Tsai,+Jeff

I'm a parent judge for Monta Vista High School in Cupertino, CA. This is my 3nd year judging. I have judged at the Berkeley Invitational, as well as various local invitationals and many league tournaments.


 * Speed:** Err on the side of caution here. I don't want to say "go slowly", but that might be the best thing to do. I do not like saying "clear", unless you are being unintelligible (ie lisping). If you are going too fast, your arguments will not show up on my flow, and if they're not on my flow, you won't win off of them. I have found that an increase in speed tends to bring with it a decrease in clarity, which is always bad. It's your speech; the consequences are yours as well.


 * Theory:** I have a very high threshold for abuse. It is not compelling to me when someone says to vote his/her opponent down because they were being "unfair" or "uneducational". If you think it is impossible for you to win without running theory, then run it; I'll probably vote for you. Otherwise, you're better off without it.


 * Kritiks:** I have never judged one of these. I do not understand their structure, and I do not have much background in post-modernist literature. Run at your own risk.


 * Philosophy:** You must be very clear in explaining your cards for your framework. I will probably have a tough time understanding your evidence; it is YOUR job to explain what your evidence says to me in a clear and concise way. If you were in a philosophy class in college and just read evidence to your professor, he would kick you out of class. This is the same situation- EXPLAIN your arguments and how they function in the round, and you should be fine running pretty much any framework.


 * Off-cases:** I tend to get confused about these. The more paper you make me use, the more confusing the round becomes. Label and signpost very, very clearly if you are going to use these.

-Not too fast pace -intelligent, thoughtful arguments. Don't be offensive to your opponent. This is debate, and kids should feel safe. -weighing analysis. I love this. You can't have too much of it. -Impact clearly to your value criterion - the VC is a tool. Please use it. -Crystallization - this will be key in whether I vote for you.
 * WHAT I LIKE:**
 * -**CLEAR signposting. SLOW DOWN for author names and taglines.

-Rudeness - debaters who get mad because I didn't understand their arguments. It's your job to be as clear as possible. Educate me!
 * WHAT I DON'T LIKE:**
 * -**Fast, incoherent speeches

I don't disclose. Good luck!