Aaron Fullman - CSULB

---

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.

---

Alex Li - El Camino

Go to this link: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=21043

---

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!

---

Anthony Fasano - UCSD

n/a

---

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

---

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - SDSU

---

Cura Siegemund - UCSD

n/a

---

Damon Mitchell - SDSU

n/a

---

David Kim - UCSD

n/a

---

Diana Crossman - El Camino

n/a

---

Ellen Kim - El Camino

n/a

---

Felitxa Zaragoza - El Camino

n/a

---

GCU-Greg Gorham - GCU

---

Gizem Altinok - UCSD

n/a

---

Greg de Oliveira Morales - El Camino

n/a

---

Hailea Stone - SDSU

n/a

---

Jacob Root - UCSD

n/a

---

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Moorpark

I don't really like giving a philosophy because I think your education in this activity should not be limited/influenced by my preferences. I will adapt to the round and evaluate it based on the parameters set by the debaters. I'm not going to do any work for you----tell me where you want your arguments applied, weigh your impacts, stress where/why you are winning, etc. I value clash & accessibility in debate. Without accessibility, there can be no clash. I have no problems with speed or jargon, but please be courteous with your opponent (I probably won't clear you, but if your opponent does, you need to slow down.) Off-time roadmaps & a clear structure promote accessibility and make everyone's life easier. Just have fun & respect your opponent.

---

Jeff Samano - Fullerton College

n/a

---

Josh Vannoy - GCU

Joshua Vannoy - Grand Canyon University

 

Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. 4 years of coaching at GCU, one as ADOD and three as DOD. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood, Bear Saulet, and Amanda Ozaki-Laughon have all been large influences in my debate career.

 

General:

Debate is a game. There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make. 

- One question should be answered during each constructive. (Flex can make this semi-optional)

- Partner to partner communication is cool, but if you (the speaker) don't say the words I won't flow it. 

- Be friendly

 

Theory:

Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All interps should be read slowly twice, or I won't be able to flow it. I do not need articulated abuse. Competing interps is my go unless you have something else. I most likely will not vote for you must disclose arguments.

 

Case:

If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg. If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say "poverty" without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you.

 

Performance:

So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not "perform" anywhere else then there may be an issue. I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. In your performance never do harm to yourself or another competitor.

 

The K:

All K's should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces is missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better). The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates. I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K. I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is; name-dropping means nothing to me unless you explain the idea.

 

Non-topical Affirmatives:

After four years of seeing many non-topical debates as a judge, I have become more open to hearing them without much justification needed to reject the topic. With that being said I am still compelled and convinced by FW if ran effectively on the negative.

 

CP Theory:

Is condo bad? Probably? Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this one of the arguments that stuck with me. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate).

 

Never run delay.

 

50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so.

 

Pics are awesome if done well (Does not mean PICS bad is also not a good argument), and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice. If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down then what I wrote will be what I work with.

 

Permutations:

I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1-2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 3-8 perms. If your perm does not solve links to the DA's/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition.

 

Speaker Points:

I have found that I have a pretty routine pattern of speaker points; I generally give out 26 -29.5 depending on how well the debaters perform. With the 26-27 range being debates that usually are more learning experiences for the debaters, while the 28-29 range is usually for the debaters who do not have as much technical work and have very competitive performances. Jokes and making debate fun is always a safe way to get higher speaks in general. I also have found that the more hyper-masculine an individuals performance is, especially directed towards the other team, the lower my speaker points go for that individual.

---

Justine Kesary - UCSD

Hi competitors, Im Justine Kesary. I've been judging Speech & Debate for about 5 years now and I competed for a short time in highschool.

Debate: First off I prefer truth over tech. I believe that in a debate round the importance of it is to be clear, concise and persuasive. These are ideals that cannot be achieved with spreading or excessively fast talking. I will take any argument into consideration as long as it is backed up by logic or evidence. My favorite part about debate is the clash of arguments so you can't win on evidence alone you have to counter every point made by the opposing competitor. A Kritique could work but give me some clear justification for why you believe "Blank'' is bad. Same with a topicality give me some form of justification. To give clear justification you might have to break the format a little bit but its important for enhancing the debate space. I dislike critiques and topicalities that are just made to exclude another team from competing in the round. If the other team is uncomfortable with theory please dont use it. Above all else the most important thing to do to win my ballot is to prove the resolution as the affirmative or to disprove the resolution as the negative. Those are the best debates. Also just for my own notes I prefer if you signpost or give me a clear indication of what contention or point you're addressing in the round.

Speech: For speech I judge on content and performance.

---

Karen Montejano-Ortiz - UCSD

n/a

---

Kasim Alimahomed - Cypress College

5 years college debate, 3 years as a graduate assistant coach, coached 3 college teams and 2 high school squads. I have voted for everything and anything; tabula rasa. Can't wait to see you debate!

First, be nice. I love a good debater who destroys another debater with grace and humor as opposed to someone who tries to brow-beat someone into submission.

Second, procedurals. If you are running anything "above the gameboard," I am more likely to vote on it if it has some form of abuse, and I love it when a debater tells me how they lose ground in the round itself. I was a big K debater back in the day, but I really love a K debate if someone has some kind of discursive implication that links to in-round advocacy. Spec and plan vagueness debates are nice, but please try to implicate where your disad ground gets harmed because of funding or an agent. I am pretty old, and I have been known to "pull the trigger" on old stuff like J.

Counterplans are great, and I will listen to them all. I think CPs are better if they are non-topical and mutally competitive, but I will listen to them all. The more you stray away from the fundamentals of CPs, the more room the other side has to permute you.

I still love an old disad debate, I still teach students to run a T to link into a disad. I am perfectly fine with hearing a nice old "traditional" neg strategy.

But remember that the round is yours, this is your advocacy, not mine. Run what makes you feel feel heard and what you think will win rounds. If you implicate it, I will vote for it!

---

Kathryn Phan - UCSD

n/a

---

Khadra El-Amin - UCSD

n/a

---

Kiki Patton - El Camino

n/a

---

Kyle Pryor-Landman - SDSU

Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am an ADOF at SDSU and Secretary of the NPDA. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.

TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.

FAQs:

1. What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
   1. I am pretty comfortable with most of the lit in the meta (esp. continental philosophy)! If you want to do something outside of that, just explain it!
2. Can I spread? Sure, just don't be abusive. (I am not a fan of listening to or evaluating speed T so please just be nice to each other :D )
   
3. Can I reject the topic? Update 2025 - I don't like K affs. I really don't like K affs which wholesale reject the topic. I don't have an issue with K affs that affirm the topic (read: derive offense from the implementation of a topical(ish) plan). If you are going for structural impacts, please weigh them. I have a pretty low threshold for buying FW-T, so do what you will with that.
   
4. What do you want to see?: In order from most to least enjoyable for me to judge:
   1. Topical Aff vs. Disads/CP/T
   2. Topical Aff vs. K
   3. K aff vs. FW-T
   4. K aff vs. K (everyone understands their K)
   5. K aff vs K (no one understands their K) (I am the wrong judge to break your new K aff in front of)
5. Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
6. Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
7. Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
8. Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
9. Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
10. What about LD?: Cross apply everything from parli. I do pre-flow a bit to save my wrists, so be clear about where you are cutting your cards if you do.
    
11. How do you feel about IPDA?: I am coming to terms with it. The closer it is to NPDA, the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am.
    
    1. What does this mean for me?: Strike to the policy topic, read a plan, and actually interact with your opponent's arguments. If you really want to do a value that's fine, just tell me how to evaluate your arguments. Please don't strike to the fact. In the case you do, please don't say preponderance of evidence and assume I know what you mean by that. I'm not counting warrants. INFO is for that.
       
    2. I am NOT EVER voting on things like eye contact (please don't stare at me), presentation (will be reflected in speaks, not the W), dress, speed, tone of voice, etc.
    3. Also, please spare me the thank yous, and don't shake my hand. I don't know where those things have been, and I want them nowhere near me.
       
12. Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge? I like to have a fun, silly, goofy time in debate rounds. (This does not mean you shouldn't take debate seriously.) I also have carpal tunnel (thanks, grad school!), so my written RFDs are going to be shorter than they used to be. Email me after the tournament if you want more written feedback, but you should also write down your oral feedback anyway.
    1. I was a squirrelly debater. I rarely read a topical plan, but I think I rejected maybe twice or three times when the topic was really bad. I don't need or desire that you emulate me in any way. Actually, I'd prefer hearing something new from time to time. Please terminalize your impacts and for the love of all things good in this world, do impact weighing. If you don't, I will look to strength of link. If I can't figure that out, I will vote on presumption. If you wanted to go for presumption, please do it for real in the MO. T voters also need to be terminalized, especially if you are collapsing to T in the MO or PMR. I am not Kant.
       
13. Clash makes me scared! What should I do? Respond to your opponent, or you probably won't win.
14. If I ask you what your paradigm is before the round, what will you say?: It's on ForensicsTournament if you want to check it out.

Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell

Speaks: 26-30 (expect 27.5) unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard all year, 26 being you did not include significant portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you. I am not a point fairy and I think speaks matter.

ps. don't read fun as a voter unless you're gonna terminalize that.

---

Lola Ortiz - UCSD

n/a

---

Luis Xu - UCSD

n/a

---

Luke Lloyd - UCSD

n/a

---

Melissa Deleon - Cal State LA

Background

• she/her/hers
• I competed in parli and IPDA for 4 years at Rio Hondo College and Cal State LA.
• I currently coach debate at Cal State LA & East Los Angeles College
• I prefer specificity when asked questions like: "How do you feel about theory?" That's kind of vague, so I might not give you the answer you want. Hopefully the answers you seek are found below.
• Yes partner to partner communication is cool
• I was hesitant to write a judging philosophy because you should run your rounds as you please, not as I please. Appealing to your audience is a fundamental aspect of communication, but it can also harm the authenticity of your advocacy. This is your round, find the balance & speak your truth.

GENERAL

• Be respectful to everyone
• Be mindful of your positionality in the world as you run arguments about others
• Don't misgender others
• I'm a fan of people first language (people that are homeless, people with addiction, etc.)
• You can still be fair while being strategic
• Debate is a game
• Be persuasive

IPDA

• This event is NOT an extension of parli
• Conversational doesn't mean structure isn't important = don't make claims without backing them up
• I like voters here

PARLI

• Sure, debate is a game where we engage in a thought process of imagination, but I tend to vote on real world impacts.
• I don't like voting for nuclear war

THEORY

• Procedurals/T: necessary when the opponent is unfair/not following rules
•  I'll vote for articulated abuse
  
• Kritik: no thank you :)

SPEED

• Since speed is so subjective, feel free to speak at the rate which is most comfortable or necessary for you, as long as your opponent has access to the words you are speaking.
• If someone is speaking too rapidly, please slow them down by saying "slow".
• If someone is speaking in a manner that their words are unintelligible, say "clear".
• Please don't use the opponents method of delivery as a reason for me to "vote them down" if you did not first attempt to demonstrate that it was problematic. Fairness goes all ways.

If there's anything else you would like to know, please don't hesitate to ask me! :)

---

Mike Kalustian - LACC

n/a

---

Nate Brown - SMC

Parli: I dislike spreading and speed in general. This event should develop desirable communication skills like any other. Speed is not good communication. I will not flow it and will vote against it.

Speaking points are about delivery skills, not about arguments. Be a good speaker to get high speaker points. Eye contact, gestures, vocal fillers, etc.

Everything is on-time. Road maps, introductions, ingratiations are all part of your time. Flex time is the opportunity for the next speaker to get ready. The next speech time will begin immediately at the end of the previous flex time. Partner communication should be minimal and should not interrupt the natural flow of a debate. The sitting partner should not interrupt the partner who is speaking unless necessary. And even then, not in the middle of their sentence.

IPDA: I shouldn't hear any NPDA jargon in IPDA. This is debate for a public audience and a lay judge. Arguments should sound and feel conversational. Delivery style (speaker points) should be much more appealing to a lay audience than in any other Forensics event. This is an event that values research and citations, so I should hear some clear source citation.

LD: Keep it slow for me. I can't follow speed.

---

Nathan Estrick - CUI

Hey friends, not gonna make you read a treatise to understand my judging criteria. I debated six years in high school and then all four years doing primarily Parli (but also IPDA and LD). Overall, I do my best to be as tabula rasa as I can -- absent needing to intervene with a team being really racist/homophobic or verbally abusive to their opponents, I try to tie my ballot to only the arguments made in the round. On speed, I’m going to be able to keep up with you, but make sure you slow if your opponents ask you to.

 

That being said, here’s a little bit on how I evaluate some of the major arguments; 

 

Policy: Though I have plenty of experience running different kinds of arguments, I do have a soft spot for a good old policy round. In evaluating policy, Impacts really are king; though generating good uniqueness and winning your link chains are important, I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to try or die arguments, and so I find good Impact framing is usually what wins over my ballot. 

 

Counterplans: As far as counterplans go, I like them, but make sure they are at least competitive on net benefits. I tend to default to counterplans not having fiat, so the neg would need to argue to me that they do. I’m also somewhat sympathetic to PICS bad theory, so keep that in mind when writing your counterplans. 

 

Theory: I tend to have a pretty high bar for voting on theory: if you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to collapse to it. I’m not going to vote on a theory shell that the MO extends for two minutes and then spends the rest of the block doing other things. I also will generally be unsympathetic to weird or goofy theories; they can win my ballot, but unless the connection to fairness and education are made pretty strongly, they’re gonna have trouble picking up. 

 

The K: I like the K, and like to see different varieties run. Ultimately, I believe debate is a game and I think the K is a really strategic and interesting part of playing that game. That being said, if your K has really weak links to either the topic/the aff, I’m not going to be very interested in it, since you’re just pulling it out of a can as opposed to doing the work to contextualize it. I love K’s with good historical theory analysis and good solvency, so the more abstract the K becomes, the harder it becomes to win my ballot with it. 

---

Nichole Barta - LACC

n/a

---

Nicole Castro - Moorpark

n/a

---

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. 

---

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).

---

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.

---

Rongxin Hua - UCSD

n/a

---

Ruthy McGuffey - SMC

n/a

---

Sam Jones - GCU

---

Samantha Corona - Maricopa

---

Saria Markes - UCSD

n/a

---

Sean Nowlan - CUI

I've done Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and IPDA debate for three years competitively. I've read all manner of kritiks, theory, and case debate, so anything you read in front of me goes as far as kinds of debate are concerned. While I read a lot of kritiks around Settler Colonialism during my Sophomore year, that doesn't mean I want to hear them over and over if the arguments aren't going to be good. I'll highlight the most important no-nos.

THIS IS UPDATED FOR NPDA NATIONALS 2024. BOLDED PORTIONS ARE NEW/CHANGED AS OF 03/13/2024

In General-

• Pessimistic Kritiks:
  
  
• See kritik section, but with specifically pessimistic kritiks. I'm more prone towards voting for actions that build systems or have alternative systems of power rather than just tear them down. I am more prone to vote for optimistic kritiks than pessimistic ones; usually because I've rarely seen a pess kritik where tearing down systems doesn't make things worse for the groups it's trying to protect
  
  
• Speed:
  
  
• I debated fast and against fast debaters. Once you start exceeding 400+ words a minute I won't write down every single minor argument made.
  
  
• If the other team shouts "slow," "clear," or "loud" please do so. Maximize accessibility for everyone. I am receptive to theory if the other team doesn't take reasonable steps to ensure accessibility.

• Theory

• Theory is more than a bunch of taglines, the taglines need explanations to matter. Don't just state a voter or a priori, state why it matters.

• • I default to theory as a priori and weigh on the basis of competing interps unless otherwise told.

• Case Debate

• Love it. It's my favorite kind of debate by far, it's the whole reason I started debate was to argue about politics around the world

• • Quoting Alex Li: Theory is often a copout. If you are winning case and theory, I prefer case, but do whatever is strategic.

• • From monetary policy to Congressional bureaucratic minutiae to the environment, I love all kinds of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not a person predisposed to hating the United States or capitalism

• • If youre going to say a person or policy is bad, you can't just call it right-wing, Republican, or conservative you have to actually explain why it's wrong or the material action a group takes to harm others. Terminalize your impacts.

• • When it comes to case debates, I need warrants, and more often than not I'm constantly asking for people to specify/quantify in any way their impacts

• Kritiks

• Nothing makes me more excited on the kritik than to see links and impacts very contextual to the round/resolution.
• If your alt has no impact, is not competitive, is generic, or is conditional; it makes me much less likely to vote for you on the basis of a kritik.

• • Many kritikal alternatives I hear very easily can be argued to have no solvency or have solvency which actively makes the world worse; dont be afraid to argue against kritikal solvency.

• • There are very good reasons to reasons to reject some topics, but usually I default to affirmatives upholding the resolution. You have to have good links to the topic, claiming that you need to run your affirmative kritik just because there is a structural problem with debate itself usually doesn't balance out against topicality theory in front of me.

• Conditionality and PICs-
• I voted for conditional advocacies and for PICS, and voted against them. There are theoretical reasons for and against both.
• If you collapse to a conditional kritik, your solvency and the necessity of your advocacy are undermined by the fact you are willing to kick it.

---

Sobhaan Haidari - UCSD

n/a

---

Stacy Li - UCSD

n/a

---

Tufik Shayeb - GCU

---

Vannesa Gonzalez - SMC

n/a

---

Vicky Zamarripa - SMC

n/a

---

Xochitl Buenabad - SMC

---

Yevin Chon - UCSD

n/a

---

Yuchen Cui - UCSD

n/a

---

Yue Zhou - UCSD

n/a

---

Zahra Aden - UCSD

n/a

---