2023 (NOF) Elm ***ASYNCHRONOUS*** Video Tournament

National Online Forensics - Nov 20-26 | Status: Completed | 9:54 AM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 9:54 AM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   Break List   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Adam Favuzzi - HASCS

n/a

Alex Sorgini - Princeton Academy

n/a

Alice Tu - LYL

n/a

Alice Chen - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Ana Simonelli - HASCS

n/a

Angela Yang - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Anna Feng - ModernBrain

n/a

Audrey Ko - ModernBrain

n/a

Catherine Cheng - LYL

n/a

Chitra Pannirselvam - LYL

n/a

Derek Zhang - LYL

n/a

Ellie Kim - ModernBrain

n/a

Ellie Yang - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Erin Ritchie - SLVHS

n/a

Evan Yao - ModernBrain

n/a

Gary Yablon - HASCS

n/a

George Lu - LYL

n/a

Gordon Ruan - LYL

n/a

Isabelle Spirk - Princeton Academy

n/a

Jaden Hong - ModernBrain

n/a

James Yang - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Jeff Harkleroad - LYL

n/a

Jeff Niemiec - 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!

Jolene Zjou - ModernBrain

n/a

Jordy Barry - Princeton Academy

n/a

Julia Cheng - LYL

n/a

Justin Wiley - Mt. Hood CC

n/a

Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Kevin Yuan - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Lauren Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Liang Guo - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Luvienne Sans - LYL

n/a

Mariclare Rivera - HASCS

n/a

Mark Dorrough - Cypress College

n/a

Paul Zheng - ModernBrain

n/a

Pearl Kim - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Raymond Shay - Princeton Academy

n/a

Roger Cheng - LYL

n/a

Sahiba Tandon - Princeton Academy

n/a

Sandie Kim - ModernBrain

n/a

Sean Yin - ModernBrain

n/a

Sofia Jackson - ModernBrain

n/a

Tanya Moss-Barry - Princeton Academy

n/a

Tara Riggs - Princeton Academy

n/a

Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Vivian Zhang - ModernBrain

n/a

Wen Liu - ModernBrain

n/a

Zachary White - Cypress College

Overall:

I think debate should be accesssible and educational. Be nice in your rounds, be courteous, and remember to be considerate of everyone's identities, religions, values, ability, etc. Don't make asssumptions about what I know or don't know. Always explain and warrant your impacts, links, etc with examples, explanations, etc. Off time roadmaps are great!

Parli:

I love parli! One of my favorite events and really enjoy judging it. Make sure to have clear links, clear warrants, good info. Cite and justify those sources. Be nice! Remember to call points of order as it is a part of the debate I enjoy is still around. Don't assume I will protect an argument.

Be respectful about partner communication. Don't puppet but notes or checking with your partner are fine in round within reason

LD:

Dislikes speed in LD (I just can't flow every argument as well as I want). I appreciate warrants, but I will try to read the sources you drop. Don't drop me bad evidence and expect me not to read it. I want good clash and clear links to arguments.

Background:

2 years of parlimentary debate and 5 years experience teaching debate. I prefer clash, clearly sturctured arguments, and making debate approachable. Give me examples, warrants, etc. Mostly competed in IEs, so I primarily value delivery elements, direct refutation, and a fun, friendly debate environment.

I will accept a stock issues, Ks, and identity arguments, but I prefer a debate within the general boundaries, limits, and standards of the resolution. If there is a topicality, moving target, or vagueness issue, feel free to call it out within reason. If you run procedurals for procedurals sake or feels heavily unwarranted, it may effect how I percieve the round. (Not so much in IPDA though)