Priya+Desai

Hello. I am a parent judge for Monta Vista High School, in Cupertino, CA. I have judged at the Stanford Invitational and various CFL's, but I do not judge much outside of local tournaments. I have never competed in LD, but I enjoy this activity and I do my best to make it enjoyable for you too.

I prefer arguments to be clearly explained, rather than just reading the evidence and assuming I understand it. This is especially true if you choose to go fast in your speech - you will always run the risk of me not being able to follow what you are saying. I do not vote off arguments that I do not have on my paper, so be careful with going fast.

Theory is not appealing to me. I have never voted on it - I think you have reasonable chances to win without resorting to theory. If you absolutely cannot win without using theory, then use it and I will vote for you. But be aware that that is a very high threshold for you, and a very subjective decision for me.

I have never judged Kritiks, so be wary. It's probably a better idea to run a standard case in front of me. If you really must use some non-standard argument, be sure to explain clearly how it functions in the round.

I like well-thought out arguments by each side, and good responses to the other side. I do not like seeing debaters just read evidence the whole time - be creative! Be smart! Be professional as well - if you are being offensive, I will lower your speaker points. Please impact your arguments clearly to your value criterion - the VC is a tool, so please use it. Weighing analysis and crystallization are key to my ballot.

I do not like excessive speeds, non-professional behavior (yelling, rudeness), and debaters who are not clearly explaining their arguments. It is your job to make sure I understand what is happening in the round.

I don't disclose. Good luck!