
AFA: Quarter in ADS/STE and Poetry (2022), Semi in Persuasion/Oratory (2021)
NFA: 2x Semi in ADS/STE (2021-2022), Quarterfinal in Persuasion/Oratory (2021) , 2x Octofinal in both Impromptu and Poetry (2021-2022)
NOFC: National Champ in Persuasion & in Poetry, Silver in ADS/STE (All 2021)
Interstate Oratorical Association (IOA): National Qualifier (2021)
Professional Speech and Debate Association (PSDA): Season 2 Champion in Prepared Speech, Runner Up in Spontaneous Debate and Spontaneous Speech, 3rd in Indy Sweeps (All 2022)
Coaching Experience:
Coached middle school speech and debate for nine years, high school for eight years, elementary school for three years and community college for two years.
Congress: Champions/Runners Up at Harvard, Stanford/Palm Classic, NSDA, CHSSA State, CSULB (Jack Howe) and La Costa Canyon (Winter Classic). Finalists at Yale, Berkeley, UK Season Opener, MLK, Nova Titan, The Tradition, TOC Digital Series, ASU, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CMSF States, TOC, MS TOC
Impromptu: Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, CHSSA States, CCCFA State, Phi Ro Pi Nats, NSDA Nats
PARLI: Finalists at CSUN, Grossmont, Pasadena City College, UOP, CCCFA States, Phi Ro Pi Nats
Extemp: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, Yale, CCCFA State
POI: Champion/Runner Up at CHSSA State/ NSDA Nats Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, NIETOC
OO: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, CSUF, CLU, CHSSA States
THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN I JUDGE YOU:
1. Role of the debate space: This activity should be a safe and inclusive place for EVERYBODY. I am open to progressive and identity based arguments, and I want ya'll to be comfortable in the round. Although I've faced my own discrimination as a member of the Jewish community, I will never know what it's like to deal with the marginalization that POC, Women/Womxn, and the LGBTQ face on a daily basis. Thus, if there is anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable in the debate space, please let me know.
2. Evidence
A. Recency
I am a sucker for recent evidence, the more topical the the evidence the better. It's hard for me to trust that evidence from 6 or more years ago is still relevant (everything 1/1/2017 and beyond is fine until 12/31/2022).
B. Citing
Please at LEAST cite the year of the evidence, month is fine, and date is only necessary if it's extremely recent or if the date has some significance. Each contention should have evidence (this also applied in Extemp, Info, OO/Pers).
C. Sourcing
PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE INFO WAS PUBLISHED. Johnson 20' could easily be someone's parent or a random blog writer. Tell me if it's from The Brookings Institute, or Vox, or PBS, or the National Institute of Health. I also value source diversity, don't repeat the same publication if possible, some other publication has probably said the exact same thing.
D. Conflicting evidence
I am happy to hear arguments about why yours is better than your opponents' (Recency of publication, larger sample size, more diverse sample size, more credible publication, misuse of evidence, conflict of interest in publishing etc).
E Quality/Bias:
I personally don't like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Wire, and other sources that have had too many problems with fake news. I won't accept evidence from conspiracy theory or white supremacist sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, The Daily Stormer, or anything from Q-ANON.
3. Delivery:
A. Speed: I have a fine motor skill issue that prevents me from flowing super fast. I will listen to some speed, but not full spreading. I can handle more speed than lay, but less than the avg flow judge. If I call speed 4x and you don't slow down you will lose the round.
I am less willing to deal with speed in Congress, IPDA or BQ where the point is to be conversational.
B. Speaker Points: Rounds should be fun. I want ya'll to be able to use your wit and humor, thus I will take that into account if you are looking for a way to improve your speaker points. I like puns, Childish Gambino, Hamilton, Lil Dicky, Rick and Morty, sports, and silly analogies. You won't win just for being funny, but you'll up your spks for sure.
C. Standing/Movement: I expect all competitors to stand when they speak (not required during cx). It's better for your vocal projection, confidence and overall presentation. If you are doing Congress, Spar or an IE (not including interp), I expect you to also do a speaker's triangle/three step walk.
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS ONLY: Please don't look down at the camera, place it on a higher platform so that it can be at eye level when you stand. Make sure you look at the camera to simulate eye contact and not stare at yourself or a second monitor... Also please make sure you are fully in camera when you're speaking.
4. Argumentation
Types of Arguments I will and won't listen to
A. All events:
Debate is a game so run what you want, but here is a tip sheet if you have me.
a. Counter-plans: Make sure they aren't perm-able, that they are non topical and that they don't bite into your own disadvantage
b. Perm: Show why both plan and cp can be done. I won't allow everything to be permed just because it's a "test of competition"
c. Ideology: I'm not only from a metropolitan city, I'm from a metropolitan COASTAL State, not only am I from a metropolitan COASTAL state, but that State is California... you do the math on where my politics lie. Jokes aside, speech and debate is already a progressive activity, but I'm a 20-something year old adult from the most liberal place in the country who is an intersectional feminist and is part of a marginalized minority...like I'm pretty far left. I will listen to conservative leaning arguments, but be careful. I recommend framing them within a progressive lens, and how your impact will protect the disenfranchised.
d. Structure: If you do a status quo, link/change, impact type structure you improve your chances of me voting for you/ranking you well. Also, if you're using an opponents argument against them SAY TURN. If you don't have an argument to turn it, then de-linking (showing why it doesn't apply) or saying it's non unique (that their impact is already happening without the resolution/topic) is helpful. I really appreciate when people number their responses.
It's in your best interest to give impacts (why we should care/the result of your argument). Please state the name and number of your contentions. Say the word impact, tell me what the TANGIBLE impact is, then explain it (hopefully with evidence).
Event Specific Notes
A. PARLI, PF, LD, CX, IPDA and BQ Only..... If you have me in congress, keep scrolling.
a. Conditionality: Kick whatever you want as long as there isn't offense on it. I'll listen to condo theory
b. Topicality: If you're being abused by the aff, run it. I'm also okay with seeing it as time strategy. Show the articulated abuse.
c. Reverse Voting Issues: They usually aren't very persuasive but I will buy them more than the average flow judge.
d. Spreading Theory: If you're calling speed and/or clear and the team refuses to slow down I will probably vote for this if you do an okay job running it.
e . Kritik's: Will listen to them if the structure is very organized. I want to be told the role of the ballot, the framework, the link, the impact, the alt etc... I've only voted on four k's ever.
f. No New Points in Rebuttal Theory: I'm a fan, but you have to earn it.
g. No Neg Fiat: I'll laugh, but hey, if you can do it, good for you.
h. Trichotomy: Bleh, you better make some really compelling arguments.
Overall: Be organized, use sub-points, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly. Hard for me to vote for you if you don't give me voters. HAVE FUN.
B. Congress ONLY:
1. CLASH is the most important part of congress.
Even if you're the first speaker, tell me what opposition speakers are going to say. When you CLASH, tell me which opponents you are responding to directly (Senator Trololol or Representative DankMemez YOU said). Yes I am okay if you clash with members of your side as long as you don't contradict yourself.
2. DO NOT repeat points made by others without contributing to the conversation.
If someone makes a point that is even REMOTELY similar to yours, you can't just pretend that they didn't say it. Like if you have an economic point about job growth and someone else on your side talked about gdp growth you can address them (Senator Renegade YOU brought up how this legislation increases the nation's gdp, and while I agree that this is important, we also need to understand the economic implications of how this bill impacts job growth).
3. Speaking order
Any person can win from any spot. However, the later you go, the more I expect you to clash, and the more I expect your points to be unique. If you are nervous about clashing or have generic stock points, I'd recommend going early and predicting the round. If you're one of the last speakers to speak on a bill, please compare the aff and neg (like a two world scenario), and give summaries of why your side has won.
4. Organization
A. Within a speech
Attention Getting Device, Quick Preview (pass/fail this bill and there's a few reasons why), Contentions and Clash (preferable to do them as the same time), Quick Conclusion.
B. Within an argument
State the name of your argument as you start that contention. Then you can kinda do whatever you want as long as you explain why your argument connects back to the bill and clash if possible.
If you do a status quo, link/change (if we pass/fail this legislation then), impact type structure I'll be impressed.
5. PO'S
Be efficient, be personable, be confident, be organized, follow Parliamentary Procedure, and it's in your best interest to tell us how many questions/speeches we got in while you presided.
Congress Overall: Overall: Be organized, CLASH WITH OTHER SPEAKERS, number your responses, HAVE FUN.
Evelyn Chi - Westridge
n/a
Fiona Tai - V-LYLA
n/a
Francis Kim-Baek - V-LYLA
n/a
Geeta Hiremath - GSA
n/a
Georgia Singleton - Roosevelt
n/a
Gina Kim - Wilshire
n/a
Gloria Gong - Nova 42
Grayce Alpers - Athens Debate
n/a
Griffin Bird - Unaff
Hanna McGarahan - ACLA Network
n/a
Hannah Koh - Unaff
Hazal Shah - V-LYLA
n/a
Heather Chen - ModernBrain
n/a
Heather Simonovich - MIller MS
n/a
Henry Huynh - Kudos Leadership
Henry Chu - V-LYLA
n/a
Hilda Velasquez-Galvez - V-LYLA
n/a
Ian Hunte - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Indranil Chatterjee - ModernBrain
n/a
Iraise Garcia - JMS
n/a
Isaac Gutierrez - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Isie X Bollinger - Emerson
n/a
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Ivan Gonzalez - ACDS
n/a
Jack Han - QDLearning
Jacky Koey - ModernBrain
n/a
Jake Bisgard - ACLA Network
n/a
Jamin Yu - ModernBrain
n/a
Janiel Victorino - QDLearning
My Competitive Career consists of 4 years in the collegiate Circuit; Saddleback College (2015-17), and CSUF (2017-19). I have been a speech and debate judge for the MS/HS circuit since 2017, and for the Collegiate Circuit since 2019. if you need clarification on a ballot, please send an email to [ jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com ]
Ballot Style:
Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment. I have made it a personal philosophy to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.
if I am unable to comment on evidence organization or speech writing due to speed, I tend to focus on minute analysis of nonverbal decisions.
Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress, but it is not part of my competitive background. I don't have experience with policy debate as of this writing.
I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round. I value organization uniqueness and clash during rounds. Regardless of your evidence quantity, I love it when students are able to have versatile/creative arguments but clear and concise writing. Please signpost. I am looking for how competitors set up all provided evidence in round AND Questioning to counter rebuttals (which means my biggest thing is how evidence is arranged to construct unique arguments), although I also appreciate the occasional framework discussion. I appreciate having round evidence forwarded to me via email, but since I have been in the debate world less than my speech career, I am a flow judge and RFDs will be made purely from in-round proceedings. While I consider initiative and prominence as important (especially in congress) I also do my best to recognize reasons why certain students are not as prominent in round.
I can speed read a little, but I would exercise caution especially during online tournaments. I mentioned earlier that I timestamp comments where possible, but I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots. Professionalism is important to me, but not to the point where a student is quiet, if you have to say something offensive, please keep it within the confines of debate evidence. I like high-energy rounds, whether via morale building or aggressive pacing, but its not the end of the world if the round has calmer proceedings :)
Clarity > Speed.
Jaylen Luc (KT) - Unaff
Jeffrey Chen - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Jenna Lea - Honor Academy
n/a
Jennifer Billante - ACDS
n/a
Jhangra Perminder - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
John Lewellen - ModernBrain
n/a
John Ferris - Nova 42
n/a
Jonathan Grossman - NWC MS
n/a
Jose Valdezspino - V-LYLA
n/a
Joseph Kahn - Kudos Leadership
udge based primarily on matter and manner. This means I evaluate both the persuasive content and performative aspects of speeches. I have coached and competed in Parli, PF, and BP (World's Style). I find humor to be persuasive, and appreciate attempts to insert humor into speeches. While I am ok with speed, I discourage it in PF debate to allow every round to be accessible and understandable to an average person.
Juan Benitez - ACDS
n/a
Jue Park - V-LYLA
n/a
Julia Freda-Eskenazi - Athens Debate
n/a
Julian Anderson MB - Unaff
Juliana Fong - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Julie Tran - OOS
n/a
Julissa Cruz - Emerson
n/a
Kaine Cherry - GSA
n/a
Kaitlin Danssaert - JMS
n/a
Kamaljit Singh - GSA
n/a
Kamlakar Singh - ModernBrain
n/a
Kannan Balakrishnan - GSA
n/a
Karan Chahal - SCA
n/a
Karim Bouhairi - ModernBrain
n/a
Karmen To (KT) - Unaff
Katelyn Sim - Westridge
n/a
Katelynn La - Nova 42
n/a
Katherine Rhee - V-LYLA
n/a
Kathy Azar - Emerson
n/a
Katie Babb - Nova 42
n/a
Katie Cohen - Emerson
n/a
Kelsey Schott - Unaff
Kenna McRae - JMS
n/a
Kevin Ding - ModernBrain
n/a
Kevin Velasquez (KT) - Unaff
Kevin Ozomaro - Unaff
Kevin Sun MB - Unaff
Kirthi Narayanaswamy - RMS
n/a
Kitiny Phumchun - Honor Academy
n/a
Klemens Huynh - V-LYLA
n/a
Kyle Smith - Unaff
LIndsay Overturf - PSA
n/a
Lana Mahook - ACLA Network
n/a
Laura Pei - Nova 42
n/a
Laura Zhu - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Laura Cui - ModernBrain
n/a
Lauren Ginn - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Lauren Freedman - ACLA Network
n/a
Lawrence Tang - JMS
n/a
Li Luan - ModernBrain
n/a
Lijin Feng - ModernBrain
n/a
Lily Liao - QDLearning
Lisa Guo - V-LYLA
n/a
Lizvette Hernandez - Unaff
Lori Khashaki - Nova 42
n/a
Luccia Yaccoub - JMS
n/a
Lucero Garcia - ACLA Network
n/a
Luis Garay - ACLA Network
n/a
Luna X McNeff Yee - Emerson
n/a
Madhvi Gupta - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Maggie Woodward - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Manav Manivannan - ACLA Network
n/a
Manikantan Jayaraman - GSA
n/a
Manish Garg - ModernBrain
n/a
Manveer Singh - Unaff
Marcus Yang - MIller MS
n/a
Mario Shields - Unaff
Mark Jensen - AofHL
n/a
Mark Hull - ACDS
n/a
Marshall Murphy - SocialEquityMagnet
n/a
Matt Contreras - MLA
n/a
Matt X Kim - Emerson
n/a
Matthew Schaupp - Kudos Leadership
Maz Songerwala - ACDS
n/a
Mei Fan - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Michael Starzynski - Unaff
Michele Lee - RMS
n/a
Mohammad Mohseni - ACLA Network
n/a
Mohit Vaswani - ACDS
n/a
Monika Patel - V-LYLA
n/a
Moon Gwak MB - Unaff
Moushumi Zaman - MIller MS
n/a
Murty Kotha - SCA
n/a
Nachiappan Nachiappan - GSA
n/a
Nandan Nabar - GSA
n/a
Natalie Stolarski - GSA
n/a
Natalie Lahney MB - Unaff
Nathan Akiyoshi - ACLA Network
n/a
Navneet Goel - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Neel Sadda - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Neha Thakker - V-LYLA
n/a
Nerissa Wang - ModernBrain
n/a
Nicole Joh - Wilshire
n/a
Nitasha Batra - ModernBrain
n/a
Niyati Jani - MIller MS
n/a
Noah Christiansen - Unaff
n/a
Onar Vikingstad - ACDS
n/a
Parker Hopkins - Unaff
Paul Brewer - SCA
n/a
Paul Nigh - ModernBrain
n/a
Peter HU - NAL
n/a
Pilsang Park - ACDS
n/a
Piya Devidasani - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Pooja Agarwal - Athens Debate
n/a
Prakash Sethia - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Prevail De Rox MB - Unaff
Priscilla Chin - JMS
n/a
Purvi Kapadia - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Pushpendra Duhoon - Dracarys Prep
n/a
Qing Zhou - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Rachel Urman - Athens Debate
n/a
Rachel Smith - ACLA Network
n/a
Radhika Miriyala - MIller MS
n/a
Raghupathi Murthy - GSA
n/a
Rahim Hassanali - Nobel MS
n/a
Rajani Parmeshwar - ACDS
n/a
Rajeswari Vinayagam - MIller MS
n/a
Rajiv Ranjan - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Ram Parasuraman - RMS
n/a
Rama Rajita Pentapati - GSA
n/a
Ramana Kavarapu - Athens Debate
n/a
Ravi Prasad - Unaff
Background Information My debate experience stems from both high school and college. I debated 4 years of high school LD and Public Forum. I then went on to debate for four years at the University of the Pacific in both Parli and LD. I broke at 4 national tournaments across these two events, and was selected as an NPDA All American. These breaks include finishing 6th in the nation for LD at the 2019 NFA, finishing 11th in the country at the 2020 NPTE, and getting to Double-Octos at the 2018 NFA, and 2020 NPDA respectively. I will also disclose upfront that I am a conservative (domestically Libertarian, with a foreign policy that is Neo-Conservative). This will not effect the way I evaluate your arguments in round as I seek to be as objective as possible and have voted for/won off of tons of arguments I don't like (in fact I am very much open to vote on a myriad of arguments that many judges wouldn't even listen to). I just figured you'd appreciate the upfront honesty. General Views on Debate/ TLDR For the most part, you can argue whatever you want. I view the debate space as something that is a free speech environment. I am a line by line flow judge that is for the most part and blank slate when judging. I am willing to vote on anything as long as you impact out the argument and tell me how to vote. There is one exception to my do what you want approach to judging. In events with clearly defined rules, go ahead and consider me Antonin Scalia when a rules violation is gone for. Don't get me wrong, If rules bad is just plain conceded I will obviously vote there, but a simple statement along the lines of "Ravi, I am not asking you to like the rules, I am telling you to do your job", will suffice to makes rules bad disappear on my flow. You still have to argue the violation with a procedural, but beyond that I think that the rules say what they say and they don't say what they don't say. Furthermore, while I am absolutely willing to evaluate theory positions that aren't tied to a rules violation, I am sympathetic to arguments that suggest that theory positions that would would require a debater to break a rule of the activity or be non topical should be rejected at base value (examples include theory that suggests that the Affirmative must be micropolitical when the resolution calls for a government actor, or otherwise non topical). You still have to answer the theory but argument along the lines saying that such theory creates a double bind between a we meet and being topical and/or a double bind between a we meet and operating within the rules will be sufficient for me in just any genre of debate. Beyond that I am willing to evaluate any argument with a clear impact for me to vote on. By that same token, don't just respond to argument by saying it racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc. These are not impacts. You are going to have to give me some impacts and tell me how to vote on those arguments (What I am effectively saying is that if you want to run your K, run your K, just give me clear impacts and tell me how to evaluate it). I am a non-interventionist judge that would like you to do the work for me on the flow. I guess the one place where I will go after your speaker points is if you attack the debater rather than the argument. DEBATE IS A GAME. You are arbitrarily assigned to defend positions you will often not agree with. DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL. What goes on outside of a round, how you perceive your opponent, what you they post on social media, etc. should have no effect on the round itself. It's the arguments made IN THE ROUND that matter to me. I won't automatically vote you down for dragging your opponents personal identity into around for the purpose of attacking them/and or discrediting their arguments, but a well run procedural with standards and voters may very well get me to. Counterplans/ Kritik Alternatives I will not allow for my own views of conditionality, pics, etc, influence how I evaluate your counterplans. It is entirely your debate to be argued out through theory positions. If you are just curious about my views on conditionality, here it is: I think that in any genre of debate, one conditional counter plan is within the realm of acceptability (multiple not so much). But if you win the theory you win the theory as I am willing to vote for condo bad even it is one advocacy (I love a good condo bad shell. At Pacific I was always unconditional in Parli, but was frequently condo with a CP in LD). Furthermore, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments that suggest that all Kritik Alternatives should be read unconditionally (particularly if your standard and voter analysis deals with conditional ethics) I just think that if you are going to spend a good portion of the 1NC talking about how our words matter, and that how our representations of people matter, taking a conditional approach to the alt based off the time allocation decisions of an opponent just feels off to me. I also really like it when debaters do the work to contextualize why condo is good or bad to the specific genre of debate at the standards level. In other words giving me reasons why condo is good or bad in LD, or in Parli, or in Policy, etc. Nonetheless, this is your debate to have, I won't intervene on the theory flow. You may run any alternative/counterplan you want, just run them well and make sure you have reasons to not prefer the permutation. Topicality/Theory I love a good theory debate. Topicality is my favorite, but I am also a big fan of SPEC arguments. I don't need abuse proven, or otherwise to vote on on theory. You do obviously need good standards and voters, and I default to competing interpretations unless reasonability is won hard. Theory positions coming out of the aff speech such as (pics bad, condo bad, kriticisms bad, etc.) are fine, I will absolutely vote on them if you run them well and win them. I also will default to evaluating the text of an interpretation over the spirit of it, so be clear. I will also gladly vote on "my opponent doesn't meet their counter interpretation" so be sure to actually meet it. When it comes to evaluating theory under competing interpretations you can all call me Ravi "The Only Game in Town" Prasad. If you don't meet your opponents interpretation and don't offer a competitive counter interpretation: you lose. This is because competitive interpretations are what generate uniqueness for offense on the standards and impact debate. Asking me to vote on offense without a competitive interpretation is asking for a vote on linear offense. All of this is just a long way of saying that I will vote on just about any theory position, you just need to win it and tell me how to vote on it. Speed I can hang. I am fine with speed. I won't make it an issue unless you make it an issue with a procedural. Impact Framing I will weigh impacts, they way you tell me to in the debate. However, I will default to the order of magnitude, timeframe, then probability. But again, this is a very negotiable oder, just tell me how to vote in round. Carded Debate You need to be reading cards in carded debate obviously. However, not every single argument needs to have a card attached to it. I am very much open to hearing your independent analysis. Carded evidence will obviously be preferred, but if you have a smart argument: MAKE IT. I encourage you to access your knowledge of the world. Rules of Debate I personally think that rules are very important. However, it is up to you to argue the violation with a procedural and again, tell me how to vote on it. The only rules I will enforce myself are time limits, order of speeches, and making sure that both partners in team debates are giving their correct speeches. Other than that, its up to you to argue violations, and once you do I take an Antonin Scalia approach to evaluating rules arguments. The rules say what they say and don't say what they don't say. If rules bad is just plain conceded I will have to vote there, but simply saying "Ravi I am not asking you to like the rules, but telling you to your job" will be enough. Winning My Ballot. I am a big picture guy. Don't get me wrong, line by line is very important and you absolutely need to go for it... But, at the end of the debate, at some point, just give me the simple stuff. Tell me the story of the position you are collapsing, tell me what the world looks like if I do or do not vote for you. In those closing speeches of the debate, go for line by line for sure, but not at the expense of telling me how to vote and giving me a clear picture to look at.
Reed Ramsey - Unaff
Richa Jain - GSA
n/a
Riley Riley - ACLA Network
n/a
Robert Lebeda - PSA
n/a
Robert Montgomery - QDLearning
Robert Chen - GSA
n/a
Rohit Dayanand - Athens Debate
n/a
Rohitkumar Rajyagor - AofHL
n/a
Roopa Chandrupatla - RMS
n/a
Rose Thompson - Unaff
I am a college LD debater at Lewis & Clark College with four years of speech and debate experience under my belt so I am very comfortable with any form of argumentation, policy-based or otherwise. I will listen to any arguments you read, all I ask is that you be kind to myself and your opponents. I am also new to this online debate format so hopefully we can bear with each other through technical issues, although it is my responsibility to ensure our round runs on time so please be prompt where prep time and file sharing are concerned and be communicative. :) Here are the areas of debate where I have more specific preferences beyond "do what you want;" Speed: I am fine with any speed level but reserve the right to call clear on you as well as for your opponent. Please make sure your clarity and speed are accessible to your opponent and don't be shy about asking one another to slow down or clear. Also, with an online format, it may be increasingly necessary to slow your speeches down so all I ask is flexibility. T/Theory: I'm extremely down with topicality and theory but just know I have a higher threshold for evaluating blippy theory arguments. I have found that I am more persuaded by in-round abuse claims but it's not an absolute must. Also, I default to T being a priori but you're welcome to convince me otherwise! Aff/Neg Ks: Down with whatever. I've probably read your author but don't assume your opponent has -- you should be able to summarize your K if you're gonna run it. I'm consistently most sceptical at the link level and alt/advocacy solvency so the more material your link and solvency are, the stronger. Speaker points: I usually give high speaks but you're unlikely to receive perfect speaks from me unless you really impress me. Alternately, I use speaks as punishment for being rude, offensive, etc. so remember to be kind and keep the round as accessible to your opponent as possible. TL;DR: Run the arguments you want to, be good to one another, debate is meant to be fun.
Rupali Batta - OOS
n/a
Ryan Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Sachin Gupta - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Samantha Chu - ACDS
n/a
Sana Khan - ACLA Network
n/a
Sanjay Agarwal - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Sanoja Sridevan MB - Unaff
Sapna Garg - RMS
n/a
Sara Shemali - Unaff
Please remember to signpost and give voters for the round!
Sara Moghadam - Unaff
n/a
Satish Fernandes - MIller MS
n/a
Savita Mathur - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Scott Schuster - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Scott Brown - Honor Academy
n/a
Scott Wheeler - Unaff
n/a
Seran Wilson - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Servando Galvan - Unaff
Shakun Agarwal - GSA
n/a
Shania Baweja - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Sharad Mathur - GSA
n/a
Sharmistha Goswami - RMS
n/a
Sharon Hartman - ACDS
n/a
Shashank Merchant - BASIS
n/a
Shawn White - Unaff
Sherry Shen - ModernBrain
n/a
Shirley Shan - GSA
n/a
Shivi Bhandari - GSA
n/a
Shrey Kapoor - Unaff
Shruthi Sriram - OOS
n/a
Sid Puranik - Unaff
Simon Liu Ver. 2 - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Simon Liu - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Simone Kang - Westridge
n/a
Skyler Walker - Unaff
Sonali Jain - MIller MS
n/a
Sonya Patel - MIller MS
n/a
Sophia Sohn - V-LYLA
n/a
Sophie Cheung - Westridge
n/a
Sourabh Goyal - GSA
n/a
Stephanie Hu - ModernBrain
n/a
Steven Luo - SCA
n/a
Steven Nguyen - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Taehyun Kim - PSA
n/a
Tammy DiGregorio - SocialEquityMagnet
n/a
Tanuja Madhavapeddi - MIller MS
n/a
Tanya Prabhakar - Unaff
Tao Wang - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Tarun Maharana - GSA
n/a
Taylor Frontera - Unaff
Tianjiao Dong - ModernBrain
n/a
Tiya Basilio - AofHL
n/a
Tracy Y Liu - V-LYLA
n/a
Tripti Kamath - Athens Debate
n/a
Tushar Bandopadhyay - MIller MS
n/a
Uichong Adint - Athens Debate
n/a
Vanita Jain - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Veda Yama - Athens Debate
n/a
Vineet Kakani - MIller MS
n/a
Vishwanath Sen - Dracarys Prep
n/a
Vontrez White - Unaff
Will Gunter - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Xiaoping Qin - MIller MS
n/a
Yang Yang - MIller MS
n/a
Yvonne Smith - ACDS
n/a
Zhen Gu - YG, Bay AreaDebate
n/a
Zihad Amin - ACLA Network
n/a
bhawna gupta - RMS
n/a
joseph barquin - Unaff
sweta Patel - RMS
n/a