Agatha Attridge - Cal State LA

In NPDA, I find clear warranting in-case and impact calculus very helpful, particularly direct comparison between the world each side's impacts create. I am more than fine following quick speed in delivery, though clarity is still appreciated in both delivery and argumentation (the latter particularly within rebuttal). Argumentative consistency helps me in adjudicating, and so clear disclaimer regarding which arguments within cases are being addressed or rebutted is very useful. In line with this organization's values, I value more critically-directed debate, though this approach does not necessarily require argumentative structures idiosyncratic to NPDA or other forms of debate. I believe that the debate space should be safe for protected populations, and behavior that threatens these populations will be at the very least remarked upon on the ballot, and may impact my judging decision if egregious. My familiarity in debate is more philosophically and policy-directed, though arguments making other appeals will still receive full consideration.

---

Aiden King - UCSD

n/a

---

Alex Ignatyev - UCSD

n/a

---

Alyson Escalante - El Camino

---

Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa

Debate is about persuading your judge. Having said that, please talk to me, not at me. For all types of debate, let's have some clash? Call points of order in the rebuttal, I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive (I know this will look different in a remote setting but the concept still applies), I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments please just be sure that they are warranted and fully explained. Structure is vital to a clear case. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you donât want to leave it up to me. PS-all road maps are in time.

IPDA:
   This event is not Parli lite. The best way I have heard it explained is that it is dueling extemp speeches. There should be clash, clear arguments, and clear reasons to vote for you.

NFA-LD:
I prefer a conversational rate and a speaker who engages with their audience rather than just reading their cards. I have only judged 2-3 rounds of LD all year, if you run the round like I know the topic as well as you, you may lose my ballot.

Remember to have fun!

---

Ashley Yoon - El Camino

n/a

---

Bailey Coleman - MJC

---

Benjamin Lange - CUI

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well. 

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on. As a Neg, I think your best bet is to read a diverse strategy, but if you have a baller K that you want to go all in on then go for it.

Finally, and I've realized that this is probably a very important thing to make clear, I am willing to vote on terminal defense if you are able to explain what it means for the round. That means that if you win the "we meet" on theory, then the rest of the sheet is irrelevant - even under a paradigm of competing interpretations, their rule is irrelevant if you followed it.

 

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)

---

Chloe Barber - UCSD

n/a

---

Cindy Gutierrez - Mt. SAC

-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If youre going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have someincrediblystrong evidence.
-Dont be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, dont ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.

---

Claire Crossman - CUI

Ã?Ã

---

Damon Mitchell - SDSU

n/a

---

David Sonnenberg - OCC

n/a

---

Destinee Sior - Maricopa

---

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Though I am known as a dreaded "communication judge" which is code for "she has no idea about debate and wouldn't know a kritik if it dropped on her head".....I actually love debate, and have judged it over the years. I appreciate well-read teams: meaning I am up on current events. Speed doesn't win my ballot, unless it is executed in such a fashion that the speaker isn't stumbling over themselves to spread their opponent out of the room with ten off case positions. I appreciate clarity, labeling, and solid argumentation. I am judging only IPDA now, which means, this debate should be run before a lay judge without the demonstration of debate jargon, technical prowess, or extreme speed necessary/popular to win a parli debate. I appreciate competitors that are professional both in round towards their opponent, and out of round post debate. You will win my ballot on both content and presentational style. I am a firm believer that the competitor not only represents themselves, but their entire team and coaches that put heavy instructional time into them. In essence, make this round count. I will be most appreciative of your efforts.

---

Dominic Lesaca - DVC

TLDR: Speed fine, condo bad, Ks good, topical please, theory good, put me on the email chain: domlesaca@gmail.com

I competed in Parli/LD at the University of the Pacific. I am a first year out so most of my thoughts are still directly impacted by my own time in debate and my views will probably change the more I judge. I know nothing about courts so if it is a SCOTUS topic please break it into little bits that my baby brain will understand. I am annoyed by the amount of back-filling in most MOs and because of that am more willing to accept PMR arguments against MO blowups of blippy LOC tags. The most important thing to know is that I am lazy by nature so whoever gives me simplest route to the ballot will probably win.

Delivery:

I should be able to handle speed just fine so long as you remain clear, and if I have trouble following then I will call "speed" or "clear". Just make sure everyone has access to the round and you will be fine. For online tournaments please just bring down the speed a notch or two, spreading over zoom calls tends to sound like static over the line and that is just annoying.

Advantages and Disadvantages:

Be sure your tags are clear and number your arguments as much as possible as it makes it much easier to flow. That applies to all of the stuff below. DA debate is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch, especially when the scenarios are very specific to the topic and the aff. Offense is great but 100% loses to better warranted defense. I dont have a default preference for certain impacts over another but high magnitude impacts do make the the decision take less thought when teams dont do their own impact comparison.

Theory:

I always enjoyed debating theory. My threshold on T is fairly low, this means I don't need proven abuse but if you do give me proven abuse you basically have my ballot. Spec is mostly just used to waste people's time but if you have reasons why specification is key for ground on the resolution or specific plan then I am on board. Reasonability can mean a lot of things, you should tell me what it means to you so I know how to evaluate it. Any theory about reading the plan in the first X minutes will make me upset, that is a bad argument and you should feel bad for running it. In my mind the team answering theory needs some kind of counter interp, if you just read offense against T or framework without one I will just default to "the only game in town" rule.

Counter Plans:

Parli - Conditional advocacies are bad.

Other events - I am sympathetic to condo bad but have a higher threshold on the condo bad shell but you should justify why it is good/bad in the specific debate format you are in. I will vote for cheater CPs (states, consult, delay), but I am also very willing to vote on theory against them. The neg will be more likely to win these theory arguments if you show me how the CP is an important issue in the topic lit. For delay, the neg will have to win solid probability on their DA to convince me their is a net benefit to the CP. I generally think of perms as a test of competition if you want to make it an advocacy, you need to debate it out in round. In general I believe introducing a negative advocacy also flips presumption to the affirmative.

K's:

Ks are great, I just may need more explanation of what the alt actually does and will be annoyed if the neg refuses to explain the K until the MO. I dont think that Ks need frameworks to be competitive but probably still need to solve or outweigh the aff then. The Alt should provide some mechanism to solve what you are critiquing, if it is just reject I am going to need some specific framing or historical example where rejecting has been successful in fighting what you are critiquing. My wheelhouse has generally been neolib, Agamben, death denialism (not death drive), ableism, and security. Don't be afraid to go outside of those examples but be sure to explain it well for me.

K affs:

Aff Ks are fine but I still prefer you to be topical and actually affirm the resolution. If you negate or just ignore the resolution on the aff then we are gonna have some problems. You don't necessarily have to defend fiat but be sure to defend why your framework provides for equitable debate (I.E. you probably shouldn't force the neg to defend racism as their only ground). Performance Ks can be a bit confusing if not explained well so be sure to tell me how your performance solves and give me framework so I know how to evaluate it.

Evidence:

I think disclosure in evidence based debate is generally good. Please dont be stingy on sharing evidence with your opponents. I follow along with evidence read in round but I will only read it in depth if I am told to or need to resolve an issue. I dont totally disregard good analytics but evidence is generally preferred if possible.

Speaker Points:

I generally start at 29 and then rank down at a difference of about .5 points. If someone does something really interesting or funny I'll put them at a 30. I may alter the scale if you spread out a novice team.

---

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.

---

Dylan Pilz - UCSD

n/a

---

Ebun Kalejaiye - Westmont

n/a

---

Eli Wilson - IVC

 

---

Elle Baez - El Camino

n/a

---

Erin Roberts - OCC

n/a

---

Erin McFarlin - OCC

n/a

---

Eva Reyes - DVC

n/a

---

Evie Field - UCSD

n/a

---

Farah Habad - DVC

n/a

---

Gayathri Donepudi - UCSD

n/a

---

Greg Gorham - GCU

---

Janene Whitesell - Solano CC

I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:

1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.

2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.

3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.

4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.

5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.

6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.

7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.

8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?

9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.

---

Jeff Samano - Fullerton College

n/a

---

Jeff Toney - Dark Horse

I feel like an OG debate judge, even though several others have been around longer than me. However, I think it is only fair that I acknowledge that I have been a squirrel in several round in the past 5 years. In other words, your rep means as much to me as a Stark in Game of Thrones. With that being said here are my positions.

Counterplan - I do not have a silly disposition on them. However, that doesn't mean I will not vote for good condo bad theory.

Theory - I hate potential abuse - I got pulled over 21 times in one year and received two fix-it tix so... If you are going to run theory I need to know the specific ground lost. Tell me what positions you couldn't run, or what links you cannot logically gain access to because of whatever the other team is doing.

Weighing - I tend to prefer bigger magnitudes over smaller more probable impacts. If you are going to go small then framing probably should accompany your position. In addition, weigh through your framing!

In general, I look for the most straightforward way out of the debate. When I was a new judge, I used to do the most, looking at every sheet 3 or 4 times only to come up with the same decision I had 20 minutes prior. Now, I let yall point me in the right direction. If you want me to vote for you, walk me down the path. I put a lot of weight on rebuttals. So, during your impact framing keep that in mind.

---

Jennifer Baney - MSJC

My judging paradigm is a policymaker. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot.

Tips for the neg team: I will vote heavily on disadvantages and counter plans. I find that the chance for students to build their neg case in relation to those items makes for a debate round that is both entertaining and educational therefore easier to judge. However, something that I do not value in a debate is arguments used to fill time rather than which appears to be the overall use of Topicality. Specifically, unless someone is clearly not topical I think it just fills time in debate and removes any educational value so don't run it just to run it. Additionally, my paradigm solves so there should be no need to have a topicality. K's are okay but again unless there is a blatant obvious or necessary it removes the educational value from the debate. To clarify K's are awesome when if you want to sip on some coffee and talk about all sorts of theories, please send me an invitation. However, in a debate round.

Tips for aff: you should make sure that you are calling the neg for these items. It is your job to shape the round fairly and to hold a lasting impact. Do not remove education by making the round too restrictive and please include advantages as well as impacts that are unique. The simplest way to view the debate and remove bias is weighing affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages because it allows for impacts to decide the ballot. Impacts win my ballot 9/10 times but this does not mean claiming the biggest impact wins but rather the most logical impact carries the most amount of weight. 

General tips: I like clear speed but you have to create the most inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. If you are competing against someone who cannot handle your speed it is your responsibility to become inclusive. I flow on a laptop so that means that I need labels to be explicit regardless if you spread or not. I refuse to take "outside gossip" as a role on my ballot and if you decide slander is your game, best of luck.

TLDR; All I really care about are impacts, however, if you want to make the round more enjoyable for me and follow the other stuff I really enjoy, sounds good. 

---

Jordan Kay - SDSU

---

Judy Cheng - UCSD

n/a

---

Julie Marts - UCSD

n/a

---

Keegan Bosch - DVC

---

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!

---

Kim Ruiz - UCSD

n/a

---

Kimberly Overton - UCSD

n/a

---

Kristina Sanville - CSU Chico

---

Kyle Groner - OCC

n/a

---

Lizeth Chimal - Mt. SAC

Hi! My Name is Lizeth Chimal.

When judging, I want a clear reason on why I should be voting for you. (Make it easy for me) I should not have to fill in the holes. Logic in arguments is very important. The more you break down an argument the more enticed I will be to vote for you. Have fun! No spreading.

---

Marie Stone - A-State

I am a student at Arkansas State University currently pursuing a bachelors degree in psychology with a minor in communication studies and a certificate in debate and forensics. I prefer if you dont spread, but I can usually understand fast talkers pretty well. In a debate round, I like to see passion and interest in the subject in a speaker. Normally, I dont do hand signals, but if you need them I need you to tell me before you start. Also, please time yourselves.

---

Mark Faaita - CSU Chico

In all forms of debate I prefer arguments that are well reasoned and have supporting evidence. I am open to just about any kind of argument, but I think that more abstract/philosophical arguments typically run the risk of being easily leveraged against the team deploying them in the round. There are few to no arguments that I think will hear in a round and immediately disregard. i vote for arguments I don't like/disagree with all of the time. Please, please, please do not be rude to your opponents. It's just not a good look and creates a tension in the room that doesn't need to be there.

---

Mayank Sharan - UCSD

n/a

---

Michael Gray - A-State

This part pertains mostly to Parli, BUT you should probably read it since it represents what I believe about debate in general. See below for IPDA.

Me: Debated for A-State from 2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some IPDA and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.

In General: I'll listen to anything, but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios.

Speaker Points: These exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Knowing lots of stuff doesn't make you a good speaker. Winning an argument doesn't make you a good speaker. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that. Make sense?

Case: By default, my stance is that the Aff has the burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can convince me otherwise, do it.

I'll gladly vote on an aff K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it is better when your opponent can engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.

T: I love a well-run topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I am completely okay with collapsing to T. I actually think teams should do it more often. It's a lost art.

Spec/Vagueness: Yes. But be reasonable with it. And don't take my use of the work "reasonable" as an indication that it's the only counter-standard you ned (aff).

K: Yes, please. Avoid any blatant mis-readings and misapplications (please listen to this... please). You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was not intended. If you need to make an argument that you cannot find written in a tome somewhere, make the argument from your own brain... don't try to shove a square author into a round round.

DA/CP/Condi: structure, structure, structure.

My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.

Speed and Speed K: I prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am totally comfortable with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I've rarely seen a need for anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about 200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That said, if you're one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate. <--- maybe 1% to 5% of the field in parli can really do this well. Chances are, you are not in that 1% to 5%. In competition, go as fast as you need to go and can go without losing clarity... and go no faster. Please.

If I or your opponent calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request for access. I really don't care how you feel about this. I will vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."

Rebuttals: By the time we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech (pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact analysis at the bottom.

Time, Timers, & Beeps: Thanks and roadmaps off time; quickly. I prefer you time one another. If you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. I've had more sentence fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. Look... just time your arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.

At the end of the day, I believe that debate is an educational game and that education does not have to be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and competitive, play fair, and you'll receive what you earn.

--------

IPDA

There aren't a lot of argument-focused norms for this community, so I can't really speak to anything in particular.

Do your best to make clear arguments and I'll vote on who does the best at upholding their burdens. A lot of what I said above applies to any format of debate.

I think IPDA debaters should all decide how they're going to handle/interpret article 1, section J of the constitution so that both aff and neg have fair and balanced ground. Too often, it seems that judges' thresholds for abuse are out of sync with the seriousness of fairness in debate. The IPDA constitution mentions fair/fairness and abuse a significant number of times, compared to governing documents for other formats of debate; so... it seems serious to me. I just don't know what to do with it because nobody every really talks about it in specific, argumentative ways. Y'all should start doing that more...

Anyway, unlike some other judges, I will offer you the respect of listening very closely to well-structured, well-thought-out articulations of abuse; I'll listen to vagueness presses; I'll listen to articulations of abuse at the level of definitions, as well as criteria/framing. If your opponent really has skewed ground in the round, then you have 6 minutes to really, really, really dig into the implications of that and convince me that it is a voting issue (HINT: USE THE CONSTITUTION).

You're welcome.

But... you also have to answer case. Trust me, you have plenty of time. Be efficient.

---

Michael Williams - PCC

I have participated and judged debate for awhile so I am okay with any style or strategy that the debaters use. As long it follows the rules of the debate format and is properly structured and articulated.

---

Michael Starzynski - El Camino

tabula rasa, no spreading, roadmaps and signposts please!

---

Michael McHan - Grossmont

I'll try to keep this as brief and simple as possible.

For Parliamentary Debate:

• Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
• Structure, structure, structure.
• The PMC speech should contain a clear and fair resolutional analysis. Be very clear when providing the voting criterion (V/C) and articulating how the judge should weigh the round. *Remember, if the Gov. team fails to offer a V/C then the Opp. has the right to do so for them.
• Please make sure you are signposting and clearly labeling your arguments.
• Not a fan of Ks.
• Okay with Ts, but not when levied as a strategy to take up time.
• Both sides should have clear, numbered voters in their final speeches. Don't just summarize existing arguments but TELL me why you should get my vote.
• Ultimately, I like to hear a clean debate, with ample clash, and arguments properly linked and warranted.

For IPDA Debate:

Since IPDA was created for a lay audience it is important that debaters keep their cases as simple and clear as possible.

• Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
• Very important to speak with a clear and calm pace.
• Signposting and labeling your arguments is a necessity.
• Please do not get too fancy with the voting criterion.
• Avoid technical debate jargon.
• Offer numbered voters (reasons why you won the debate) in final speeches.
• Be kind and respectful to each other.
• Smile and have fun!

For other Speaking Events:

• One of the elements I notice first is delivery - I tend to focus first on verbal and nonverbal variety, then command of gestures, then how well you engage your audience (if appropriate for your speech).
• Second, content. How well does your content flow, how organized is it, and how much do you enjoy /belief what you are saying.
• Third, have fun and entertain me! Typically, at any given tournament, I am observing 10-20 debates/speeches, and I like to be entertained by what I am judging. Have fun!

If you have questions about something that was not mentioned in my judging philosophy please do not hesitate to ask me before the round begins!

---

Mohamad Almouazzen - Mt. SAC

Experience: I completed for two years on the community college circuit in IPDA and Parli debate, taking both events to Regionals, State, and Nationals. My ideal debate round is most importantly respectful on all sides, and focuses on the clash of ideas! IPDA for me is not about the detailed refutation of every claim, but the overall argument of the two sides on the resolution. For Parli, I have one fundamental rule which is to never spread, there is most definitely a difference between spreading and speaking fast, but if I have to call clear you are speaking way too fast.

---

Mohammed Mortada - Mt. SAC

n/a

---

Monica Flores-Garcia - PCC

I'm an IE judge/coach! I'm open to any style and strategy as long as students stick to the following:

• No Spreading:Speed won't add clarity to your arguments or make them more persuasive. Please avoid speaking too quickly. I want to be able to catch every word you say.
• Parli and LD Jargon: Avoid using this kind of jargon especially when you're competing in IPDA. Your speeches should be accessible to any/all judges watching in terms of clarity. (If I'm seeing you in parli then its totally fine!)
• Be Respectful: Attack your opponent's contentions, not them. Please avoid fighting/arguing with your partner. Be nice to everyone in the round!

Please do the following:

• Cameras On: Please turn on your camera! You miss out on several communication tools (eye contact, hand gestures, facial expressions) when we can't see you!
• Stay Organized: Good conversational speed, transition phrases, signal words, roadmaps etc. will alllow me to follow you better and more easily.
• Use Sources: Utilize sources to build your case! Analyze and explain why they support your claims along with why we need to know this information. Don't assume I know how you'd like me to interpret this evidence and move forward without connecting the citation back to your argument.

---

Oli Loeffler - IVC

  I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.

I think neg teams have ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.

Speed shouldn't be a problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down. 

---

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: September 2023

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isnt what I mean. I dont think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical completely fair to an equally mythical completely unfair. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to completely unfair. Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didnt especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

---

Preston Le - UCSD

n/a

---

Raman Deol - Dark Horse

I will listen to any argument. Everything is debatable. Show me clear terminalized impacts.

---

Robert Hawkins - DVC

I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in LD and regularly judge Parli & IPDA. I am not big on complicated language. I am more impressed if a student understands the argument and can make adjustments to different judging pools. I would classify myself as LAY judge for debate, but I can hang with most rounds if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.

---

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

---

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

Background: I am the Director of Forensics at Grossmont College, for the past 30 years. I have been judging and coaching Parli for at least 20 years, and coaching and judging IPDA for about 10 years, or since southern California started competing in this event. I am not an NFA/LD coach or judge.

Educational Activity: I believe that debate is an educational activity that teaches some very important skills from the areas of argumentation and public speaking. I want to hear clear, well structured, arguments. I want the speaker to label their points/sign posting throughout. I need a road map, throughout the speech, not just at the top of the speech. I want to hear arguments that have claims, with reasoning/evidence. I still believe that this is a speaking event, and using some clear structure to you debate is important to me.

Regional Differences: At a state or national tournament, I know that there are different terms/jargon that have developed from individual regions. Therefore, dont assume that everyone should know the same terms. If you use a term, quickly explain it, the first time you use it. I welcome an opposing team to ask the other team for explanations of their terms. I do not expect that team to respond with something like, everyone should know this term. If that is true, give us the definition. I see far too many debaters misusing and miscommunication about jargon.

Topicality/Spreading/Ks: Of course, I expect to occasionally hear a topicality argument, when warranted. I dont want to hear a kritik for the sake of using it, or because you have nothing else to offer. However, if warranted, I may be open to one.

I believe there is no place for spreading/speed in Parli or IPDA. Everyone who continues to encourage or allow spreading is encouraging poor communication skills, defeating the purpose of Parli/IPDA debate. It isnt about my ability to flow, it is about your ability to communicate logical, argumentation to any audience.

During rebuttals I am looking for very clear voters, to tell me why your team wins the debate.

IPDA specifically: I have watched the progression from CEDA to Parli and now IPDA. I would like judges to follow the guidelines for IPDA, which says that there should be lay judges for IPDA. This means that even though I am a Parli judge, I should listen without expecting to hear jargon. I do think a well structure speech is required to be successful.

Having said all that, I love judging Parli debates. I am excited to hear your well structured, lively, debates.

---

Ryan Corso-Gonzales - SU

Ryan Corso

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Director of Forensics at Schreiner University

Updated Fall 2021

About me

I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California, and one time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there I completed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. In my senior year, my partner Benji and I took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I recently received my master's in communication from the University of Louisville, my studies focus heavily on Rhetoric, Marxism, Neoliberalism, The Public Sphere, and Networking. I'm currently the Director of Forensics at Schreiner University, we are new to the circuit.

I owe all of my knowledge in debate and my success to my amazing coaches, mentors, and teammates that helped me through my career most significantly Amanda Ozaki-Laughon, Joe Ozaki-Laughon, Trevor Greenan, Aaron Alford, Benjamin Lange, Alyson Escalante, Josh Alpert, Will White, and Judith Teruya.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow-centric judge. Debate is a game, you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I recently read the open-source material from Trevor Greenan and I believe I can uphold the above statement at a higher level now. I'm open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, fascists args, etc) just be prepared to justify your actions, and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran policy args, just as much as I ran Kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most. I think people on the circuit would have referred to me as a K debater, yet I wouldn't have.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links, and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I am open to hearing about new positions, and I will always do my best to understand the position that you're reading to the best of my ability. So you can feel free to use me as a test for a new kritik or position in front of me, I'm open to anything. Debate is a game, and I believe in the multiple worlds paradigm, so win the game the way you like.

Policy:

As with most judges default to policy-making good framework, if both teams accept this then great, however, this doesn't mean critical arguments don't operate within that framework. Policy debates should consist of advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact structure, because I believe it provides the clearest format for debate. I am familiar with other structures for policy debates as well but I don't think they provide the same strategic framework as the prior structure. Value and Fact rounds do exist and provide unique educational and fairness aspects to them (this probably has to do with my CC background).

Counterplans are opportunity costs to the aff, I don't believe that they are advocacies. I'm fine with conditional counterplans, heck even multiple conditional counterplans. This doesn't mean I won't vote on condo bad, I just don't have a low threshold on the argument as I used to. If you want to say condo is bad, then you will need to win that argument on the flow the same as any other theory position.

Theory:

Theory is my favorite aspect to debate and in my view one of the most educational parts of debate. A good theory consist of a clear interp, and an unique violation that explains the operative nature of that interp. Standards, are not tag lines, this is the substantial aspect of theory for its how I conceptualize the offense in the round, most of the theory debate happens here and it is the most important aspect of the debate. There is a very good lecture on NPTE 14 (youtube) about how standards consist of Links, Internal links that lead to your impacts. Fairness and Education are the only two competitive impacts that I have heard in regards to theory. Do not just read tag lines on in theory debates, I will not fill in arguments for you. Each round is specific and this should be clear in your reading or responding to theoretical positions. MG theory is fine, I just think you shouldn't abuse it.

* Substantial engagement, or whatever this theory arg was called, is NOT an impact! You will not pick up a ballot from me be reading this, it is an internal link to Fairness and Education. If you decide to collapse to a theory shell with this as your only impact, you can just assume you already lost the round.

Kritiks:

Kritiks need a CLEAR link to the AFF, or the topic, for me to even consider voting for it. I will not do the work for you filing in your links. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round. You do not get to win just because you read a Kritik, you need adequate links in order to win, and an alternative or advocacy that resolves the impacts identified. (This means I'm more than willing to not vote on a kritik that has adequate forms of terminal defense against it. If I believe there isn't an adequate explanation of a link I will not vote on the K.)

If you believe your kritik is complicated, please have a thesis portion! I am a firm believer in providing a thesis for kritiks. Almost all the kritiks I wrote had an in-depth thesis. All that said, I enjoy complicated and strategic kritiks, and at the end of my career I even began to utilize Kritiks without frameworks, so I understand how a well-written kritik has the potential to operate in that manner.

Kritiks are a great method to layering the debate, it doesn't mean that all other impacts are invalid just that new framework arguments are needed to balance or relayer the debate. Please make sure your impacts are terminal and do impact comparison and make sequencing arguments in the rebuttals, even if you believe that you have out-framed your opponents.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Baudrillard, MLM, Nietzsche, Reps, and Rhetoric.

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. Therefore, I do not believe that debate is a space for you to impose or weaponize certain religions or religious, or other non-falsifiable content. For instance, I do not feel educated enough on these matters and or comfortable being put into a spot affirming or disaffirming your faith in a certain religion. I think it's also probably disingenuous to weaponize a religion that you do not believe in within the debate space.

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I don't know what these kritiks are being labeled these days, but I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person (especially at a national tournament). This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, cause I will. A clear in round link is easily verifiable, while outside aspects are almost impossible. Being able to witness the link occur is a lot more of a viable link argument, in my opinion, than one team claiming things happened outside of the round, or in the past. If have no way to validate an argument I, therefore, won't feel comfortable voting on something of the such. Please don't expect me to already "know" (I have been removed from the debate community for the most part the past two years), also please don't attempt to prove something occurred to me. Also, I feel very compelled by apologies as a method to resolve the kritik, for in most instances I've seen this run I think? I know this is probably a controversial opinion and that's ok with me, if these kritiks are viable and important strategies to you as a debater I think you're better off striking me. I'm a firm believer in the idea that people can and will change, ie rehabilitation and reeducation is good.

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, as a way to evaluate rhetorical capabilities, there's IPDA for that. I view speaker points as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. An easy way to think about this is in regards to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I value Ethos and Logos far greater than Pathos. While all are essential to argument making, I don't find pathos as compelling in the debate setting. I give speaker points based on the idea "Whoever did the best debating".

* DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents, good debate is a genuine and nice debate. The community is really important to maintain.

Side note:

I will do my best to weigh the round in the manner I think is most fair in regards to how you present them. I will try my best to vote for the team I think won... I guess that's all I can do.

If you think my decision is wrong please feel free to talk to me about it. I won't hold grudges for people defending positions they had in rounds. Debate is a very passionate event, I was a very passionate debater, and I think that's a beautiful aspect about debate! That being said there is a difference between being a passionate debater and a jerk in the round. I don't think you should belittle your opponents or judge in debate, but you can question me and potentially be upset with my decision. It is my job to vote for the team I think won, and I believe it is part of a judge's job to defend and explain their decision in the instance that occurs.

Good Luck, Have Fun! DEBATE IS A GAME! ENJOY THE RIDE, PLAY IT HOWEVER YOU WANT!

Note to Seniors: Your success in debate does not in any way correlate with your worth as a person! Debate is a GAME! This should be a fun experience and I hope you make as many friends as possible in debate and cherish every moment with your teammates and opponents. Some of the most incredible people I have ever met have come into my life because of debate and I hope that applies to you. Please try to have fun, don't hold grudges and enjoy every moment. The real world is so different than the debate world and I hope your transition from the debate world is smooth and incredible! I've realized that so much of what I thought was important and damning in debate has very little value outside of that echo chamber. That's not always for the best, but it is the reality. Stay friendly, humble, and smart moving forward in life! I wish the Best of Luck to everyone who leaves this community! Also, please bring grace back to debate, be forgiving and open planes of discourse.

---

Sam Jones - GCU

---

Samuel Mussetter - UCSD

Hello my name is Sam. I have judged previous debates before and my ideal debate round is sticking to the clock with no exceptions. For the debaters, I like to have my debates relatively professional. Some humor is ok, but I don't like when people beat around the bush with humor. Otherwise I am pretty lenient with most things. I am also ok with hesitation, talking in front of a crowd is tough and I will not judge you if you hesitate.

---

Sara Moghadam - OCC

n/a

---

Sean Cox-Marcellin - MJC

edit: I made this paradigm for policy, but the broad strokes apply. Feel free to ask me clarifying questions before round.

Okay, I agree with Jared Anderson:?�?� "Prep stops when you have a) hit send on the email, or b) pulled the flash drive out."

About me:?�?� I debate in college, with most of my experience in NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD. I'm familiar with jargon, theory, "kritikal" arguments, and can follow speed to a degree. Feel free to ask me clarification or specific questions before round. I want to be in the evidence chain, whether you're using email (scoxmarcellin@gmail.com) or speechdrop or whatever. (I'm a big fan of speechdrop). I'll flow what you say, though.

General / Quick Overview:?�?� I consider myself a flow judge, and when it comes to the end of the round that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. Impact analysis in the rebuttal is essential. I think any judge who believes they're tabula rasa is deceiving themselves, but I do try to check my biases and will try not to bring in information external to the round. In round arguments and their analysis takes priority.

Theory:?�?� I like a good theory debate. I think it can be used to 1) collapse and win, 2) prevent shifting or other unfair actions, or 3) as a time trade-off (pure strategery). Whoever reads the theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interp level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (whether I'm rejecting the argument or the team) and why it's more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate as a whole). In your rebuttal, if you collapse to the theory position, it's vital you close all doors. Don't give me any choice but to vote on your theory.

I have some reservations for accepting "Reverse Voting Issues" (RVIs) on theory. By default, if the Aff wins the T, or Neg wins the "Condo Bad" position, I don't automatically vote for them. If you can articulate and impact out good reasons why, and the other side undercovers it, I'll vote on it. But don't blip out a "timesuck" argument and expect to win on it. Kritiks of theory, or linking it through the framework debate can be effective, and is underutilized.

Theory need not be an island. Connect it to the rest of the debate: the weighing mechanism, the kritik, etc. I think it's effective to leverage framework arguments from the first constructives on theory, and vice versa.

Kritik:?�?� I have heard some kritikal arguments, and I've run some kritikal debate, so I have familiarity with the structure. That said,?�?� do not assume I am familiar with the lit?�?� of your author or the ideas being discussed. I believe that someone who presents a kritikal argument has a burden of presenting it clearly enough to connect it to something in the round and impacting it out. I am skeptical of links of omission.

Role of the Ballot / How I vote:?�?� I think the rebuttals are really important speeches. It's a opportunity to clean up and clarify a busy debate into a few key issues that overpower or control the others. I tend to flow rebuttals on a separate sheet of paper, while looking at the arguments you're referencing next to it.?�?� I want you to tell me where to vote, how to evaluate the round, how to weigh different impacts against each other. Don't make me do the work for you.?�?� Ideally, justification for this should have come up before the rebuttals, and I could literally be going through your previous speeches with a highlighter. I also realize this is almost never the case. I think black swan impacts and "reductio ad extinction" are more emotionally effective than probablilistic / systemic impacts, but that's a human fallibility that I'm susceptible to, absent impact framing. I don't think they're logically better.

A magnitudinal impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in probability. A systemic impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in magnitude. One of these impacts is still triggering 100% of the time. Use that. Timeframe analysis is sorely under-utilized.

I'm open to non-traditional roles of the ballot, just be sure to justify it and be prepared to defend it. I default to net benefits, but I'll vote on stock issues, presumption, or "whoever best deconstructs post-truth debate." RotB is as much a part of the debate as any other argument.

Speed:?�?� I'm used to fast debate, but even I can get spread out by the fastest teams when they're dumping analytics at top speed without explication. Evidence-based debate can get really fast, and that's fine, but I recommend you?�?� emphasize your taglines?�?� and slow a little for them if you want to ensure I flow them. I don't like speed (or anything else) being used as a tool to exclude, and am receptive to well-run arguments about that.

Evidence:?�?� Quality of evidence debates are cool. Reading the other team's small-text at them is also cool. I like to see interesting analysis of evidence, and comparisons between different cards in the debate. Quality can beat quantity, but yeah, quantity has its uses too.

Speaker Points:?�?� Arbitrary and problematic, but if I just gave everyone 29.7-30 then it's arbitrarily better for people who get me as a judge. I'm not sure what to do about that. My normal range is 26-30.

Remember that you're debating in front of and with people. To win, you never need to act in ways that intentionally hurt someone.

---

Selene Aguirre - Cerritos

As an educator, the core of my teaching and judging philosophy is empowerment and inclusion. My experiences are primarily focused on platform speaking. However, Iâ??ve taught Argumentation and Debate for the past four years and have developed a few preferences when judging IPDA, Parli, and LD. 

As a debater, I expect you to speak with clarity, a bit faster than a conversation speaking rate (but avoid speeding if the speech will be affected), and loud enough for me to hear you. I prefer off-time roadmaps for clarity, appreciate signposts throughout speeches, and praise respectfulness and good sports[person]ship. Also, I am a tabula rasa judge (consider myself a clean slate). I will allow you to guide the round and not let my preconceived ideas cloud my judgment. Therefore, I look for clear and well-supported arguments, evidence, and analysis, and lastly, let me know how you weigh your impacts and why your voters are more critical than your opponent. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm if thereâ??s no way to assess it another way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your time! 

Inclusion is not a matter of political correctness. It is the key to growth. -Jesse Jackson

---

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

---

Shayan Saadat - El Camino

---

Stella Chang - Westmont

n/a

---

Stephen Hagan - McK

---

Tansu Phillip - OCC

n/a

---

Trevor Redford - UCSD

n/a

---

Victoria Meuter-Montijo - SFSU

---

Vincent Jasso - OCC

n/a

---

Will White - El Camino

They/He

For email chains:

williamewhite275@gmail.com

Background: I did NPDA for 4 years and wrapped up my last year with Parliamentary Debate @ Berkeley. I got 5th place at NPTE with 9th top Speaker and Sems at NPDA as 2nd top speaker. I did NFA-LD as a side hobby lol. Current DoF for EVHS!

TL/DR: I treat debate like a game and will vote on almost anything. Explain how the link story reaches your impacts and give me a framing to what impacts I should look to first. I will keep my decision focused on arguments made on the flow. I can hang with speed go as fast as you want. Also, I'm cool with frivolous theory. Tech>truth. Love K affs and neg strats. I don't think how "blippy" and arg is a reason to reject it. Like engage with it since its blippy, it should be easy to beat, and don't think there is a real bright line to what is friv like the only answers I have ever gotten are "you just know" which I don't think is a path to my ballot.

Also for most events I'm K>Theory>Tricks>Case>Phil

EDIT 10/11/21:

*mainly for carded debate except for theory/K updates

- I try not to read cards unless told to and you should make it loud and clear what you're asking me to evaluate when you're doing evidence comparison other wise I either won't grant it to you or I'll read the evidence maybe but I can't guarantee I'll interpret the ev in your favor

- I can still hang with speed but go slower and give me pen time if you're going on to analytics that aren't in the doc and try to number your responses if the analytics you're reading are like a page long *I honestly think just having analytics in the doc is the easiest way to fix this problem though in which case you can go top speed and idc still

- If you want me to look at the other teams card bc the card is in the opposite direction than the team claims to be then you should re-highlight the card and read it aloud

- I don't think you HAVE to have a stable interp for theory but I think I'm like really really receptive to claims about how the other team meets and you don't solve your offense

- I default to Theory>K but am pretty receptive to the K coming first/ out weighing

EDIT 9/28/21:

- I’ve discovered that I’m pretty down for implicit clash. What I mean by this is that like if DA substantively just implicates solvency of the aff I think the neg can just win the DA to take out 1AC offense and the converse would be true for me with winning an arg in the 1AC that implicates something like the uniqueness or link level of a DA. For example, if the aff is about like privatization solves grid failures and the DA is about why like privatization leads to grid failure + displacement and neither team points out how this interacts with the aff I would default to the DA taking out the aff because the flow becomes almost unresolvable for me in a world where I grant both claims as 100% true just because they weren't cross applied to some part of the flow

- I am down for terminal defense but think I find myself pretty persuaded by risk of offense/try or die framing

- In uncarded events I think a warrant + empirical example tends to hold more weight to me than just a warrant that justifies something in the abstract

- I’ve found that I have a lot of fun judging tricks like truth testing paradigms + paradoxes but that being said I think you can go fast on them but going 500 wpm might hurt you unless you do slower 2N explanation for me

- I default to theory/T is apriori so thus I look there first but still hold the belief that absent impacted voters I’m pretty willing to just move on from the sheet

- Neg teams should choose their words carefully with T because if you tell me to drop the arg on T I’m a little unsure where that leaves me on my flow

EDIT 4/10/21:

- I got sat for no neg fiat comes before T. Fr just go nuts lol

- I think I have a higher threshold for framework now but I think if you go for it with reasons to not weigh the aff/method turns I'm probably still fine

- Obviously do what you want but I think as a competitor I was mainly a theory/K debater but like my ideal round is fr a K v K debate but don't do something you're not comfortable with like I'll still judge your heg aff

Theory: Love it

- Absent a voting paradigm I default to competing interps. Need a bright line for reasonability otherwise, I will err towards competing interps.

- I also default to text of the interp over the spirit of the interp absent any reason to evaluate one of the other.

- Absent framing claims out of the MG/1AR/2AC I default to T coming before MG/1AR/2AC theory

- I default to drop the debater until told otherwise

- I assume education and fairness are not voters until explained otherwise. For example, the line "the aff puts us at the margins at the topic which is a voter for fairness and education" does not do it for me. Give an actual impact to these things.

- I have a lower threshold on disclosure theory for evidence debate but can be convinced otherwise but I have a high threshold for it in parli given it would be non-verifiable.

- I view we meets as a link take outs but think that folks can go for a risk of a violation depending on the arguments made

RVIs: I understand RVIs as framing claims for theory i.e., if you lose the standards level debate or the we meet you should lose because of reciprocal consequences. That being said I need the warrants for fairness and/or education to justify an RVI not just "oh no they were a time suck"

- I default to no RVIs unless told other wise

IVIs: Will vote for them but they need sequencing and impacts

Ks: Super down! I love reading Ks and while I have experience running Ks like Baudrillard, Edelman, Queer Pess, Nietzsche, Buddhism, Queer Performance, Orientalism, Settler Futurity, Ableism, and others. I still expect explanation coming out of the LOC/NC and while I am down for the backfill in the MO/NR/2NC I think its risky in terms of how the debate will play out on how I evaluate my flow

- I am pretty down for ROB first claims to frame out offense but I need implications to why that matters otherwise I default to assuming its a sort of thesis claim for your framing

- Absent any sort of layering or specific indicts to fiat and policy-making I think I currently default to the aff getting to weigh the plan vs the alt

- Spikes to perms need to be warranted. For example, I don't know what no perm in a methods debate means or why everything isn't a methods debate, why the perm or 1AC is not performance, or why links are DAs to the perm

- I am p down for severance perms for alts but I don't really find myself voting on meta claims on these perms being bad in a K debate -- I think a better story for my ballot would be a substantive reason why it's bad ie., representations are binding type stuff.

- I am down to vote on presumption triggers embedded within the framework of the criticism HOWEVER absent any contestation from either team I default to presumption flowing affirmative because you read an alt.

- I think links of omission are a bit of an uphill battle for my ballot but I will not just ignore the K if only links of omission are read.

- I default to perms being tests of competition not an advocacy unless told otherwise

Critical Affs:

- I love K affs and don't think that they have to have a link to the res as long as you have long substantive claims to frame why your advocacy comes first. I think teams should spend alot of time on the method indicts if a team reads FW because I tend to err slightly towards the method indicts over the debate collapse claims.

- I think soft left affs are great and something I love to read but they need to make it clear before the PMR/2AR why their particular type of critical offense comes first otherwise I default to assuming they operate at the same layer as typical policy impacts

Speed: I can hang, for NPDA I usually cap at around 335 wpm so like unless you're not clear I'll catch your args. If it's a carded event you can go like 500 wpm+ idc really. For parli specifically, I would appreciate the interp read twice or a copy of the text.

Partner Communication: Go for it! It's a partner activity.

CP:

- I'm pretty down for everything including delay but I do not judge kick counter plans unless told to

- I assume presumption flips aff for case debate when you read a CP

- I am cool with kicking planks

- I think things like intrinsic perms are not voters unless told otherwise

- Don't care one way or another for condo or dispo

AD/DA:

- I would prefer the conventional format of these args ie., uniqueness, links, and impacts with the exception of carded debate though I think the tags of the cards should indicate that they function implicitly on this level in this format.

- I am gravitating towards warrants being explanations of how things work and an example rather than just (x) author says (y)

- I tend to find myself more willing to pull trigger on an AD/DA with brink scenarios though not a must-have I suppose

- I default to fiat being durable

- Also, absent any weighing I default to strength of link>magnitude>timeframe>probability

Rebuttals:

- I tend to think in the PMR/LOR you can do weighing against the positions even if it was not done in the MG/MO but I think reasons why it would function as a link take out would not do it for me

- I tend to think shadow extensions are new arguments that should have been in the MG but you can try to convince me other wise

POI: Please do not use these to make “did you know?” type arguments.

Try to save it for the next constructive.

PoO: I will do my best to protect the flow but I personally prefer the team to call it

Evidence Debate: I am pretty down for spin and think that spin can be more important than just reading cards without thinking about them because I think a card is only as good as you frame it and extend it to be.

PS If you're running dedev pls don't double turn yourself

---

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 Waters - Solano CC

 

HI, my name is Zachary Waters. I've been a competitor in forensics for over four years and coaching for one. I primarily judge debate rounds based on defining impacts and weight mechanisms, as well as the clarity of arguments over speed. Be nice to each other.

 

---