Zahoor-Kinney,+Sadaf

2/13/18

pretty much the same as below, ask specific questions.

update 12/9/17 ( coaching for baudl & milpitas ) TL:DR impact calculus is important persuasion is a thing full sentences please when rebutting

h a v e f u n

updated 1/14/16

you and/or your coach are looking through a ton of paradigms, and are wondering, who is this person? do i want them to judge me? do they like x. y. or z kinds of debate? do they know what they are doing? what can i do to win this judge?

well i hope this helps you out a little bit, i’ll keep it as short as i can

who am i? Sadaf Previous job, assistant/head coach for echs ‘10-’15 current job, coaching middle school i’ve judged just about everything, and a quite a few tournaments, Cal, USC RR, Stanford, CPS, some mid level cali tournaments, leagues and BAUDL.

do you want me to judge you? when judging any round, i look for a few things, clarity in speaking ( fast or not ) a good clear story for your aff or neg, and reasons why you’ve won.

do i like x, y, or z? it’s simple and goes across most styles of debating, i’m a fan of alternative styles of debate as well as straight policy. i’m game for anything really. really really.

do i know what i am doing? i do flow, and will follow as well as i can, look for cues if you’ve lost me at all, mostly looking at you with a blank stare, pen on paper. it’s your job to do the work, i can’t think for you. i will try as hard as i can to not intervene, but there have been rounds where gut takes over, and someone literally will out debate you in my eyes. there is more to debate than spewing cards and yelling, ethos, logos and pathos matter. asking me to do work, will screw someone. be warned

what can i do to win this judge? give good roadmaps, care about what you’re saying, or at least convince me you care looking like you’re enjoying yourself don’t be a bigot dank memes

ok, cool, thanks, bye & goodluck.

__** Revised on Feb 11/15 **__

Competed in high school in CX & LD (grad 04) Coach for El Cerrito Judged 10-20 rounds on current policy topic (same for LD)

I try to not intervene, to a fault perhaps, I want you to do the work for me. I can flow, I will yell clear (more than 3 times impacts your speaks), I will vote on just about anything, straight policy or anything critical.

Read below

Revised as of: 2/6/14

Competed in High School in LD/CX and HI I’ve been a Coach for El Cerrito High School for the past 4 years, I’ve judged more rounds than I can keep track of this point in nearly every event, at all levels, I’ve judged at CPS, Cal (trip octos in VarCX), Stanford, Long Beach, Cal Round Robin, UOP, SCU and the CA State tournament.

I believe that above everything else that debate ought to be educational, that said, my philosophy on judging is, tabula rasa I will vote on pretty much anything you throw at me, and enjoy most arguments; I am a big fan of the K, and theory, if you choose to run such arguments in front of me, good luck.

Being a coach I try not to intervene my own thoughts into the round, so flowing is very important to me, it’s a means to stay objective and the thing that will get you the ballot, if you see me struggling, figure out where you screwed up and fix it, a clean line-by-line makes my day.

Things I like as a judge: Look like you are having fun, understand your arguments (you’d be surprised at how many people will pull out a K for me and get lost in the rhetoric) I’d rather see a straight policy round where everyone knows what they are doing, rather than a messy K round any day. Clear speaking, roadmaps and line-by-lines are things that make it easy. Being nice to your opponents is a plus.

I tend to think bigger picture so a ton of blippy answers will not cut it, I want a clear analysis as to why you ought to win, not just a ton of extended cards that mean nothing without your say on how I should evaluate them

Things I do not like: Being sexist, racist, homophobic, extreme rudeness, attempting to be subversive and not pulling it off making you look like a terrible human being, stuff like that.

Note on LD: Frontloading a ton of theory in the 1ac is annoying, I’d rather you debate, rather than having a preempted meta-debate, theory should only come up if there is something brought into question.

As for arguments, just ask me.

12-13 Competed in high school in Policy/LD and HI Coaching for 3 yrs. at El Cerrito High School Judged over 150ish rounds, local, and circuit, SCU, UOP, CPS, Stanford, CAL

I believe that above everything else that debate ought to be educational, that said, my philosophy on judging is, tabula rasa, nothing really matters in round but what is said, reality is suspended and I am there to vote for whoever tells me to, when forced to weigh all issues in round, I look to my flow to tell me the answer, coverage and analysis is key to win the round.

I don’t mind speed; my main issue is that of clarity, if I have to yell clear more than 3 times you speaks will be affected, I dislike a poorly organized round, if I can’t figure out where you are, I will put my head down and drop my pen.