Judge Philosophies
Aaron Chung - QDLearning
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.
Adithi Sundaram - V-LYLA
n/a
Adrienne Fontenot - Wilshire
n/a
Akshay Shah - GSA
n/a
Allison Trinh - ACDS
n/a
Andy Liao - Nova 42
n/a
Austin Dillon - Nova 42
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
Bo Slade - Nova 42
n/a
Bryan Black - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Cameron Houg - Nova 42
n/a
Carol Chong - AofHL
n/a
Celeste Riley Norman - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Chuanchun Tang - Nova 42
Colin Coppock - Kudos Leadership
n/a
Colin Ho - Nova 42
Daniel Kyle - Nova 42
Eileen Chen - Nova 42
Feng Cao - GSA
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.
Ganapathy Sankar - GSA
n/a
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Jeff Henckels - Nova 42
n/a
Jiangbin Luo - GSA
n/a
Joannah Cannon - Wilshire
n/a
Jocelyn Yeh - GSA
n/a
John Cao - GSA
n/a
John Walski - Wilshire
n/a
Kaitlyn Huang - Kudos Leadership
Lee Thach - CL
n/a
Leon Huang - ACDS
n/a
Lexie Minvielle - ACDS
n/a
Lisa Guo - V-LYLA
n/a
Louis Martinez - Nova 42
n/a
Madhava Cheethirala - GSA
n/a
Madhavi B - GSA
n/a
Mark Gagliardi - Wilshire
n/a
Matthew Koretsky - ACDS
n/a
Murty Kotha - GSA
n/a
Naren Borjigin - AofHL
n/a
Nora Thomas - ACDS
n/a
Paul Yang - GSA
n/a
Pavana Upadhyaya - ACDS
n/a
Rayan Sengupta - ACDS
n/a
Richard Hu - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Riju Kallivalappil - GSA
n/a
River Simard - SCJFL Hired
n/a
Ryan Kung - Nova 42
n/a
Ryan Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Shuba Lall - GSA
n/a
Thomas Maramag - BIF
n/a
Tiffany Brain - Wilshire
n/a
Varinder Kumar - GSA
n/a
Veronica Palensky - Wilshire
n/a
Yahui Alice Tu - V-LYLA
n/a