Judge Philosophies

Animikh Sen - Quarry Lane

n/a


Arvind Narain - Quarry Lane

n/a


Becky Hlebasko - Redwood

n/a


Divakar Karavadi - Quarry Lane

n/a


Emma Sutton - John Swett

n/a


Grant Thomas - Soledad HS

n/a


Inaara Walji - Quarry Lane

n/a


Janet Levaux - St. Marys

n/a


Joel Jacobs - BerkeleyHigh

<p>PARLI/PUFO/LD</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect&nbsp;your&nbsp;arguments to&nbsp;the resolution, and where appropriate (which is probably more often than you think), to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>THE LONGER VERSION: I competed in policy debate, LD, and extemp in high school, and APDA parli in college (4 years, winning a couple of invitationals, and taking top speaker at Harvard). I was also the LD and extemp coach at the Collegiate School in New York. I am now a practicing lawyer. &nbsp;</p> <p>I will be judging you based on your ability to use your verbal communication skills, analysis, and evidence where appropriate to support or disprove the resolution. &nbsp;On its face, that seems obvious, but in practice it means several things:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>1. My decision will be based in significant part on oral persuasion and clarity, rather than a cold review of the flow as a standalone document, although I will flow and give the flow serious weight.</p> <p>2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). &nbsp;Relying on either of these will hurt your chances of winning. &nbsp;</p> <p>3. &nbsp;I believe that rebuttals should be clear, organized like real speeches rather than like how you happen to have flowed the round, and focus on a few key arguments. &nbsp;I&#39;ve never written (or even seen, at least since my policy days) a ballot that discussed ten or more arguments, because only a couple are truly important in the round by the end. &nbsp;Focus on those, and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. &nbsp;Also, weigh the key arguments: don&#39;t act as if there&#39;s nothing good about the other side of the resolution--there almost always is--rather, tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponent&#39;s.</p> <p>4. Minor pet peeve: offtime roadmaps. &nbsp;Sure, preview your substantive points (give me the taglines of your contentions or voting issues before addressing each individually). &nbsp;But if in the middle of some late constructive, I can&#39;t tell from your arguments&nbsp;whether you&#39;re discussing the Proposition case or the Opposition case, you have bigger problems than foregoing&nbsp;an&nbsp;offtime roadmap at the top of your speech.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>If you&#39;re curious about the basis for these preferences, there are two excellent articles by two-time TOC LD champion Jason Baldwin, which I believe every LD, Parli, or Pufo debater should read (even though they are facially about LD):</p> <p>LD Rebuttals as Speeches &nbsp;&nbsp;https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/BaldwinApr%2701.pdf</p> <p>Drinking from Our Own Skulls: the Rhetorical Inversion of Lincoln-Douglas Debate</p> <p>https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/LD%20Baldwin%20LD%201-03.pdf</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Misc:</p> <p>- No tag teaming speeches or POIs.&nbsp; It&#39;s not your turn to speak.&nbsp;</p> <p>-&nbsp;I like you, but I really don&#39;t need to shake your hand. &nbsp;Especially during cold and flu season.</p> <p>- If you want to thank people in your speech, go ahead--gratitude does wonders for happiness--but it doesn&#39;t affect my ballot at all.</p> <p>- Kritiks. &nbsp;Checking my views about kritiks before deciding whether to run one may contradict your framework justification for running it, but anyway, here&#39;s what I think of them in parli. &nbsp;http://www.parli.org/opinion/2015/12/8/a-kancer-on-the-korpus-of-parli</p> <p>I&#39;m a bit more receptive, but still pretty skeptical, in LD and PuFo. &nbsp;I don&#39;t have a problem with kritiks in policy debate.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>POLICY DEBATE</p> <p>I don&#39;t judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. &nbsp;I&#39;ll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can. My flowing skills might be a little rusty, so I might have trouble with an ultra-fast spead. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>


Lei Lian - Irvington

n/a


Linda McCabe - Windsor

n/a


Nick Abbott - Quarry Lane

n/a


Peng Luo - Quarry Lane

n/a


Peter Brown - Windsor

n/a