Judge Philosophies

Andrew Huang - Kudos Leadership

n/a


Anne Liu - Kudos Leadership

n/a


Ava Ye - Kudos Leadership

hello! im ava; my partner and i debate in high school pf under flintridge prep cy. we qualled to toc twice plus nationals and state and all that jazz. i also somehow qualled to state and nietoc in parli and extemp lol

here is my partner's paradigm for reference:https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=113569

ask questions/add me to the chain:24yea@flintridgeprep.org

general (this is all pf specific)

  • tech>truth but tbh its easier for u to just point out untrue arguments
  • frontline in 2nd rebuttal
  • defense is not sticky
  • extend everything ur going for in summary
  • collapse
  • weigh & metaweigh
  • if its not in summary it cant be in final; unless its new weighing in first final
  • i get carried by my partner every time we debate prog so read theory at ur own risk & just dont read Ks or anything else. a good substance round will always be the best subway sandwich

my judging habits (feel free to disregard but could be important for speaks)

  • im not timing for u. if ur opponents go overtime hold up a timer and ill stop flowing after 10 seconds
  • slow ev exchanges r my least favorite parts of debates so make it quick, preferably just rly quickly send cut cards before speech. also taking over 30 seconds to find a card is so sus
  • every time u say judge in ur speech i pull a strand of hair out of my head. i understand this may be a habit but pls dont say it 15 times within 20 seconds/as a filler word
  • down to skip grand cross if everyone is
  • dont ask every single person in the round individually if theyre ready
  • i know time starts on ur first word or in 3, 2, 1 just give ur speech
  • bring me food
  • pls do not make the round boring i beg of u

ultimately, be respectful, dont be problematic, make the round run smoothly, and have fun. cheers to an educational and enjoyable debate :')


Campbell Gorlinski - Tourn Judges

n/a


Christina Feng - Kudos Leadership


Dylan Muller - Nova 42

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.


Jamill Encarnacion - Tourn Judges

n/a


Jessica Barrales - Tourn Judges

n/a


Joseph Lee - AofHL

n/a


Katie Raphaelson - BWS

Hello! My name is Katie and I have been judging/coaching for 5 years. I competed in LD at Brentwood School for four years, and I currently coach the Brentwood HS LD team. I just graduated from Smith College with a B.A. in Government (international relations) & French.

As a debater, I got to quarterfinals at CA States, and 10th at NSDA nationals. I mainly competed in the LD national circuit, but I became quite fond of the slower more traditional debate in my old age

I have experience judging LD, PF, Policy, and BQ. I have never judged congress or world schools, but I'm excited to learn! I'll add event specific stuff at the end of this.

I take notes/flow on my laptop, so if I'm just furiously typing, that's why! I promise i'm paying attention.

tldr: have fun! don't be mean to your opponent and you can expect good speaker points! I consider myself an impartial judge (as any judge should be) and I will evaluate any argument! Just do your best, and have fun! Debate is fun!

Some things to know about me/how I give speaker points (applies to all events)

- off-time roadmaps are all good and honestly I prefer them

-I know a lot about international relations- I majored in it, and I worked for an ngo that dealt with disarmament and landmine removal. I have worked at the UN and I have done a lot of research on international law, especially international humanitarian law. basically this is to say that I know a good amount about international conflict. I won't vote against you if your explainations of these arguments aren't the most correct, but it may factor into speaker points.

- I give speaker points based on how you debate- especially strategy wise. If your opponent drops something, make that a big part of your rebuttal speeches (but if they didn't drop something and you say they did, I won't be super persuaded)

-when it comes to presentation, do whatever makes you comfortable. If that is sitting down, that's all good with me! personally I think it's kinda ableist to give points based on eye contact/posture, so whatever makes you comfortable.

- don't yell at your opponent! I don't like seeing debaters cry! Debate is a fun activity, and not a life or death scenario.

- I like taylor swift, and if you can make a good taylor reference that makes sense in the context of the debate and doesn't make light of serious issues, i'll give you an extra .2 speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas

This is the event i know the most about, as I competed in this event all through high school. I also coach LD, so I know a good amount about the topic! I am easily persuaded to vote for either side, so just do your best!

Public Forum

I never competed in this event, but I've judged it a good amount. Be respectful of other cultures while you discuss international relations. I'm not very well versed in the topic, so pls explain it in your speeches!

Policy

Policy rounds are very long, so have fun with it and I will have fun! Again, not super well versed in the topic so debate like I know dont anything!

Big Questions (what about small questions??)

ah, my favorite debate to judge. It's short and sweet and it's fun to just ponder things. i think BQ is all about persuasion, so that is the biggest thing for me with this event.

Congress & World Schools

I have no experience with these events, but I've researched them a bit so rest assured I will be a competent judge for you. Just explain things and we'll be all good!


Kino Farr - Kudos Leadership

Hello! Some background on me: My name is Kino Farr, and I am a UC Berkeley student majoring in Rhetoric. I did speech & debate for 6 years before transferring to university, so I'm an experienced judge, don't worry.

Onto my paradigm:

Keep the debate theory out of this - I know how it works, but I focus on points and flow.

Enjoy yourself - I want to see that you're having a good time, otherwise, it's no fun for anybody. I want everybody to have a good time, so just take a deep breath and relax your shoulders before you speak. It'll be okay and you'll do great.

I think that's it? Cool


Krishitha Chandran - BWS

n/a


Martin Romero - Tourn Judges

n/a


Micah Yeung - Kudos Leadership

n/a


Nirosha Ruwan - AofHL

n/a


Paul Medina - Tourn Judges

n/a


Pearl Hsieh - Kudos Leadership


Serena Guo - Kudos Leadership

n/a


Shara Umandal - Kudos Leadership

n/a


Steven Gallegos - Tourn Judges

n/a