Judge Philosophies
Alicia Batice - PCC
Alix Lopez - Mt. SAC
Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means
- clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow.
- no spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you!
- you are courteous to your opponent.
- you make it clear why I should vote for you.
Excited to see you all debate!
Allison Bowman - Moorpark
For parli: I try to just look at arguments made in the round. Both sides should weigh their impacts and explain why they should win. I expect everyone to be respectful to their opponents. I love counterplan debate. I am not the biggest fan of Ks. If you do choose to run a K spend extra time on alt. solvency. I have no problem with speed or jargon.
For IPDA: I view IPDA separately from parli and try to leave my parli knowledge at the door. I don't think debate jargon or speech belong in IPDA. Delivery and persuasion matter. I view IPDA as a combination of debate and extemp.
Amanda Miskell - Parli at Berkeley
TL;DR
Debate is a game. Run whatever you want, just win it on the flow. Hit me with your new K, some frivolous theory that youre worried other judges wont buy, or literally anything else. Speaks based on execution of strategy.
Background
I'm a recent grad of UC Berkeley who debated in NPDA (tech parli), and now I coach the college team Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, as well as the high school team at Campolindo HS. My partner Ryan Rashid and I won all three nats in NPDA my junior year, but I have next to no experience outside of parli (just some high school PF and lay LD), so I'm relatively unfamiliar with LD and policy norms. I did and teach pretty much all the stylistic thingsequal amount of case, theory, and Ks. I love writing K links, collapsing to tix/elections DAs, and prepping clever T shells courtesy of shoddy resolutions. (The last one is kind of a joke, but also not really.) Point is, I have no preference for what you read, please just do what you're best at. I'd rather see a good K debate with quality clash than a bad case debate, and vice versa.
General note: My philosophy on debate has been primarily shaped by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Ryan Rashid, and June Dense. Expect a paradigm rather similar to theirs.
Kritiks
- If you're in a hurry you can skip this sectionread whatever K you want lol, I don't pick favorites
- My background in academics and debate leans slightly more toward sociology than pomo. I've taken courses (and written Ks) about critical refugee studies, settler colonialism, anthropocentrism, etc., but have yet to truly grasp more than the barest bones of Bataille, for example. That being said, I definitely have experience with pomoI've read/collapsed to Buddhism, Barad, Foucault, Nietzsche, etc. and competed against Lacan more times than I can count (shout out to the Rice team for that one). So feel free to read pomo if that's your thing, just be a tad gentler with me and don't assume I've read/heard allll the terminology before
- I'm a hoe for really well-warranted links that are specific to the aff and have imbedded DAs/solvency deficits. Also detailed and specific reasons why you solve the aff (if that's an arg you like to go for), either in the impacts or on the alt
- Theses can be helpful for more complex Ks, but def not necessary for your generic cap shell. I often write Ks that draw from multiple lit bases, and for me, a thesis creates a more cohesive story for something that can be kind of frankenstein in nature
Theory
- I love theory. I've been told I have a low threshold for frivolous theory (probably a consequence of too many rounds with Ryan and Brian), but my favorite is topicality, or any other interps that are very specific to the resolution/Aff. If it's clear that your interp had to be written during the 2 minutes before the LOC, that's my jam. Ofc you can read generics too, I'll just be slightly more bored and slightly less impressed
- MO and PMR theory will be an uphill battle with me, the latter most of all because it can't be contested by the other team, which makes my job so very hard, and I am lazy. But if the abuse is truly egregious and didn't occur until the MG/block, or if it's a matter of rhetorical violence, read the new arg and I'll do my best to evaluate it. But please weigh the new shell against the other team's remaining offense
- MG theory is fine, I read it all the time, but I'm also comfortable rejecting it if the Neg wins arguments for why it's bad or in-evaluable
- I don't need proven abuse under competing interps (it's about what your interp justifies, not what you actually did)
- Text vs. spirit of the interp should be debated in-round, and I'll evaluate under whichever is won. If somehow it's relevant but completely unmentioned by either team, I'll default to text over spirit
- I default to competing interpretations, but I'll use reasonability if you win args as to why I should AND if you have a briteline for it, cuz I don't feel like intervening. For example, a briteline (that I think works relatively well) is that I should evaluate whether the aff interp is good or bad based on all the offense-defense arguments read about it, and decide theory based on that, regardless of whether there's a counter-interp text. You could have a different briteline, but either way, explicitly tell me what it is, because "evaluate theory using reasonability" means different things to different people. I would prefer not to treat it as just a gut check, but if you don't define it, that's what I'll assume you mean
- I think theory is an RVI if and only if you tell me that it is, provide warrants, and then win that arg
- I default to drop the arg, although drop the arg sometimes = drop the debater, like for T. But obviously, reading "drop the debater" with even just one uncontested warrant is sufficient for me to change this default
- I didn't do circuit LD, so explain slightly more to me the definitions/implications of buzzwords that aren't as common in parli. The best example I can think of is semantics vs. pragmatics: I NOW know what they both mean, but I did NOT a year ago, and that made it difficult for me to render a decision in favor of blippy semantics first args in NPDI finals. Still read arguments like that if you want, just define and implicate them out, don't assume that I know all the things
Case
- I enjoy niche disads, like a hyper-specific tix scenario, or a biod disad about endangered turtles that live near where the plan happens. These can be hard (or impossible) to find though, depending on the res, so don't sweat
- I also definitely understand the value of tried and tested generics - I read a lot of backlash DAs and consult CPs, and inv con, so it's okay to read that too. Read whatever you think is strategic for the rez
- I enjoy technical CP debate. PICs are fun unless I'm read a shell that tells me otherwise. Same thing for consult CPs, delay CPs, agent CPs, etc.
- Perms on CPs. Make them. Any perm is fine, unless the other team gives me a reason why it's not
- In the absence of explicit magnitude/probability/timeframe/etc. weighing, I default to using only strength of link. In other words, Im more inclined to vote for arguments that are dropped or comparatively under-covered, but you can prevent this by telling me why your impact is high [magnitude/probability/etc.], and why [magnitude/probability/etc.] comes first
- I love clever case strats that exploit a mistake the other team has made, like collapsing to a straight turn or a double turn. Don't be afraid to do something "risky" like that, I can follow along
Everything Else
Here's some miscellaneous beliefs that I have about debate and will utilize by default; however, I'm willing to evaluate otherwise, even in the opposite direction, as long as you give me sufficient reason to in-round:
- I think unconditionality means you *technically* have to defend the advocacy throughout the round, but that could include conceding defense so the sheet doesn't matter anymore
- I believe that perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy
- I'm not game for shadow extensions that aren't at least mentioned in the MG/MO, even if the argument is conceded. In other words, I think the member speeches should have to extend every piece of offense their team intends to collapse to
- I will do my best to protect during the LOR and PMR, but I don't trust myself to catch everything and neither should you, so call points of order please. I'll rule on all of them immediately, to the best of my ability, because you usually need to know my stance for the sake of the rest of the speech
- New weighing is fine in the LOR/PMR, but make sure it's actually weighing, not sequencing or anything else. E.g., saying "fairness is more important than education because debate could survive without education, but not without fairness" is acceptable weighing, but saying "fairness is more important than education because it's the internal link to education and skews the round" is a sequencing argument that should be read before the rebuttal speech
- I think condo's p dope, so run however many off you want, but also I'll drop you if the other team wins a condo bad shell
- I think dispo is condo in a suit, but if you can get a we meet out of it, go off sis. And if you think they might use their dispo status to meet your condo shell, preempt that in the violation please
- Presumption flips neg, unless the neg reads a CP/alt, in which case it flips aff
- I find truth over tech arguments incoherent and self-refuting; truth in debate is only ever arrived at through evaluation of the flow (or judge intervention, which I will not do), so in order to convince me that truth outweighs tech, youd have to win that claim via the tech flowwhich seems to indicate that tech still > truth
- I will drop your ass for racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. rhetoric or behavior
- To pick you up on an IVI, I need reasons why that IVI outweighs all the impacts your opponents are going for
- Tag-teaming is fine, but I'll only flow what the speaker says
Bianca Nasser - Hired
n/a
Bill Neesen - IVC
I love debate and think it is an amazing teaching game.
I think that debaters should make it what they want and defend that with sound arguments.
Policy making, DA, K, T and other theory are all good.
I am addicted to my flow and try to decide off of it.
I am also called a speaker point meanie (K. Calderwood)
Some things you should know (not that I will not vote for them but I am sure my opinions have some effect even if I do not want them to)
I hate conditional arguments
RVI's are just dumb and when I am forced to vote on them I will take speaker points
Affs should relate at some level to the topic
IPDA
This is not the same as parli and I do not really fllow it. I do take notes but totally different. I expect less complex debate and more public style.
Chathi Anderson - IVC
Dan Cohee - Saddleback
n/a
Dawson Khoury - Mt. SAC
Judge Philosophy
Frankie Marchi - ASU
n/a
Jamie Whittington-Studer - Cal State LA
Jedi Curva - ELAC
n/a
Kelsey Abele - ASU
n/a
Kyle Duffy - COC
Marcos Santos - PCC
For individual events, I look for how well rounded the performance is with regards to content and delivery. If itÃ?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s close, I usually give the advantage to the most engaging speaker. For debate, I simply give the advantage to the more persuasive and logical arguments that are presented in a clear and digestible manner.Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
Martin Willis-Raymondo - Mt. SAC
Matt Grisat - RioRunners
Mikayla Holzinger - Mt. SAC
I competed in speech and debate from 2009-2019, and have been coaching since 2017. Although I have mainly done IE events, I have done debate as well. My one and only requirement for this round is to NOT SPREAD. Not because I can't follow along, but because this does nothing for you. Throwing out random sources and trying to get through as much information as you can does not make for a good debate. Also, respect each other, and please use gender-neutral terms if you do not know your opponent's pronouns.
Noelle Anderson - Moorpark
I judge IPDA based on the arguments made in the round and
how each debater adapts while listening to their opponent. Additionally, I take
into account delivery and camaraderie. Please avoid debate jargon or talking so
fast that the audience cannot follow along.Â
Norm Fricker - Hired
n/a
Pablo Ramirez - SFSU
Paxton Attridge - ELAC
n/a
Robert Campbell - UCSD
Head Coach, University of California Speech & Debate. Former member of the national championship teams at the University of Kansas. An ideal debate round involves organization of case and arguments, clarity, and clash (direct argumentation). I despise "spreading" (no auctioneer ever won an argument) and any Affirmative "K"s (debate the resolution).
Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt. SAC
n /a
Rolland Petrello - Moorpark
As a debater, I competed in both NDT and CEDA, however, I left those forms of debate as a coach when I felt that they lacked any semblance of 'real-world' argumentation. I believe stock issues are labeled that way for a reason and I will weigh arguments around those issues heavily (even inherency on policy topics). I do not consider myself a 'games-theory' judge, nor do I consider myself purely 'Tabula Rasa'. I do not abandon my knowledge or common sense when I come into a debate round. This does not mean, however, that I am an 'interventionist.' I will only impose my thoughts/feelings into the round in the event that I am absolutely sure that arguments are erroneous.
One of the topline philosophies I bring to this activity is that I am an educator first and foremost. This means that if your approach to the debate undermines the educational experience for anyone in the round, it will probably result in a lost ballot for you. Additionally, behavior that would not be tolerated in an inclusive classroom will not be tolerated in front of me in the debate space. As a Director of Forensics I am also deeply concerned with the future of this activity, which requires the support of administrators that do not have a background in forensics. If your behavior in rounds is such that it would turn lay decision makers against the activity, that is a more real world impact calculus to me than any disad or theory shell I've ever seen in a debate and will be treated as such.
If I were to describe my philosophy, it would be that of 'a critic of argument.' This is to say that if your opponent drops an argument it does not necessarily mean that you win the round:
- You have only won whatever persuasiveness the argument had to begin with. If it had a 'Persuasiveness Quotient' of 0% when it was issued then you have won an argument that is meaningless. If it was a good argument (a PQ of 80%) then the argument will have much more weight in the round.
- Not every argument is a 'voter' and simply labeling it as such does not make it so. In fact, there are few trends more annoying than labeling everything a 'voter.' If you want me to vote on it, you need to explain why, in the context of this round, it is.
My first preference has to do with speed. I used to believe that I could flow 'almost' anyone. I am realistic enough to know that this is simply no longer the case. I'm out of practice and in my experience most of the time people do not speak clearly when they spread anyway. Additionally, most of the time spread is unnecessary. Bottom line, if you went too fast for me to flow it - I won't consider it in the round.
My second preference has to do with specific arguments:
- Topicality - I DO believe that topicality is a relevant issue in NFA LD, Parli, and IPDA. I am tired of seeing Government/Affirmative cases that have little or nothing to do with the topic.
- Kritiks - Most of the kritiks I have seen are interesting theory with little 'real world' relevance. If you're going to run it, make it real world. I find it hard to believe that a single specific language choice will destroy humanity. Additionally, while I understand the way K's function, do not assume that I understand the specifics of whatever theoretical framework you are using. Make sure you explain it thoroughly.
- Resolutions - I believe there are three types of resolutions: fact, value, and policy - don't try to twist one of them into something else. Just debate it straight up.
My third preference has to do with behavior.
- Ad Hominems are never appropriate and the use of them will be reflected in the points awarded in the round.
- Don't ask me to disclose. If I wish to, and have time without making the tournament run behind, I will.
My fourth preference is that while I view IPDA as debate, it should not be Parli LD. IPDA was created with an attention to delivery baked in. I will respect that on the ballot.
Finally, if you have specific questions, ask me before the round.
Ryan Fobes - Moorpark
n/a
Sabrina Tsai - UCSD
n/a
Sasan Kasravi - DVC
TL;DR: I won't punish you for not debating the way I like, but I can't "hang". Speed and Ks not recommended, but I won't vote you down unless your opponent gives me a decent reason to. Give me direct and clear reasons to vote for you. Have fun in the round.
I'm a community college Parliamentary Debate coach.
I protect the flow in rebuttals based on what I have on my flow. Feel free to call points of order if you'd really like to, though.
I do my best to vote the way the debaters tell me to and to be tabula rasa. With that having been said, I think everyone has biases and I want to tell you mine. I won't ignore any of your arguments out of not liking them, but my biases could lower the threshold for refutation on an argument I dislike.
What I like to see most in debates is good clash. To me, good clash means link refutations and impact comparisons.
I'm comfortable with theory and you can run whatever procedural you'd like. I prefer to vote on articulated abuse rather than potential abuse. While I'm happy to vote on procedurals if it's called for, I've never walked out of a round thinking, "Wow! What a great T!"
I don't like K's. I've voted on them before, I'll probably end up having to vote for a K again, but I'm not happy about it. Specifically, I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard.
I prefer that you don't spread, but I can keep up with decent speed. I'll tell you to slow if I need you to slow down.
Please be inclusive of your opponents and (if there are other judges in this round) the other judges on the panel.
It's important to me that this activity:
a) be a useful experience for competitors' lives outside of forensics
b) be enjoyable enough to be worth giving up weekends instead of sleeping in and watching cartoons.
Lastly, if I make jokes please pretend to think I'm funny. I don't have much else going for me.
Stephen Stohs - UCSD
Stephen Stohs UCSD 1) What is your experience with speech and debate? I have served as a volunteer judge for the UCSD Speech and Debate Team since Fall 2019, and continued judging straight through the pandemic, including the transition to all-online judging in spring 2020. 2) What does your ideal debate round look like? a) I appreciate well reasoned arguments communicated through a public speaking style that meets professional broadcast standards suitable for television or radio news. b) The importance of clear communication is heightened by the extra challenges of the pandemic situation. Under present conditions, an ideal debate round is free of technical glitches which hamper the performance of competitors or judges. 3) Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences? No extra credit will be given for faster than normal speech to cram in as many points of debate as possible. Quality of speech and clarity of expression will be rewarded over quantity or speed.
Sunday Smith - RioRunners
Thuy Pham - Mt. SAC
Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means
- clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow.
- no spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you!
- you are courteous to your opponent.
- you make it clear why I should vote for you.
Excited to see you all debate!
Varun Malik - UCSD
n/a
Xavi Torres - PCC
I did mostly interp when I competed, but have been trained in debate jargon and coaching novices in the activity. For the most part, consider me a layperson for all forms of debate and adjust accordingly.
Zach Oehm - Concordia-Moorhead
n/a