Judge Philosophies
Adam Favuzzi - HASCS
n/a
Alex Sorgini - Princeton Academy
n/a
Alex Night - Princeton Academy
n/a
Ani Singh - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Anna Shcherbak Scoby - PBY
n/a
Carl Jiang - ModernBrain
n/a
Cheng Chloe - BCS
n/a
Daniel Hill - ModernBrain
n/a
Danny Chen - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Danny Cantrell - Mt. SAC
Debate should be presented in such a way that a lay audience can understand the arguments and learn something from the debate. In general, debaters should have strong public speaking, critical thinking, and argumentation. Don't rely on me to fill in the holes of arguments or assume we all know a certain theory or argument -- it is your burden to prove your arguments.
Gary Yablon - HASCS
n/a
Giovanna Gatto - Princeton Academy
n/a
Jade Zhang - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Jaimee Canalejo - AmerHer
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - LYL
n/a
John Cho - IVC
- First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
- Next, clash is incredibly important. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
- Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
- In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think your points are better than the other sides'.
- Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
- Kritiks: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for it I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer
- IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could definitely buy that argument.
- Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!
Jordy Barry - Princeton Academy
n/a
Justin Wiley - Mt. Hood CC
n/a
Kennedy Hack-Juman - AmerHer
n/a
Kien Toussaint - ModernBrain
n/a
Lyubov Zolotuhina - ModernBrain
n/a
Mariclare Rivera - HASCS
n/a
Max Sun - ModernBrain
n/a
Ming Yi - ModernBrain
n/a
Raymond Shay - Princeton Academy
n/a
Roger Cheng - LYL
n/a
Sahiba Tandon - Princeton Academy
n/a
Santiago Alvarez - AmerHer
n/a
Sasha-Kay Lindo - AmerHer
n/a
Sofia Jackson - ModernBrain
n/a
Sofya Derkach - PBY
n/a
Tara Riggs - Princeton Academy
n/a
Travis Cornett - Princeton Academy
n/a
Veer Roy - AmerHer
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Vivian Zhang - ModernBrain
n/a
Zhuocheng Yang - ModernBrain
n/a