Alex Tseng - HJ

n/a

---

Alexis Huey - Palomar

n/a

---

Andrew Salazar - Chaffey

n/a

---

Andrew Jassick - Grossmont

---

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!

---

Ann Abuan - Palomar

n/a

---

Arthur Edwards Jr. - UCSD

n/a

---

Athena Zhang - UCSB

n/a

---

Ayden Reams - PLNU

n/a

---

Barbara Lopez - UCSB

n/a

---

Ben Mason - El Camino

TLDR: Run whatever you want, I'll vote on the flow and whatever fw you want me to evaluate. I'm a 4th year undergrad at CSULB studying Communications. I debated for El Camino College in NPDA / IPDA / Limited Prep Speeches / Interps for 2 years. If there are any questions or preferences let me know. Communication: Communication with your partner in any manner is fine, but I will only flow whatever the present speaker says. Be respectful to your opponents and your partner. Speed: I don't mind speed, just speak clearly and concisely. I won't call clear or slow because it's your time and you can use it however you want, but I may give nonverbals to indicate you are going too fast or are being unclear. Kritiks: Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear fw for evaluation, a K without fw is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I primarily ran anthro when I was competiting so I may be a little more critical if thats what you run, but I don't pretend to be an expert or anything. Identity tix are cool and fun arguments are beneficial to debate and individual agency, however, they can also easily be used to bully, silence, or provoke reactions from other teams when weaponized incorrectly. I won't tell you how to run identity arguments but know that it's somewhat of a grey area for me as far as voting. Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as that it's properly structured (interp viol stds voters). I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is clearly just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). MG theory is fine, should be fleshed out though. I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory. RVIS: I don't hate RVI's or IVI's but it's not the most compelling argument. If a team is reading 7 blipped out T shells and 3 blipped out specs then yeah run an RVI but other than that, all instances of spec T and other theory are not cause for debate collapse or abuse. Signposting: Please have brief taglines for your arguments, I can't vote on an argument if I don't know what to call it, where it fits, or why it matters. Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but be sure to make sure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

---

Blake Longfellow - HJ

n/a

---

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.  

BG:

I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. 

Impacts:

You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. 

Case Debate:

I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. 

Disadvantages:

Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. 

Counterplans:

Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. 

Conditionality:

I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it. 

Kritiks:

I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than they used the state.¢? I am not saying this cant be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I dont like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. 

Identity Arguments:

With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. 

Theory:

I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Dont just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. 

Speed

Speed is fine but please be clear. I dont see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. 

Defending the Topic:

Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument. 

Speaker Points:

If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.

Miscellaneous:

Be organized and sign post. Dont assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round. 

As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time. 

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory. 

---

Cameron Junod - UCSD

n/a

---

Candace Saunders-Grewe - MSJC

n/a

---

Chris Coffey - Palomar

n/a

---

David Zahnd - HJ

n/a

---

Donavan Fanella - HJ

n/a

---

Erika Portillo - EPCC

I am not a debate coach or judge. I view IPDA as a public speaking experience. If you can get my attention at the beginning, preview your main points, provide support for your points logically and end with a call to action, I'll be looking for it.

Make sure to cite your sources with the author and year. I can't verify it during the speech, but I might want to look it up after the debate.

I'll also be paying attention to your delivery - eye contact, gestures (no dead arms or robotic movements, please!), good pacing, enunciation, and vocal variety. Talk to your opponent as a human being.

I'm not too fond of the fake thank you's every time it's your turn to talk. Just say it at the beginning and be respectful throughout your speech.

---

Evan Gonzalez - PLNU

n/a

---

Fischer Doan - HJ

n/a

---

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10.

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn.There arelots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, butI try notto bring them into the round.Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you can lose a round if you drop one little argument, though it's unlikely unless your opponents blow it up, but if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework argument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool, or ask me to vote on real world impacts, I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have been "won." A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up or lie. In LD, I will read evidence, including that which the debaters don't read and will not give the ballot to debaters who misrepresent authors.

Because I try to base my decision based solely on argumentsthat are madein the round,I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad.Likewise, you don't have to run only conventionally believed positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or if they are "true."In general, know that I don't believe that debate is a search for the truth; I believe it is a game. As when you play all games, you should have fun!!!

BUT . . . if you are excessively rude or bullying, I will probably drop you.

2023 Update: after 3 yrs of competing and 23 years of judging, I have decided that I am over the k. My mindet has not changed; society has not changed. College students, who went through the application process, which by its nature excludes some, speaking for others has become old. I'm not saying I will never vote for a k again, but it will prob have to be different from the versions on a theme that I have heard for the last 30 years. Plus it's really killing parli which makes me sad. :/

---

Harry Schulte - EPCC

I appreciate a well structured argument with appropriate references that are relevant and dated.

I appreciate a respectful exchange between parties that respects the other's viewpoint without being condescending for effect.

Delivery of arguments in a clear and concise public speaking tone that does not sacrifice clarity for speed is key.

---

Hope Lomelino - PLNU

n/a

---

Jack Koyama - Palomar

n/a

---

Jayla Lee - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Jessica Dominguez - Palomar

n/a

---

Jolie Reams - PLNU

n/a

---

Joseph Evans - El Camino

  About me:I have been involved in forensics for over 13 years including 7 years of coaching. I have debated in High School, College and I am now currently a full-time professor and Director of Debate at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of argument and impact prioritization. Thus, I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. Please feel free to ask me for clarification before the round!.   

 

Framework/Role of the Ballot:  I will evaluate and weigh the round through any framework that the Aff or Neg presents to me. I have no predisposition towards one specific FW because all frameworks can either be strategic or not depending on how its debated. In terms of evaluating competing FWs, I will only make my decision on how each are warranted and impacted out in round and will never insert my own beliefs. In terms of the ROB, I will weigh the ROB through the FW presented and if its not contested, this will frame how I evaluate the rest of the round.  If no one tells me how to frame the round, I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the lens of utilitarianism (net benefits). When impacting out why you win a policy debate, please frame your impacts through lenses like timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversibility. 

TLDR: Framework is important! You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and impact out why your framework is best.        

Theory: I will evaluate theoretical positions the same as others. The interpretation will frame how I evaluate the position. You must have a clear description of how the debate round should have been constructed. Additionally, I will evaluate the interp/counter-interp debate based on the standards/impacts presented.  I dont have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps you must justify why I should frame theory through either. If a teams decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them (unless there is conceded offense). 

Counter Plans/Alts/Perms: I view counterplans or alternatives as a test of competition against the affirmatives advocacy. I believe that counterplans/alts can compete based on impact prioritization, functional competition, or (sigh) textual competitiveness. I have no predisposition towards one type of competition. Teams must justify why I should vote on the competitiveness or lack of in the CP or Alt debate. In terms of the perm debate, perms also tests of the competitiveness of the counter advocacy. In order to win the perm debate you need to justify and impact out why it outweighs the CP or alt. I am also open to theoretical reasons why the CP/ALT or Perm should be rejected in the round. 

Speed: Go as fast as you want but please be clear! I have judged NPTE/NPDA finals and/or semi-finals the last 3 of 4 years so I will be able to keep up. However, if you are unclear, I will give you non-verbals or yell clear¢?. My priority is getting everything you say on my flow so sacrificing clarity for speed is not advisable. Additionally, I have voted on speed arguments a few times when teams use speed as a bullying or ableist technique. So be conscious of how you use speed within the round. If you can beat a team without going fast, its a win-win for both teams. You get the W and the other team has an educational/ teaching moment.  

Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in most critical arguments, but I am not by any means an expert on critical theory. Therefore, if you are running something new or obscure, dont assume I understand the literature.  Regardless of the K, I will listen how your frame, impact and weight the FW and Alt/Alt solvency. Additionally, 

---

Joseph Ware - Palomar

n/a

---

Julian Mackenzie - UCSD

Note:This is all for guidance on what I would like to see. At the end of the day have the debate you want to have, and I will do my best to evaluate it.

Background:Hi my name is Julian Mackenzie, I participated in Speech and Debate for a total of 9 years as a competitor and now I'm a Coach for SDSU.

1. In high school. I competed for four years in mostly Interp, Extemp, Impromptu, LD, and Pufo for Helix Charter High School. In my senior year, I was a debate captain for my high school team.
2. I competed for two years for the Grossmont Community College team in NPDA, IPDA and Extemp, where I won top competitor for the 2021-2022 school year.
3. After that I competed for UCSD for three years in NPDA, IPDA, Pufo, and TIPDA, and I was the President of the team.
4. Now I Coach and I am the Director of Debate and Limited Prep at San Diego State University. In addition I am also a assistant coach at UCSD.

All formats:

1. I like Lay debate or fast and Technical debate.
2. I will take any argument into consideration as long as the argument is backed up by logic or evidence.
3. Both teams/competitors in your last speech please give me clear voters, so that I can make an informed decision.
4. Have good clash
5. Please signpost
6. Please be as organized as possible tell me exactly where you are on the flow.
7. Please be respectful to everyone in the round.
8. Have Fun!

IPDA:

1. I prefer tech over truth, but I will not accept arguments that are a lie and do not have evidence or some truth.
2. Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments.
3. Please speak with a clear and calm pace.
4. Label each of your arguments.
5. Avoid technical debate jargon.
6. Keep Cases and arguments simple and clear

NPDA:

1. I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
2. I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
3. I love Value and Fact rounds, so please do not define a round as policy if it does not have should in the resolution.
4. K's work in Policy Rounds, run Phil if it's a value round.

NFA-LD:

1. Run a good and sound plan
2. Tricks are great, but please keep them at the top of the case.
3. I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
4. I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
5. Share your doc with me if you are going to spread, please.
6. Please have your card doc ready to show your opponent's cards

Speech:

1. As for speech I judge like any other speech judge on content and performance.
2. Please do not "can" your speech in Impromptu. If I find your "canning" I will place any off-the-cuff speech ahead of you.
3. I will not automatically rank you lower if your speech is shorter than 10 minutes.

---

Julius Dawoodtabar - UCSD

n/a

---

Katie Bushelman - PLNU

n/a

---

Katya Azzam - SD Mesa

In alignment with recent PSCFA initiatives, I support efforts to return debate to a more educational and accessible format. I do not reward excessive speed, generic arguments detached from the topic, or behavior that undermines the collegial spirit of academic competition. Debaters should aim to engage the resolution directly, present well-developed and topic-specific arguments, and maintain courtesy throughout the round. My ballot will favor teams that make debate enjoyable, comprehensible, and instructive for both participants and observers. Ultimately, I strive to make decisions that uphold debate as a space for learning, growth, and mutual respect.

---

Kelly Hebenton - UCSD

n/a

---

Kevin Shufford - Maricopa

As a judge, I prioritize logically consistent arguments backed by real-world, tangible examples. I value clear structure and roadmaps, which help me follow the flow of the debate and understand each debater's position. I appreciate debaters who engage in rigorous analysis and provide well-supported evidence to bolster their claims. Ultimately, I seek to reward debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills, effective communication, and a deep understanding of the topic at hand.

---

Konrad Hack - CUI

 

---

Kyle Duffy - COC

---

Malana Moore - PLNU

n/a

---

Matthew Minnich - EPCC

I like debaters to be respectful of one another, but passionate delivery is also important.

I like roadmaps and clear arguments.

Delivery is also just as important as the arguments themselves.

---

Michael Shurance - CUI

TLDR: Run whatever you want. Dont be afraid to run heterodox arguments in front of me. I welcome diverse perspectives and unique clash. Generally tech over true (as tech is the best method to prove/disprove something as true and I honestly don't know how or why they're portrayed as in competition with each other, but I digress).

Framework: Debate is a game (but games are important). I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently discriminatory in a way that makes debate inaccessible. ACCESSIBILITY: I believe access to the debate space is the clearest bright line for whether an argument warrants judge intervention. Examples of unacceptable arguments include white supremacy, Nazism/racial superiority, or ad hominem attacks on individual identity. I will drop anyone advocating for these positions or using these tactics. We all deserve respect and fairness, and this may be the only place we can truly get it. I aim to be the least interventionist judge you'll ever have. That said, I believe debate has become too ideologically limited. Most debaters have critical, leftist, or neoliberal frameworks in real life, which is fine, but this can create ideological bubbles that limit potential clash against ideas we might all agree on. For example, I hear debaters collapse to fascism bad arguments, but in all my years of debating, I've never heard a clear explanation of what fascism is or why its bad (I personally believe its a horrible political framework, but thats not the point). I don't want to grant framework concessions because I agree or disagree with them. I want clash about the various frameworks humanity uses in the real world (e.g., socialism good/bad, Marxism good/bad, capitalism good/bad, state good/bad) that are inherent to the status quo, as this generates the best education. This is especially true for survival strategies in an increasingly strange and chaotic world. Without this education, we cant properly define or differentiate ideologies in the real world, which allows dog-whistling or mischaracterization of ideologies due to surface similarities. This limits our ability to clash with harmful ideologies. I want fleshed-out rhetorical or philosophical impacts and analysis for political theory (K-level or case) and frameworks in general. For example, tell me WHAT fascism IS (historically or in the context of the status quo) and why its bad! (It should be easy, but do the work!) I dont want to intervene with my belief system, as I believe its largely irrelevant to the technicality of the debate and is the fairest approach. If you dont impact or explain your arguments and they're conceded, then cest la vie. TLDR Terminalize all impacts, not just material impacts.

Theory: Theory is cool. I ran it often as a debater because its a smart strategy for protecting against abusive affirmatives and spreading out your opponents outs in their speeches. I will vote on good theory. Use your standards as links to your voters. Explain why ground is lost, for example, and how that impacts fairness or education. I generally dont think theory operates a priori in the meta sense unless it addresses specific, "proven" abuse (which btw there's no such thing as proven abuse, that's why the theory needs to be run in order for YOU to prove abuse). My point here being you should have to defend all parts of your theory. However, if you claim it's a priori and its undisputed, then its a priori. Im open to hearing why this particular theory should be a priori or why theory ought to operate a priori, but I need more than rules of the game come before the game (the games already started, so too late?), i.e explain how your standards prove this must operate a priori. The a priori status is up for debate, and I need particularized reasons why your specific theory operates a priori in the context of the round (e.g., it was impossible to generate clash due to the cases format). If a priori is not defended or won, then its a normal off-case position arguing for different rules and standards that my vote would promote for better education/fairness, weighed against the affirmatives fiat education for running the case as they did. I default to competing interpretations, as I believe its the most reasonable judging method. Reasonability works if the theory isnt well-run or impacted out. More than three theories are probably excessive, but I won't police this, the other team should just point this out. If there's abuse, run a theory; if you want to enforce an interpretation, run a theory. If you want to throw your opponents off their game, or beat them to death with legal speak, run a theory. Do what you want!

Ks (In General):

I like Ks. I like well-warranted and explained Ks much better. The K must operate in a way that makes the judges background and knowledge of the literature base irrelevant. Im familiar with many critical arguments, but that doesnt mean I'll do the work for you on framework or solvency. Contextualize the K within the broader context of the debate or the resolution. Explain your criticism! I especially like Ks with historical analysis and an education focus. To win my ballot, the K should link to the affirmatives solvency, plan text, or the squo itself in a fundamental way. I want strong, warranted framework arguments, link arguments, and solvency arguments. The alternative/advocacy must exist, and you need to explain why I shouldnt buy a permutation. A K without an alternative is just a harsh judgment of the status quo, which the affirmative likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that voting for the affirmative prevents, its just a try-or-die for the affirmative I feel (again do what you want I won't police). Advocacies aren't conditional in an ideal world, but kicking an advocacy is fine for strategic reasons. I'm more skeptical of affirmatives breaking procedural fairness, and I think T is a decent check back against this, but that just means that both teams have access to ground, and i'm agnostic on which comes first (y'all need to tell me which comes first and WHY). Again do what you want, just be strategic.

Performance Ks:

Im fine with performance Ks, but I need clear solvency and education impact analysis. Clash is the internal link to education in debate, and the personal nature of performance Ks can make sometimes make clash inaccessible or too personal for me to judge objectively. I also don't really like how some performance K's try to bait the other team into saying something offensive and bascially make a bet that they won't want to clash with the K due to its personal nature. I will just say that due to the nature of debate, being offended is likely inevitable, but you should all do your best ALWAYS to be respectful and treat each other with dignity.

Aff Ks:

Aff Ks: The same rules apply for winning my ballot with an affirmative K. However, to run a K on the affirmative, you must prove a justified reason to reject the topic and show that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by your solvency or by avoiding defending the resolution. Im fine with rejections but need warrants for why its permissible. Im biased toward fairness-good/outweighs arguments from theory, so youll need to resolve some of this offense to win my ballot.

Speed:

Im comfortable with speed and will keep up. However, if youre slowed or asked to be clearer, please comply. I think access is very important.

Ballot:

The flow is critical to how I judge. How well your opponent attacks your position or argument weighs heavily. Key arguments are more important than quantity, but I'll weigh all arguments. I love clash, so seek it out, and you'll be rewarded.

Impact Calc:

For case I want you to do impact calc anyways and weighing. Be specific and clear in sequencing, magnitude, probability, and timeframe. It's a personal preference, but I like well warranted analysis about how impacts are more likely to actually occur. I'm semi skeptical of weak links between for high magnitude impacts. I will vote on them, and again if its dropped it's always true for the sake of the round, but if you're going for magnitude, or any of these impacts, warrant them out.

---

Natalie Neri - Palomar

n/a

---

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. 

---

Rachel Farenbaugh - Palomar

n/a

---

Rachel Zhang - UCSD

n/a

---

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

---

Savannah Serrano - Palomar

n/a

---

Scott Plambek - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Shiloh Tamir - SD Mesa

---

Stephen Fazio - HJ

n/a

---

Thienan Bui - UCSD

n/a

---

Valeria Gastelum - PLNU

n/a

---

Valeria Gomez Castellanos - UCSB

n/a

---

Willa Mac Ban - PLNU

n/a

---

Zhaun Miguel Guerrero - UCSD

n/a

---