Judge Philosophies
Adhar Walia - Brooks Debate
n/a
Aidan Scannell - NOF
n/a
Alex Martin - La Reina
n/a
Alex Chon - NOF
n/a
Alexandra Smith - NOF
n/a
Anika Lee - Wilshire
n/a
Ashutosh Thakur - Brooks Debate
n/a
Ashwini Gujar - GSA
n/a
Ava Ye - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Bill Thompson - BWS
For both sides: Can we say the individual letters L.A.W.S. when referring to lethal autonomous weapons and say "laws" when referring to the rules that govern their usage. Otherwise, it can be super-confusing for all parties involved. Thanks!
In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA/NFL. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.
Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time votin aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"
- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot
- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like
- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.
- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.
- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.
- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy
LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"
- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.
- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.
- Not a fan of tricks
- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.
- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy
PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
Brian Lee - Brooks Debate
A persuasive argument should be clear, coherent, backed by relevant and convincing evidence, and focused on the big picture. After 4 minutes, I should be able to remember 2 or 3 important things about your arguments and the big story you're telling.
I generally don't like super-fast delivery, which makes it tough for judges to follow. If you can't narrow your arguments to 3 or fewer contentions, it automatically makes me think you're just grasping, hoping that something might stick.
There are times to make technical arguments, but most of the time you should be focused on the big picture, your central message.
I appreciate courteousness by both parties. Excessive cutting off your opponent while speaking will backfire.
Christina Feng - Kudos Leadership
Colin Kramer - Kudos Leadership
David Valadez - Confident Class
n/a
Dhiman Bhattacharjee - GSA
n/a
Edward Rumbos-Perez - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Elizabeth Chavez - Kudos Leadership
n/a
Elle Lavichant - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Ellie Jiang - Kudos Leadership
Erika Luc - NOF
n/a
Fidencio Jimenez - ModernBrain
n/a
Fiona Zhou - Westridge
n/a
Gregory Nunez - NOF
n/a
HOZEFA SHIYAJI - GSA
n/a
Hadyeh Saborouh - NOF
n/a
Hannah Bartels - La Reina
n/a
Israel Beltran - NOF
n/a
Jennifer Xie - NOF
n/a
Kaitlyn Huang - Kudos Leadership
Karen Cui - NOF
n/a
Karon Petty - NOF
n/a
Katherine Shew - NOF
n/a
Kayla Acuna - Westridge
n/a
Mandela Okere - NOF
n/a
Margarita Carbajal - ModernBrain
n/a
Marie Tropiano - Kudos Leadership
n/a
Michael Eberle - Kudos Leadership
n/a
Nicole Joh - NOF
n/a
Oluwadara Adebanjo - NOF
n/a
Prabhu Seshachellam - Brooks Debate
n/a
Ritabrata Mitra - NOF
n/a
Rosa Wu - NOF
n/a
Ryan Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Sridevi Nelluri - GSA
n/a
Stephanie Cheung - Westridge
n/a
Sunny Sun - Kudos Leadership
Sushma Kore - GSA
n/a
Tai Du - NOF
n/a
Timmy Jin - NOF
n/a
Weichun Yuan - GSA
n/a