Abel Rodriguez III - Sacramento

n/a

---

Ajay Prassad - Standby

n/a

---

Alan Fishman - Hired

---

Alex Chang - FTC

n/a

---

Angela Ohland - Butte

I'm a fairly new judge to the forensics community. I am primarily an IE judge/coach and have limited experience with debate. As a result, please consider me a lay judge and try to use clear roadmapping and speak clearly and persuasively. I appreciate an impactful opening and a clear preview.

Fairness and respect are paramount for me. My goal is to provide constructive (primarily delivery focused feedback) that helps competitors refine their skills. I look forward to witnessing your talents on display!

---

Angelica Guzman - UOP

Hello!

I competed in NPDA and LD for the University of the Pacific from 2020-2024. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for the University of the Pacific.

TLDR/Parli

I wasnt that fast when I competed, but I can generally handle speed. A debate is much simpler for me to follow if counter-advocacies are unconditional. I dont like frivolous theory, but Ill evaluate it. I think the Affirmative should be topical, but that doesnt mean I wont evaluate untopical AFFs.

Parli Specific

AFF Cases

I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy and have a lower threshold for voting on theory/framework against an AFF that didnt defend the topic, but I will still evaluate and am willing to vote on AFFs that do not. AFFs that reject the topic need to spend more time explaining and justifying why they are not defending the topic.

Theory/Topicality

Ill evaluate any theory/topicality read in the LOC, and if well explained and warranted will have a low threshold for voting on it. I have a higher threshold for theory read in the MG unless its condo is bad, which I am highly likely to vote on.

CP/Ks:

CP

For the CP, I like them. If you run a pic, delay, or anything related to what may be perceived as an abusive CP I am willing to listen and vote on theory arguments claiming they are. I think if you run a CP, you must be able to solve the AFF otherwise, you have no reason to run a CP. I dont like vague perms, but if I dont understand how your CP solves the aff Im likely to vote on the perm.

K

I probably dont have a deep understanding of the lit your K is based on, but you can still read it. In the instance you decide to run a K, I would prefer a thesis. I need clear explanations of how the alt solves, otherwise I defer to my uncertainty in your alts ability to solve for the in or out of round harms you claim to solve for. For Ks, if I dont understand your alt and its ability to solve, I am likely to vote on the perm if it is well explained.

Condo

I was never conditional in Parli when I competed and now, as a judge, I prefer unconditional advocacies. This doesnt mean I will auto drop the team for being conditional, but I have a low threshold for voting on condo bad. Ill still evaluate condo bad like any theory sheet and if the neg wins that sheet then they can be condo. If you read multiple conditional advocacies, the threshold for condo bad is much lower and I am very likely to vote on condo bad.

Speed

If you were or thought you were faster than me, then you probably were. This means I need you to be a little slower than your top speed if you want to make sure I get your args.

LD

Disclose. Read what you want.

Email

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions at a_guzman15@u.pacific.edu.

---

Anju Vriksha - FTC

 

Judging Philosophy: As a judge, I approach debate as both a competitive activity and an intellectual journey. My philosophy blends the principles of the Tabula Rasa and the Game Player, creating a framework that balances flexibility with structure. The ultimate aim is to foster an environment where both the clash between arguments and the educational value of debate are paramount. 1. Tabula Rasa: A Clean Slate for Each Round I start each round with an open mind, adhering to the principle of Tabula Rasa. I allow the debaters to define the terms and framework of the debate, ensuring that their arguments stand on their own merits. This allows for fresh, unbiased evaluation. While the government side carries the burden of proof, both teams share the responsibility of creating meaningful clash. I expect them to engage directly with each other’s arguments in a way that challenges, tests, and refines the positions being debated. Clash is central to my evaluation—without it, debate loses its depth, and the round becomes less dynamic and intellectually stimulating. 2. Game Player: Structure and Strategy Debate is a structured activity with clear rules, and as a judge, I hold both sides to these standards. The government side must justify their case with sufficient evidence and reasoning, thereby meeting their burden of proof. The opposition is not only tasked with critiquing the government’s position but could also present a well-developed counter plan, pushing the debate forward. Both sides must create strategic clash—through argumentation, evidence, and rhetorical skill—while utilizing their time effectively. The manner in which debaters use their time and structure their arguments speaks to their understanding of the game, and I reward those who demonstrate this skill. 3. Debate as an Educational Activity Beyond the competition, I see debate as an opportunity for intellectual growth and learning. I encourage debaters to treat the round as an opportunity to challenge their own ideas and expand their perspectives. Debate should be a space where ideas are not merely defended but also questioned and tested. Clash is a vital part of this process, as it enables participants to confront different viewpoints and, in doing so, foster intellectual development. The most successful rounds are those that lead debaters to reflect on their arguments and ideas in a meaningful way, both during and after the debate. 4. Personal Preferences: Language and Eloquence As an old-school debater, I have a deep appreciation for the flow and beauty of language. Clear, precise, and eloquent arguments not only convey ideas but elevate the discourse. I value the use of language to both persuade and enhance the round, especially when combined with intellectual rigor. Rhetoric should complement logic, and I reward those who skillfully weave both into their arguments. Eloquence, however, must not overshadow substance. I am most impressed when debaters use language to clarify, sharpen, and advance their case while maintaining focus on engaging with the opposing side. 5. Conclusion: A Balance of Flexibility and Structure In conclusion, my judging philosophy combines the flexibility of a Tabula Rasa with the clear structure of a Game Player. I place a strong emphasis on the importance of clash—debates that lack meaningful engagement fail to provide the intellectual rigor necessary for growth. The government holds the burden of proof, and both sides must contribute to the development of the round through strategic clash and clear, structured argumentation. Ultimately, I believe that debate should challenge participants to think critically, inspire personal growth, and serve as both a contest and a chance for deeper understanding. Through the art of strategic clash and intellectual engagement, debaters will not only compete but also grow as thinkers and communicators.

---

Anna Faalogoifo - Standby

n/a

---

Arielle White - Delta

I did forensics but did not compete in debate. I have limited experience judging debate as of Spring 2026. I try to vote on the flow but do not want to cast a vote for blatant misinformation or hate speech. I am not familiar with debate jargon so make sure to explain things to me in layman's terms and clearly weigh your impacts in your rebuttal. Please ask me questions to clarify before round if necessary. I am not comfortable with speed and prefer conversational debate, ESPECIALLY when you are not reading cards.

---

Brendan Sullivan - LPC

n/a

---

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

n/a

---

Cyril Bhooma Goud - SJSU

My judging philosophy is straightforward. I look for well-constructed arguments backed by solid evidence throughout your speeches. Additionally, make sure to have good citations of your sources. It is vital that you stay on point; please avoid tangents or arguments that have little relevance to the topic at hand.

Regarding delivery, do not spread or speak at a high rate of speed. I flow the round by hand and want to ensure I accurately record every point you make. If I can't write it down in a reasonable amount of time, I can't weigh it well. Finally, be nice. I value a competitive round, but it must remain respectful and professional.

---

Daniel Lopez - Hartnell

Prof of Comm specializing in cultural and critical comm. Please be kind, organized & easy to follow. I like a solid argumentation supported by polished delivery & performance.

---

Daniel Rios - Standby

n/a

---

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

---

Ethan Percival - Deb@Davis

n/a

---

Gus Garcia - Standby

Updated March 2025

Me:

High school debate for 2 years

Did collegiate debate for University of the Pacific

Update: Due to an unprecedented level of general shenanigans in our government, here are some arguments that I believe have been made weaker or outright aren’t good to run (you can still run them if you wanna, just know my threshold for these arguments is so incredibly low)

• Heg (either heg good or heg bad)

• Biz Con

• Politics DA

• K links that are just about the rez or the aff playing as the USFG (pls be more specific with your links, I don’t really wanna see competitors get called bootlicking fascists just because they’re doing the resolution)

• Allied freakout

Overview:

•I literally don't care how you choose to make arguments, I'm not a cop so I won't come into the room with any predispositions as to how an argument is made. So long as you make it make sense and the argument is weighed across the round you can do whatever you want.

• Cool with partner communication in any event, as long as you don't become a puppet for your partner (only what the speaker says gets put on the flow)

• Speed? Pls not too fast (like 300+ wpm), I retired from debate and have not kept up + I have nerve damage in my hands now. I will lyk if you are going too fast for me

• If using computer, share cards in email chain gusgarcia5397@gmail.com

• At this point in my life idc if you go with the res or not. Run literally whatever you want

General In-round Judging

I enjoy good clash in round, I know a lot of people say this but I don't want to see "Two ships passing by in the night" as that's just a boring debate to watch. Do a lot of weighing during your speeches and why you are winning the debate and where I should be voting on and you will more than likely have me voting for you if your opponents have neglected to do any of these.

SIGN POST PLEASE I cannot tell you how many otherwise good rounds were ruined by not sign posting and going on the flow. I'm cool with offtime roadmaps and if you need to talk about multiple arguments that are all over the flow I'm okay with that as long as you tell me where you are on the flow.

My general rule is I don't believe in speaker points, so I will give high speaks to everyone in the round, you can um and stutter all you want (I get that nerves are a thing, I won't give you bad speaks for being human or have you not break because of low speaks even tho you had bomb arguments) BUT I will give you low speaks if you are being incredibly rude to your opponents. I may still vote for you because of your arguments, but you will receive low speaks from me. I generally like some light-hearted humor and cleverness in rounds but being a mean person will not leave me with a good impression of you in future rounds. If someone is being mean-spirited towards you put some trust in me to punish them for that. Other than that I tend to give near perfect speaks to everyone in the round. I feel that if you aren't too worried about speaker points then it brings out a more calm and collected side of you in a debate, just be chill and don't sweat the small stuff as long as you get your point across.

I generally do disclose as long as the tournament hasn't specifically prohibited me from doing so, and if the tournament is running on schedule (lmao doubt that) then I will spend some time to feedback if both sides would want that. If not then you are welcome to leave the room immediately after the round.

Some Specifics

Topicality: Love it, holding the aff to the resolution can result in some fun debate, but please don't just run a T for the sake of running a T. I vote more on articulated abuse but potential abuse will also be voted on if articulated right. Some standards I like to see: Education, Brightline and strat/prep skew with evidence of said abuse happening.

The K: I am ok with k's of any type on either AFF or NEG. I ran a K 90% of the time in my senior year of college and am comfy with a lot of lit. The k's I ran most were: cap, fem IR, singularity, Biopolitics, transhumanism, Zapatismo, ecomanagerialism, and D&G

I tend to enjoy a good K round as long as some requirements are met:

• Do not assume that I have read your author, be clear and treat it as if I am a layman when going through your thesis/framework. Please try your best to be educational throughout your debate instead of drowning us in a flurry of words. Actually APPLY your kritik to the round and the mechanisms by which your alt (or whatever) can resolve

• Make sure the alt is explained as to how it solves, rejecting and embracing is cool, but what does that do?

• If aff K, please be ready to respond to Framework with reasons that aren't just relinks to your K.

Speed: Speed in a debate round is a given, I personally love speed and you should not worry about spreading me out of the round, if I feel that you are too fast tho I will say "slow" or "clear" as I have been out of the game and also have nerve damage in my hands now. BE THAT AS IT MAY,IF YOU FEEL EXCLUDED because of a debater being too fast and they have done nothing to fix the situation (eg you've told them to slow down numerous times and they haven't) please run a procedural on that. I am VERY receptive to speed theory when it is warranted. If you purposefully exclude your opponent(s) out of the round with speed then the flow no longer becomes an objective view of the round and you will lose because of this.

Weighing: Idc just make it make sense

Any other questions? Feel free to ask me before the round!

---

Haley Woods - Chico State

n/a

---

Jackie Blair - Sacramento

Experience. I have competed for four years at California State University of Sacramento in the following events: National Forensics Association Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, Public Forum, and Impromptu.Additionally, I have participated in the Communications 111 class rookie tournament for four years as a coach and a judge.As a rookie coach, I have worked on debate evidence in the following areas: as a writing coach, case writer, rookie tournament judge, research student, and on-case and off-case writing for constructive and rebuttal speeches.Lastly, I have competed in the affirmative/negative debates at the local city council's online reading practices.

Debate Judging Philosophy.My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate round based on policy maker paradigm, critical paradigm, and/or rule-based theory.I believe that both the affirmative and negative must meet their burdens with well-developed arguments.This means that the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language and evidence.Next, I believe debates should be followed in a recognizable format and should provide greater knowledge with the use of analysis and refutation.I will evaluate the round based on advantages, disadvantages, and weighing of impacts.Speed is Okay.

Individual Events.The mechanics of speech must be observed faithfully –poise, quality, use of voice, effectiveness, ease of gesture, emphasis, variety, and enunciation. In addition, the participant must be able to interpret the full meaning of the oration and be able to carry the interpretation over to the audience.

 

---

Jackson Huston - Deb@Davis

n/a

---

Jared Anderson - Sacramento

Logistics:

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, Im going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points. My timer is the official timer for the round. You should time yourselves, but check your time against mine. Also, when you are ready to begin speaking, just start speaking. I don't need any "on my first word" or countdowns.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I dont want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and dont argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I started out coaching CEDA/NDT debate but I have now been coaching LD for a long time. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly and are within the rules. You can win my ballot with whatever. I dont have to agree with your argument, I dont have to be moved by your argument, I dont even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I do need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, Im familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments?other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. Its up to you. I will tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand - I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that is on you.

The rules are the rules and I will follow them. I will not intervene; you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it.Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I dont need abuse? proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this. On the current topic (2019-2020) I will probably have a pretty low threshold on Vagueness/Spec arguments. You need a clear plan. Neg arguments about why the aff needs to clearly outline how and what amount they propose investing will be met with a sympathetic ear.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you cant find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. Im pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so youll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVIs are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

---

Jay Villanueva - Nevada

I have 14 years of debate experience. I have 2 years of high school LD, 1 year of Policy, and finished with a year of Senate. In college I competed in NPDA, LD, IPDA, and BP at the University of Nevada, Reno. I am experienced in debate, so don't be afraid to run technical arguments. That said, I prioritize accessibility, so if your opponent cannot handle spreading, you should make a meaningful attempt to not spread or be incredibly clear. I will make it a voting issue if presented as a theory argument. That said, the interp, standards, and voters need to be fleshed-out and time must be dedicated to it if you want me to vote on it.

Quickly: For speech events, I evaluate based on how much evidence you use, how well memorized/performed it was, and your speaker's triangle, depending on the event of course.

Pronouns: She/Her

I plan on judging high school and college debate. Please refer to the appropriate section. Thank you!

--------------------------------

LD: Connect your contentions to the (V)alue and (C)riterion. Probably should justify your V and C as the most important/relevant V and C for the RESOLUTION. You can use an analytic, but carded evidence to uphold your V & C would be stronger. You can run your case like a Policy case, but keep it in the format of LD (Value Net Bens through the Criterion of Cost Benefit analysis for example). You can run Ks, just connect it back to your V and VC. You can run whatever really, just justify the argument to me. I'm still not used to hearing CPs in LD, but go for it! I have Parli, Policy, and college LD experience, I can keep up. Be nice to each other.

PF: The only high school debate event I never competed in (before BQ was a thing). Be straight-forward. You have evidence, tell me why it matters. Be nice to each other. I often default to preponderance of probability (more likely than not).

Policy: Run whatever (K, DA, CP, Aff-K, Performance, Topicality, Theory, etc.) butbe inclusive. Arguments need to connect logically between cards. Don't make leaps in claims. Have links and internal links for Neg. Be nice to each other.

--------------------------------

NPDA: I competed in NPDA for 4 1/2 years at UNR. I will be upfront by saying that I was not nationally competitive. I did not do well at NPDA (Nats) nor NPTE and have difficulties flowing Elim 2 and beyond at either tournament. That said, I can keep up with most and usually flow on paper.

Here is how I evaluate the round:

T/Theory comes before the K unless there's enough work on why the K should come first. I default to competing interps. If you believe the T/Th to be abusive or problematic, I will vote on an RVI for both equity and education. Don't waste my time spreading out your opponents with 3 T/Th and collapsing to the under covered one. That said, I'm more likely to vote the argument down and not the team on an RVI. So at least it's not a one-shot kill(?)

Ks are an important part of critical thinking, and thus important to education. However, I also believe that in a world where the resolution is the only guaranteed point of research, and where Debate should be about having equal access to good education, you need clear links to the resolution. This includes Aff Ks. I think performances face a unique problem in this case. I say, contextualize your perf to debate or the world around us and explain why it's a more pressing issue than the resolution if your perf is not topical. Give your opponents options to compete against your performance. Disclosing your perf at the start of prep could easily resolve competitive equity claims for me.

The second part of Ks for me are Solvency. I have a hard time buying K solvency. Unless it's rooted in fiat, K solvency often sounds like it's some high theory, PoMo, Ivory Tower analysis that I can't wrap my head around without having prior knowledge on the subject. That said, I try to be tabula rasa, but I obviously have my knowledge bases. I understand Security, Borders, EcoFem, EcoSec, Queer Args primarily, although not exclusively.

RoB/RoJ: I think these are fine, except when you're aff and you also run a Plan alongside the K. Just because your read "PT: The res" does not mean you are doing the res. Unless you are. If you are just saying it to answer back a Theory Interp by saying, "we did read a PT" without actually integrating it into your K args, then you're just wasting your time in my opinion.

Also, give me reasons why your RoB/RoJ is preferable, even in the PMC/LOC.

CP/DA: On the perm, is it feasible to do both? Is it preferable to do both? What are the advantages of doing the CP alone (the DA that goes with it)? What are the DAs of doing the CP and the Aff? What are the ADVs of doing the CP and the Aff?

ADV: I need a clear link story. Internal links are helpful here. Solvency is fine instead of IL. Critical impacts will win my heart, but magnitude, probability, and timeframe are definitely also important. I'll vote on any of the three if you explain why in this round one matters over the others. Or go for all three, whichever.

IPDA:As a competitor, I did not take this event super seriously. I only did this event a handful of times, and they were often collapsed with JV (which proved to be easy Gold). That said, I have had a year of experience judging, including at Nationals (Jan-Dec 2025) and my opinion has drastically shifted.

Framework:Have a clear FW. The Aff should set the FW, but the Neg can rebut if the FW is abusive. Otherwise, the Neg should try to work with the FW that the Aff presented.

1AR:I am not a fan of the two 3-minute Aff rebuttal speeches. They're too short to say much. That said, please at least bring up your own case contentions, even if just the taglines. If you don't, I evaluate it as a dropped arg.

NR: Line-by-line for half the time, crystallization for the other half. Weigh your impacts via magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

2AR:I would argue that this is the most difficult speech in the round. I don't know the "correct" strategy, but I prefer hearing strictly impact weighing with a clear link story to how you reach those impacts. Compare the two worlds of the Aff vs the Neg. This should be much more conversational and less line-by-line.

Don't be rude. Don't attack the opponents, attack their arguments. Be clear in your delivery. Signpost. Have fun. Learn a lot! :D

---

Joey Barrows - Delta

(Updated 3/1/26 I got added to NPDA late sorry)

Background: I have been Director of Forensics at Delta College for two years. I am not super active in coaching parli and when I do work on debate I work mostly on LD, but the majority of my time coaching is in speech, not debate. I was a graduate assistant UOP and did LD at Sac State.

General things I think would be useful to know about me judging parli:

I am okay with speed but not the fastest at any tournament. If you think you are the fastest person there you are probably too fast for me and you should definitely at least slow down for your tags. My flow is decent but not as tight as other people's.

If your opponent slows you I think you should make a noticeable effort to accommodate them. If you are going to slow someone you probably shouldn't then spread in your next speech.

I prefer case debate and I prefer when affs are topical (lol) but also to vote on topicality arguments I much more prefer proven abuse. I have a high-ish threshold on topicality. To me topicality is about the definitions of words in the topic and therefore I really like to know why the definition you're using is better than the other team's for predictability and/or education.

I generally do not find nuclear war scenarios or other extinction scenarios to be super persuasive against more probable or structural impacts.

To vote on the K I really need a good explanation of what the alternative does and how the aff links to the kritik. I am probably not super familiar with the literature/author your kritik is based on.

I think debate should be as fair as possible and I think that the purpose of debate is primarily is education. I will not vote on blatant lies.

I generally prefer your arguments to follow consistent logic, have good evidence, and be explained in a persuasive manner :)

Please ask any questions before round if you'd like

---

Jonathan Reyes - Standby

n/a

---

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

---

Josue De Leon - Hired

n/a

---

Kanan Prashar - SJSU

Debate: I judge mainly on the weighing mechanism and expect all arguments to return back to this in the last speech. I place more value on logic based arguments rather than evidence based arguments. I will for the most part be tabula rasa.

---

Karen Cornwell - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

---

Kim Yee - Ohlone College

I like my debates like how I enjoy my toast in the morning, no spread and all buttery.(t-shirts coming soon!)

What this means is that I don't like having to be Robert Langdon (professor of symbology and art history at Harvard) and have to try and decipher what you're saying. But in all seriousness, I am an IE judge and I much prefer the quality of argument over quantity. I also appreciate it when delivery is engaging and tangible. In the real world, there's no point in rushing through your case if no one can understand you. Accessibility is important to me and I value it when students are able to educate and connect their arguments to me as an audience member and judge.

Other than that you know what you need to do.

May the Force be with you!

---

Kimberly Christian - DVC

n/a

---

Kirsti Copeland - FTC

n/a

---

Kyle Landrum - Chico State

n/a

---

Mack Sermon - Chabot

I have about 40 years experience in competition, judging and coaching, mostly in the Great Northwest. I have significant experience with IEs, NDT, CEDA, NPDA, IPDA and NFC-LD.

Debates should focus on Aristotles Big 3: ethos, pathos and logos- and keeping it fun and educational.

-Your character, ethos, is established in and out of the debate by your behavior with opponents, teammates, me and others. Please treat everyone with respect and friendship.

-Emotion, or pathos, is demonstrated by the conviction and selection of your arguments and fairness to your opponents. Your delivery should make me believe that you really care about the issue.

-To me, logos is most important. A case must be logical. This requires that you make a claim, provide proof of some sort, develop a warrant, then pull it all together for a case. Please, please, do not simply make claims and expect me to accept them as truth.

-Speed: Sure I could talk as fast as any of them, but I really dislike debaters who purposely garble their presentation. I tolerated it in policy debate because at least I could look at their evidence after the round. In NPDA, what am I supposed to look at, your flow? Also, you can be persuasive when speaking fast.

-Im fine with counterplans if you meet the requirements of a counterplan- Im bored by agent change, study, and delay counterplans. But Ill listen.

-I will listen to Topicality, procedurals or structured definition arguments but since you are basically accusing your opponents of breaking the rules, presumption is with the AFF. I sort of like Specification arguments but I dont always vote for them.

-Im not opposed to the concept of the Kritik but I only voted for them about 30-40% in true policy debate-- less in NPDA and IPDA. There just isnt enough time in the shorter forms, without substantial evidence, to perform the type of dialectic discussion that Aristotle advocates, so a Kritik is often too complex to work. However, you are welcome to give it a shot.

-Its unlikely that you will win on a single dropped subpoint- unless its really, really important. Give me a framework to evaluate the round. Show me the big picture to justify my ballot.

-I really prefer a straight up debate on the heart of the topic. Case versus Disads, impact and link comparisons. Straight refutation. Im old-school, yes, and just generally old. But, I think I am a fair judge and willing to evaluate the debate without using my preferences against you.

---

Maximus Renteria - UOP

4 years HS policy

4 years NPDA/NPTE

maximusrenteria@gmail.com

While debate may be more of a technical logic puzzle rather than a truth-seeking activity, this doesn't let you invalidate people's experiences.

Judge instruction -- Tell me how and why to vote instead of making claims that are impossible to evaluate in a vacuum. That just means weigh and compare everything (impacts, warrants, etc).

Aff -- I don't have a preference between policy or kritikal affirmatives. If rejecting, give a reason why it's necessary.

T -- I would be more receptive to reasonability arguments than most. This probably means topicality arguments geared toward the plan rather than a vision of the topic are more convincing.

CP -- Aff doesn't need a theory shell to tell me why your CP is not legitimate. Tell me how a perm proves no competition rather than just tagging.

K -- I generally think Ks are research methods that determine the desire-ability of the plan. I think whoever wins framework will probably win the plan v K debate. Leverage your frameworks to exclude when you are winning it. "Theoretical" justifications for fw like moots 1ac are cop outs especially from the aff; methodological justifications are much more convincing even for reps/epistemics Ks. This probably means Ks of epistemics/justifications need implications on the endpoint of the plan (it's very easy to just say "internal link turns case") even if "justifications bad" is a legitimate reason to negate. I like plan specific links but generic res links are fine if you can still explain uniqueness. I don't think perm-double bind arguments are convincing.

---

Mecedes Lindsay - USFCA

I am an adaptable judge who lets debaters determine the direction of the round. My role is to evaluate arguments as they are presented, meaning I wont impose a strict framework unless one is given to me. My evaluation will be based on the arguments and frameworks presented, with an emphasis on solvency, interpretation of the topic, and substantive engagement with the resolution, especially in policy-heavy debates. I enjoy both pragmatic and moral arguments, but relying solely on moralityespecially in an extreme or rigid waywont win me over. Debate is about substance, and strong debaters should be able to defend their position from multiple angles rather than depending on a single argument.

Clash is essential; your opponent is your first audience, not me. If youre not engaging with their points, youre not truly debating. While I wont automatically drop you for weak clash, I need to see some attempt to directly address arguments. If theres little to no clash, it becomes difficult to fairly evaluate the round. Additionally, if you explain your argument well, youll knowit should be fully thought-out and self-evident. If it isnt developed enough, Ill let you know in my comments. I also believe arguments should be weighed; if you dont do so yourself, I will evaluate both sides at face value.

I am not a fan of spreading. You should be able to communicate your arguments in a clear, concise, and coherent way. While I wont drop you solely for speed, poor delivery will affect speaker points because clarity is part of effective speaking. Spreading is a real strategy, so I wont penalize it outright, but if I cant understand you, I wont flow it. Presentation also mattersconfidence can work in your favor, not in the sense of aggression or theatrics, but in the way you carry your argument. Looking up from your screen or paper is key; debate is about engagement, and eye contact plays a role in that.

At the end of the day, be respectful, be fun, and put yourself out there. Debate is as much about persuasion as it is about logic. Go in with the confidence that you know what you're talking aboutor at least that you can winand you just might persuade me.

---

Michael Andreas - Butte

I come into every debate with a curiosity and desire to see what I can learn from you, it is your job to convince me well reasoned analysis and evidence, which means I cannot and will not ignore a patently false claim, so support your arguments accordingly. While spreading may be somewhat unavoidable, replacing bulk info with well reasoned analysis would be my preference. Running topicality for topicality-sake is a sham. If you are going to make that claim, make sure there is something behind it, otherwise you waste all of our time. Show me some clash, debate hard and don’t give up, get creative, and most of all, show me you are having fun!

---

Michael Sullivan - LPC

n/a

---

Nathan Steele - CCSF

Have fun and claim the space-time of the debate round as belonging to you. Aspire to present clearly organized and supported arguments in your constructive speeches. Your general approach should be to invite dialogue over controversy and offer clear reasoning why your position is preferable. Provide criteria by which I might evaluate the arguments in the round. When inspired, embrace your creativity and wit. Share the time with your opponent during cross-examination. Use rebuttal speeches to extend arguments as you see fit. It is good practice to provide some key voting issues or summary of the competing narratives within the debate to illuminate my decision-making process (i.e., my pathway to voting for you). Delivery doesn't factor heavily into decision-making. Be yourself. Focus on conveying the arguments so your opponent and judge understand. I may comment on features of your nonverbal communication on a ballot, but you'll win the debate with the argument(s).

The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Focus on the arguments during the round. Be good to yourself too. Debate can be difficult at times. Keep bringing your best and youll get better.

---

Nicholas Adair - UOP

Parli/LD

I am an old school flow judge (pen and paper) so if you spread me out of the round, I will drop arguments because I cannot keep up.

I am also not a tabula rosa judge. I will believe most arguments that are based in fact, but if you tell me untruths, (ie. Turkey should become a part of NATOit's been a member since 1952) I will not flow them. Make sure that your arguments are rooted in fact and evidence, because that is the only way to achieve both education and fairness in round.

I am not a big fan of topicality/counterplans/Kritiques. I feel that most rounds should be fought straight up with ADDs, and DAs, as most topics are debatable by design. Using theory /CPs feels like an underhanded way to skew the Aff out of its ground. However, that does not mean I will not vote on theory. If Aff brings an inaccessible plan/definition/actor to the round, I find myself voting on T/CPs often, even though I would rather not do so. One last note for T, if you say Topicality is a-priori and then kick it in the MO/LO, it will flow against you as the neg. Either it excluded you from the round, or it didn't. Both cannot be true in the same world. If you dont say a-priori, I will simply treat it as an additional DA, which I do not mind voting for.

IPDA

IPDA is not Parli or LD so do not try to make it such. This event is supposed to be accessible for any person, so dropping hyper specific labels, ie. links/uniqueness is a quicker way to my ballot. That said, you should not let the debate become unorganized either. Using language like contentions, or main points is highly recommended. In IPDA I will evaluate the round as competing extemp speeches. I desire performance and persuasiveness as well as excellent clash and contextualization of data surrounding the topic. If you have competed in public forum as a debate event in high school, I view this event as the 1v1 version of that event. One last note for this event, I will not vote for Krtiques/Topicality/or any theory under any circumstance. This does not mean the Aff gets to bring in obviously skewed definitions, and the neg should be ready to have an alternative definition if the round needs it.

Limited prep

Speeches with less filler words shine above the rest. While most speakers don't use ums or likes, most extempers do use now and well. These are still filler words, and they become noticeable quite quickly. Also, bring your own personality and fun to the event. Far too many limited prep speakers are too robotic in their delivery. Humor is always a plus.

Speech events

What I look for in speech events is a well-polished piece with excellent blocking and a good story/argument. Some of the best speeches I have watched, hit all these points as well as engaging with the audience/judge if applicable. I am not a fan of superfluous blocking for the sake of blocking, but I will appreciate the effort. Overall, well-polished pieces are what I look for first, a clear argument second, and well done blocking third.

---

Orion Steele - SFSU

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

---

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

---

Rafael Fogo-Schensul - Chico State

n/a

---

Ravi Prassad - Standby

n/a

---

Ryan Wenzel - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present. However, I am a newer judge, so make sure I can keep up.

---

Saavya Surapenini - FTC

n/a

---

Sean Thai - Delta

I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE: clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.

I need clear perm texts, e.g. PDB is not a valid perm text for me. If you get called out for, I will not accept the perm.

Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations and net benefits without some other D-Rule. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I will always try to use the criterion + impact framing from the round if possible. I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. This isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold.

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.

You can take this to mean that I believe all interps are standard-setting debates.

General

Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

Im willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.

It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.

LD:

I have trouble with implied clash, and it marks it harder to evaluate debate rounds. Please signpost clearly where you want your arguments.

Tech is a form of truth.

Flex time answers are binding.

"Email me for cites" is NOT a form of disclosure to me. If that is the extent of your disclosure, there is a much greater chance you will lose on that argument.

---

Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte

I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years. 

I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:

-Using clear roadmapping

-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)

- Be respectful of your opponent and judges

-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff

- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me

---

Steve Robertson - Contra Costa

Steve Robertson

Contra Costa College, Director of Forensics

Years competed:1 yr LD (high school), 4.5 years NDT/CEDA (college)

Years coaching: 25+ years (middle school, high school, college - LD, parli, NDT/CEDA, IPDA)

Philosophy - The round is for you to convince me why your side should win the debate. try to be as non-interventionist as I can be. I work off the flow, focusing on your claims, warrants, and evidence. Believability is also a factor. I find it very difficult to vote for arguments that I don't understand how they work or function. So be sure to explain why things are the way they are. Compare impacts, and explain why your impacts/argument outweigh or should be viewed as more important than theirs. The main point is that you need to justify your position to me: what is your argument, why is it legitimate, and why does that matter in light of the other side's arguments. If you can adequately answer those three questions better than the other side, you should win the argument.

I punish non-responsiveness - meaning that if you drop or undercover arguments, they suddenly get much more weight in the round (especially if exploited by the other team). However, if you under-develop your arguments (such as blipping out theory pre-empts without justifying them), it doesn't take much to respond to these arguments.

I also communicate through nonverbals. If you see me nodding, then that means I understand your position (not necessarily agree with it, but I get what you're saying). If you see me cocking my head to the side or scrunching up my face, it means I don't get what you're saying or I don't understand your argument or I don't see why it's relevant. If you see that face, you should either give more explanation (until you see a head nod) or cut your losses and move onto another argument. If you see my hands in the air, that means I don't know where you are on the flow. You should give me a signpost, because I'm currently not flowing you.

Here are some event-specific concerns:

Parli- Debate starts at the highest point of conflict. I will listen to arguments of trichot/type of resolution, though if the tournament identifies it as a particular type of resolution this becomes a bit more difficult.

I don't care about partner to partner communication. However, if it's done during the other team's speech, then mute yourselves from this 8x8 (e.g., chat privately, mute yourselves and talk in another venue, etc.). Don't disrupt the other speaker.

If you want to give your partner advice or arguments, that's fine as well. There are 2 things to be aware of: First, I only listen to what the speaker says. So if you tell your partner something, it doesn't reach my flow until the current speaker says it. Saying "yeah, what she said" will get onto my flow as "yeah, what she said" - not the actual argument. Second, the more you parrot or puppet your partner, the lower your speaker points will become. This is purely subjective on my part, so use at your own peril.

Finally, parli has the Point of Order. I will not protect against new arguments or other rules violations (unless specified to do so in the tournament rules). Use this if applicable. Frivolous use of it, however, will desensitize me to it.

LD- You have the obligation to provide evidence in this debate. Please do so. Referencing evidence that has not been read in the debate will carry the same weight as an assertion for me.

For me, reading the source (publication title and/or authors' last names) and date is sufficient for citations, provided that all additional information is provided on the card's citation itself. If you want to run an official rules violation on this in front of me, I will entertain it, but realize I am disinclined to vote evidence or a debater down if that information is available on the card. Doesn't mean you can't win it, just that it'll be an uphill battle.

Realize that while underlining and highlighting are acceptable ways of modifying evidence for a round, ellipses, unreadable font size, or gaps in text are unacceptable.

IPDA- IPDA is more of a communication event than a debate for me. It is NOT treated the same as parli. I do not flow, but take a very limited amount of notes. Eloquence factors into the decision for me. I think of this as a townhall meeting, closer to interactive persuasion than debate. Avoid debate jargon, extensive line by line analysis, and other more traditional debate tactics. This is about persuasion, not strict argumentation. Think of debating in front of your grandmother, not a debate judge.

Bottom line - make good arguments, offer clash, give impact calculus/comparison, and be civil to one another. Oh...and have fun! :)

---

Steven Farias - UOP

(Reviewed Jan. 2026; changes- added details on NEG Counterproposals in Overview) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become enables what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think there should be limits on NEG counter proposals in parliamentary debate. For example, I think offering 3 or more clearly skews the debate or being conditional is based around an idea of negation that functions under different constraints. The concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. As such, I think that NEG teams should be deliberate and thoughtful in how they respond to theoretical objections by the AFF to counterproposals.

There are some clear distinctions that should help when debating in front of me:
1. Theory and advocacies are distinct as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defenseable changes to the status quo.
2. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in the topic.
3. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof that a change is needed has shifted from the AFF to the NEG.
4. Vote NEG on presumption when a counterproposal exists does not function for me.
5. The AFF cannot kick the case. In order to win turns on the off case, there must be a stable locus for the AFF to generate offense.
6. Judge kicking must an explicit argument made if you want me to do so and you need to explain why it would be legitimate decision given you are essentially saying you get access to two win conditions while the AFF has one.

Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 17 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 12 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

---

Ta'Niyia Smith - Standby

n/a

---

Timothy Heisler - LPC

I am an IE judge who specialized in platform speeches, specifically Informative and Persuasive speaking. As such, clarity of message and organization is paramount in receiving my vote. So.speak slowly and clearly. Be organized and offer signposts. Explain very specifically in your closing speech why you think you won the debate. And, please for the love of all that is good and holy, do not use debate language, jargon or terminology.

IPDA was created for and meant to be evaluated by NON-Forensic people. If we (the audience) need to be trained to simply understand what youre talking about, then, sadly, youre doing it wrong.

Looking forward to seeing/hearing what you have to say..even more looking forward to being able to understand it.

---

Tyler Sasabuchi - Solano CC

Hello! Tl;Dr at bottom for those panic checking paradigms during prep. Longer version: Ive
done debate, parli + IPDA, you wont lose me with jargon or theory stuff, most likely I can
keep up with your speed but make sure its still legible and actual words. If your opponents
ask you to slow or clear, do. Debate needs to be accessible. I vote on T+K. On T, I prefer
proven abuse, but will buy potential abuse if you can provide a very clear and solid line of
thinking to the abuse. For K make sure your K is logically consistent, and use examples that
actually support it. Not the biggest fan of pie-in-the-sky theory Ks (vote neg to embrace fate,
out there multi-verse theory) but in rare cases maybe. I prefer on/off case direct clash, and
love weird or off the wall stories to get to impacts, as long as the story makes sense and has
good impacts. If youve got weird stuff you want to try, please feel free. I will be mostly tabula
rasa, barring very obvious things (dont tell me the sky is purple and expect me to fully buy
that without significant evidence). Love historical examples to support points. Please enjoy
yourselves and have a good time, a bit of humor goes a long way in a round, but isnt
necessary.
Tl;Dr seasoned debater, ok with jargon/speed, dont mind theory. T doesnt need proven
abuse, but potential needs strong through-line. K is fine, but make sure It has logical
consistency, and lets not get too crazy with theory. Big fan of clash, prefer it to theory, you
can run whatever wild stuff you feel like as long is makes sense. Be nice and polite to each
other, preferably lets have some fun so we dont go insane.

---

Will White - Parli at Berkeley

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

• Coached LD with DebateDrills
• Coached circuit tech parli at Piedmont and Evergreen

General

• Put me on an email chain
• Grace periods don't exist, I'll probably deck speaks if you go over 3 seconds
• I like ev comparison. I also really like when someone points out that a card contradicts the tag. However, debaters should always highlight and read the part of the card that they say contradicts the tag
• Flex prep is fine
• You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it. Violations should also probably have a screenshot and time stamp *except in parli
• Either flash analytics or slow down because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
• Probability>Magnitude>Time Frame but can be convinced other wise
• Tech>Truth
• I think implicit clash is true to the extent that if the disad directly contradicts the advantage and the disad is won but the advantage is dropped then my brain doesnt just magically turn off.

Theory: I [usually] don't feel strongly about thingslike condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

• Competing interps > reasonability
• Text > Spirit of the interp
• Drop the debater > Drop the argument
• Theory comes before critical args
• Fairness and education are voters
• Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
• 1NC interps comes before 1AR/2AC interps
• I tend to hack for condo good
• I'm a bit unclear why bad speech times are uniquely solved by an interp. I don't think these args are inherently bad but often under explained for me.
• No RVIs

K Debate: I think Im a hack against metaphysics framing. If theres no material/physical basis of oppression but rather a mystical ideological apparatus that just so happens to touch upon material things then Im super persuaded by defense that says the alt is the logic of land acknowledgments at Lockheed Martin and makes it impossible to materially solve whatever ism in your alt is trying to solve for.

I also do find that Im really receptive to uniqueness thumpers about debate shapes subjectivity types of arguments that say what actually does is your day to day practice, relationships with people/society, and background. This is not today that subjectivity is irrelevant but that theres a material and social basis for subjectivity and thats what our ideas need to be in the direction of so we get some solid practices!

Policy debaters should read carefully. Im also not stoked by incrementalist reformism key args. However, I am sympathetic to policy education making us better activists in the real world. This is not to say I am not down for the K anymore. But if K teams dont want to fight an uphill battle for my ballot they should change the way they throw down their shells

All this said, I wont auto vote you down for reading a metaphysical position. Tbh if you can make it clean I would prefer that over adapting to me because I dont think debate is THAT serious (hence debate doesnt shape subjectivity stuff) and I don't want to have to judge an unnecessarily messy debate.

• Reject alts have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
• Fiated K alts with practical methods can be interesting though, however, the way most of these alts are explained turn them into reform or charity which makes the perm debate for the aff easy in my head.
• I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
• Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
• I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!

K Affs:

• Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
• Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!
• I think Framework is a good arg against K affs
• I find the fairness paradox against K aff args that say fairness is bad to be pretty persuasive. Not unbeatable but you'll need more than just repeating your generics. I think a better route is going for competitive counter interp and defending your model of debate

Case:

• Fiat is durable
• I don't judge kick unless told to
• kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation
• Link turns or uniqueness blocks make more sense to me than impact defense

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

• Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
• Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
• Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
• Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and reads speed bad
• "mew", "clap", and "inshallah" T

MISC:

• Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
• Terminal defense is hard to win
• PF Debaters should not paraphrase ev and not exchange ev untimed

---