Judge Philosophies
Adam Pepper - Kudos Leadership
I have been debating competitively for around 10 years now. 2 For PF/LD, 2 in American Parli, 4 in British Parli, 2 as a coach/instructor for PF/LD.
I make decisions sticking to the flow of the round, but still exercise common sense discretion. Evidence must be properly explained and introduced, link chains need to be explained, and impacts weighed for me using the rounds framework. For example, chains leading to nuclear war and extinction require a lot of time, evidence, and analysis for me to weigh out.
I give credit to both practical and philosophical arguments as long as they are based within tangible impacts, examples, and/or logical chains.
I am against spreadingas a tactic as the online space already makes understanding of cases difficult for some debaters and spreading is antithetical to the educational value of debate. I can understand and keep up with quick speed, but spreading is too much.
I also tend not to credit Kritiks or T-Shells unless fully and properly explained within the context of the round. Even then, engagement with the opponents case/argumentation is necessary.
Clash is necessary within a round, proper responses and engagement with opponents cases are needed. Blanket rebuttal or generalizations about a case are less accepted. Weigh arguments individually, unless you can prove they have mutual exclusivity to another argument you have already refuted.
Happy to answer clarifications on paradigm.
Aidan Scannell - JMS
n/a
Alden Do - JMS
n/a
Alex Chon - Wilshire
n/a
Alexis Rodriguez - SAGE
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 :')
Benicio Corona de Flores - JMS
n/a
Binnur Karaevli - Emerson
n/a
Carolyn Hughes - ACDS
n/a
Catherine Bauer - Alverno
n/a
Chelina Rhee - Wilshire
n/a
Chen Shen - QDLearning
Cheryl Casanova - JMS
n/a
Claire Oh - Wilshire
n/a
Deena Rice - SAGE
n/a
Dhara Patel - V-LYLA
n/a
Dhiraj Bora - RMS
n/a
Dina Ismail - JMS
n/a
Eileen Chen - Nova 42
Emi Kim - Wilshire
n/a
Emily Haas - JMS
n/a
Ezri Tyler - JMS
n/a
Filipp Krasovsky - Kudos Leadership
Filipp Krasovsky
UCLA, Economics BA 2019
I have about 8 years of competitive debating experience in congress, parli, APDA, and BP (College level world schools).
I can tolerate speed but prefer quality over quantity of arguments. I'm a little less strict on warranting using citations
and prefer in-depth logical explanations rather than stating an authority. If an argument is not impacted out explicitly,
I probably won't vote for it even if it gets dropped.
Because of my BP background, I'm less stern about the burden of rejoinder in debate; I don't believe that a dropped argument
automatically wins a team the debate, especially if that argument becomes tangential to the motion itself.
I'm generally against pre-fiat Ks and will drop any argument that targets a debater because of his/her gender, skin color, race, etc. as these are absolutely counterproductive to the debate. I'm otherwise fine with theory, Topicality, and other shells.
Gabriel Sundaramoorthy - JMS
n/a
Ganapathy Sankar - GSA
n/a
Ian Buck - ACDS
n/a
Imelda Gaeta - JMS
n/a
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Ivy Wang - JMS
n/a
James Yang - V-LYLA
n/a
Jenifer Montgomery - QDLearning
Jennifer Zheng - QDLearning
Joannah Cannon - Wilshire
n/a
Joey Porter - SAGE
n/a
John Walski - Wilshire
n/a
Josh Steinle - Alverno
n/a
Kelsey Stuback - Emerson
n/a
Kevin Wang - NAL
n/a
Laura Quistgaard - Reed M.S.
n/a
Lily Liao - QDLearning
Maggie Ma - Able2Shine
n/a
Marcus Razo - Emerson
n/a
Melissa Romero - JMS
n/a
Mi Hee Song - Reed M.S.
n/a
Michelle Scannell - JMS
n/a
Michelle Geller - Reed M.S.
n/a
Michelle Kim - Wilshire
n/a
Miriam Davenport - Emerson
n/a
Nancy Lu - Able2Shine
n/a
Nicole Joh - Wilshire
n/a
Nikita Abramson - Emerson
n/a
Phil Han - Emerson
n/a
Ping Luo - Able2Shine
n/a
Ronnie Cheng - V-LYLA
n/a
Royal Siu - Kudos Leadership
n/a
Ryan Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Shanmugesh Raja - V-LYLA
n/a
Shuba Lall - GSA
n/a
Stella D'Arceaux - Emerson
n/a
Sunny Sun - Kudos Leadership
Susan Infantino - ACDS
n/a
Victor Lucas - JMS
n/a
William Cha - Wilshire
n/a
Winnie Ng - JMS
n/a
Yahua Cheng - V-LYLA
n/a
Yen Luu - Kudos Leadership
n/a
Zihad Amin - ACLA Network
n/a