Judge Philosophies
Aditya Iyengar - Stratford FrOs
n/a
Aldiyar Baidauletov - ACLA Network
n/a
Alexis Rodriguez - SAGE
n/a
Allison Chu - V-LYLA
n/a
Alysson Farris - RMS
n/a
Amanda Hsieh - Emerson
n/a
Ambili Sasidharan - Stratford Milpitas
n/a
Amrita Maliwal - TJHS
n/a
Anika Lee - Wilshire
n/a
Anita Yao - Speak In Power
n/a
Aparna Karra - TJHS
n/a
Ashley Butler - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Athena Ramirez - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Balu Sthanikam - MIller MS
n/a
Beneeta Varghese - TJHS
n/a
Beth Cheung - Emerson
n/a
Beth Martin - OOS
n/a
Bharti Hathalia - GSA
n/a
Bill Thompson - BWS
For both sides: Can we say the individual letters L.A.W.S. when referring to lethal autonomous weapons and say "laws" when referring to the rules that govern their usage. Otherwise, it can be super-confusing for all parties involved. Thanks!
In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA/NFL. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.
Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time votin aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"
- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot
- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like
- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.
- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.
- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.
- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy
LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"
- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.
- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.
- Not a fan of tricks
- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.
- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy
PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
Bob Chen - Emerson
n/a
Camdyn Wu - Huntington
n/a
Cameron Houg - Nova 42
n/a
Candilla Park - Wilshire
n/a
Carol Chong - AofHL
n/a
Cecila Chu-Juluri - Stratford Milpitas
n/a
Cecilia Xi - RMS
n/a
Charles Ma - Nova 42
n/a
Chloe Mondesir - SAGE
n/a
Chloe Gill - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Christina Zhang - NAL
n/a
Colter Heirigs - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Dana Danesi - Emerson
n/a
Daniel Kyle - Nova 42
Danielle Kappler - Alverno
n/a
David Lee - Nova 42
n/a
Dhara Patel - V-LYLA
n/a
Diane Jeong - Wilshire
n/a
Dohee Kim - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Dohyun Kim - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Dylan Tanouye - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Ed Kim - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Edward Kim - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Elisa Kim - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Eliza Gunter - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Elliott Shem - RMS
n/a
Emi Kim - Wilshire
n/a
Ethan Schaffer - BWS
I competed in IE and Debate at Marshall University for two years years; I currently am a LD coach for Brentwood Middle School and PF coach for Paul Laurence Dunbar HS. I've been exclusively judging LD and PF this season, so I understand most of the terminology that you could throw at me. If this preface to my paradigm worries you, I encourage you to read the rest of my paradigm anyways, it may change your mind (and always feel free to ask me questions in person).
Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points, though this isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop vs tabrooms file share). schaffer16@live.
AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text).
T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters.
Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument, but will vote on drop-the-debater if that argument is warranted out to me (though my threshold for voting on drop-the-debater is pretty high). I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Aff's, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Aff's running Disclosure Theory against Neg's is a viable strategy in front of me.
CP: I don't have a strong personal opinion on conditionality, but I lean towards disliking conditional CP's- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is a little risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.
K: I love critical arguments and, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world. Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to drop the AFF, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.
DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff.
CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional
K.
Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only attack one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and presumption are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.
Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.
Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments.
Speaks;
Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.
30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you. Probably not going to be giving this.
29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)
29-29.5: More likely to break than to not
28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, but more likely to not.
27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.
26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.
<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.
LD (Traditional) ------------------------------
If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).
PF ------------------------------
2nd rebuttal must answer all offense that was made in 1st rebuttal. If you want to drop an arg that only had defense read on it, that's more than fine by me. 1st and 2nd summary must extend all offense and defense they plan to go for in final focus. Summary and final focus should look really similar.
Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.
Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use.
Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF. Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.
Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me. I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.
Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.
Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.
General Thoughts:
1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can.
2. Please call me Ethan not judge
3. Disclose your case prior to your speech
Fidencio Jimenez - ModernBrain
n/a
Fiona Tai - ModernBrain
n/a
Gargy Dave - TJHS
n/a
Gayatri Bhide - Stratford Milpitas
n/a
Golda Messer - ModernBrain
n/a
Hailea Stone - ACLA Network
n/a
Hamesh Chawla - Stratford Milpitas
n/a
Hari Nidumolu - SJMS
n/a
Hari Kumar - MIller MS
n/a
Hazel Huang - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Heather Peters - ACDS
n/a
Howard Ying - SJMS
n/a
Huahua Jian - ZCFLA
n/a
Isaac Gutierrez - Westridge
n/a
Isabella Martin - San Marino Learnin
n/a
Isaiah Salgato - CL
n/a
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Jack Han - QDLearning
Jad Soucar - MC Speech
n/a
James Yang - V-LYLA
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.
Jared Koch - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Jeff Henckels - Nova 42
n/a
Jennifer Huang - QDLearning
Jennifer Liu - V-LYLA
n/a
Jeremy Lee - CL
n/a
Jiangbin Luo - GSA
n/a
Jinho Lee - SJMS
n/a
Joey Porter - SAGE
n/a
John Cao - GSA
n/a
John Lee - TJHS
n/a
John Walski - Wilshire
n/a
John Villanueva - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Jonathan Fong - Huntington
n/a
Joseph Barquin - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Josh Steinle - Alverno
n/a
Julia Cai - QDLearning
Kalpana Sharma - Stratford Milpitas
n/a
Karthika Krishna - MILPITAS
n/a
Katya Azzam - Rhyme and Reason
n/a
Kayla Gerdes - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Keun Soo Yim - Raynor
n/a
Khamani Griffin - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Khang Dao - SJMS
n/a
Krish Vitaldevara - RMS
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.
Kyle Rogers - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Lakshmi Menon - SJMS
n/a
Lalitha Vitaldevara - RMS
n/a
Lauren Kim - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Lee Thach - CL
n/a
Lena Tang - Brooks Debate
Hi, My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical and business. I've been judging debate for almost 3 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.
Judging Preferences:
- I appreciate astrong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be givenclear standardsby which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I prefer when an argument is backed up withfactual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for -PleaseDO NOT repeat the entire debate.
-Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.
Lily Liao - QDLearning
Lisa Guo - V-LYLA
n/a
Lisa E. Howard - BWS
Mallika Keralapura - ACDS
n/a
Manan Goel - Vish Goel
n/a
Manish Garg - ModernBrain
n/a
Manvendra Mishra - MIller MS
n/a
Mary Kotturan - Stratford FrOs
n/a
Meg Kalaw - Alverno
n/a
Megha Patel - SVSD
Melanie Villarreal - ACLA Network
n/a
Michael Wheeler - Stratford FrOs
n/a
Michael Starzynski - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Michael Williams - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Miriam Davenport - Emerson
n/a
Nadia Chung - AofHL
n/a
Naren Borjigin - AofHL
n/a
Natalie Stolarski - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Nicole Joh - Wilshire
n/a
Padmini Thekkermarath - Raynor
n/a
Patrick Ellis - ACDS
n/a
Peter HU - NAL
n/a
Prachi Mohapatra - VCS
n/a
Praveen Kakade - Raynor
n/a
Punit Arya - MILPITAS
n/a
Rachel Hibler - Computech
n/a
Ram Parasuraman - RMS
n/a
Ramesh Pentakota - SJMS
n/a
Ravi Vaduri - Raynor
n/a
Renee Zhang - NAL
n/a
Robert Adanto - BWS
Rose Thompson - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Ruhi Barot - ACLA Network
n/a
Ruqun Shan - GSA
n/a
Ryan Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Sai Ankireddi - Stratford Milpitas
n/a
Sam Timinsky - Nueva
n/a
Samantha Armendariz - Huntington
n/a
Sanchet Agarwal - SVSD
Sara Moghadam - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Sasan Kasravi - ModernBrain
n/a
Scott Schuster - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Seamus Greene - ACDS
n/a
Shailley Singh - RMS
n/a
Sharad Kolla - Raynor
n/a
Sharmistha Goswami - RMS
n/a
Shelly Shi - RMS
n/a
Sherry Shen - ModernBrain
n/a
Shiying Zhang - MIller MS
n/a
Shuba Lall - GSA
n/a
Silvia Gibilaro - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Siva Balan - SJMS
n/a
Sricharan Anand - Stratford FrOs
n/a
Stephan Brooks - Brooks Debate
STEPHAN BROOKS
COACHING & COMPETITIVE BACKGROUND:
- Founder / Coach @ Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2016-Present)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Debate Coach @ Stanford National Forensics Institute in Stanford, CA (Summer 2013-15)
- Debate Coach @ Cal National Debate Institute in Berkeley, CA (Summer 2013)
- Debate & Extemp Coach @ Summit Preparatory High School in Redwood City, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Debate Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)
I am former debate competitor. I have experience in and have judged all forms of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several California Bay Area schools and programs, including my own private program. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days.
JUDGING PREFERENCES:
- First and foremost, I am a "policymaker" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging 90% of debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards
- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.
- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.
- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.
- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.
- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that crap at home. I want real-world impacts not BS theory garbage.
- On that note, I HATE THEORY. I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! (unless your opponent is legit guilty of a fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc.)
- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.
- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Also, you will probably lose. And don't bother reading me your stupid block about how reading more stuff is more educational, nothing is educational if it sounds like gibberish, and if you read that block I'll vote you down AND give you negative 500 speaker points. And next to your negative 500 speaker points, I'll write my own education block note stating how receiving negative 500 speaker points is educational and will teach you not to spread in the future when your judge says that they hate spread. And then when ballots get scanned online, your friends will see your negative 500 speaker points, laugh at you, and reinforce that education.
- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible, even if a tournament director tells me not to. What are they going to do if I break their rule, ban me from judging and doing more work? Oh no! How horrible! I'll just have to sit in the judges room all day, eat free food, and catch up on my work.
MY DEBATE PET PEEVES YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF:
- You absolutely do not need to shake my hand. Kids spread germs, I don't know where your hand has been, I usually work seven days a week and can't afford to get sick. I'll just assume you're sincere about thanking me for judging regardless of whether or not we shook hands and/or the outcome of the debate.
- Am I cool with off-time road maps? No. I'm not cool. (PF Debate only) First, in the time it took you to ask me that, you probably couldn't just given your road map already. Second, it takes just 5 seconds of your time to road map anyways, how precious are those 5 seconds to you, are you going to tell me the meaning of life in those 5 seconds or something? Third and most importantly, are you paying me extra to stay at the tournament longer? If the answer to that last question is no, then forget about your off-time road map. It should really just be called your off-time make Stephan Brooks stay at the tournament longer plan. I am so not cool with that.
- I'm old school when it comes to presentation. Leave your computer at home. I also think cases/evidence on iPads is annoying too, especially when those materials are requested by opponents. If your opponent kindly asks to see a piece of evidence, and it takes you longer to produce that evidence on your laptop/device than it normally would have had you simply just printed the evidence, I will consider dropping you, as it is not cool to be unable to produce evidence during limited prep in an educational activity.
- If you're not getting up to speak, I'm running your prep time. Don't ask for set amounts of prep time- how the heck do you know that you only need 30 seconds to think through everything you need to say? Are you psychic? Also, don't disagree with me about how much prep time you have left- you'll lose.
- Don't be a @#$!& during the debate. You'll lose. It's nice to be nice.
- I have judged since 2005 and can count on my hands the number of times I have legitimately bought a nuclear war impact. If you want me to weigh mushroom clouds on your side, you better work hard for them. Also, you might be on mushrooms if you think I will vote for a silly illogical/unwarranted nuclear war impact.
- Do NOT spend half of the debate crying abuse (this is for you Parli people!) and claiming your opponent is violating the rules of _ debate. If they are, I will be smart enough to catch it and you'll win. If they aren't, you will come off as extremely annoying. I love to punish annoying complainers with losses and low speaker points- the low speaker points is to ensure you will not break to elimination rounds based on speaks so I don't have to hear you cry unnecessarily in elimination rounds.
- I cannot stress enough how much I hate theory. I watched an elimination round where a competitor won the coin flip for sides, selected AFF, and argued that he was disadvantaged having to debate on the AFF side. Back in my day, new topics came out, and us kids would be excited to debate a new topic- we would not look forward to arguing the same abuse arguments regardless of the resolution.
- As far as I'm concerned, Counter-Plans are legal in all debate formats, Public Forum included. We should always be able to argue that the reason we shouldn't do X is because Y is an option, and there is an opportunity cost at stake. I don't care what the stupid NSDA rules say in Public Forum. Also, 99% of you who do Public Forum and complain about counter-plans likely were never taught the 4-5+ necessary components of an actual CP, so shush.
Steven Furlanetto - Nova 42
n/a
Stuti Gupta - MIller MS
n/a
Subadevi Pandian - SJMS
n/a
Subrata Saharoy - MIller MS
n/a
Sujay Nair - Raynor
n/a
Sushma Sattigeri - GSA
n/a
Sydney Alexander - SCJFL Hired
n/a
TIya Basilio - AofHL
n/a
Tanishq Bhatnagar - Stratford FrOs
n/a
Taylor Delgado - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Terry Feng - V-LYLA
n/a
Tiffany Dunia - MC Speech
n/a
Tiffany Brain - Wilshire
n/a
Trenton Cressy - MC Speech
n/a
Vibha Agrawal - Westridge
n/a
Vidya Eashwer - TJHS
n/a
Vidya Balasubramanian - ModernBrain
n/a
Vishwas Parekh - Nova 42
n/a
Wei Gao - SJMS
n/a
Wei Chen - RMS
n/a
Yahua Cheng - V-LYLA
n/a
Yi Zhu - Nova 42
Yongjin Lee - GSA
n/a
Youwei Zhang - BASIS
n/a
Yuhadhi Sundaramoorthy - JMS
n/a
Zihad Amin - ACLA Network
n/a