Aaron Hays - CCSF

n/a

---

Adrian Lossada - Hired

n/a

---

Aiken Trieu - CCSF

n/a

---

Alan Fishman - Hired

---

Alejandra Herrera - CCSF

n/a

---

Alex Balingit - SFSU

n/a

---

Alexandria Matlock - Deb@Davis

n/a

---

Aly Derry - MJC

n/a

---

Alyx Dickson - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Amber Brooks - CSUN

n/a

---

Anastasiia Kudriavtseva - CCSF

n/a

---

Anastasiia Buziian - Hired

n/a

---

Andrew Schwartz - Hired

n/a

---

Andrew Morgan - DVC

Updated 2/24/24 at 7:46 AM.

I view debate as an educational event. That being said, both sides need to have equal access to debate. If you run 8 off case positions against a novice because the divisions were collapsed, I will drop you. Theres no education in that debate. If you are a junior level debater and you want to run the super cool and fun K that your open teammates are running against the junior level competition, I will drop you for a few reasons:

• You are trying to skip learning the fundamentals of argumentation and debate so that you can do cool stuff
• Its abusive to your opponents
• Neither you nor your opponents are learning anything from that debate. I certainly wont be either.

My position on Ks changes in the open division. While I personally think its incredibly silly to try to explain Marx or Buddhism in 8 minutes or less, I will vote for them as long as you can link the K to the topic. If novice or junior are collapsed into open, please do not run a K against them. Please just debate the topic. If you are an open competitor, you should be totally fine without needing to spread a novice/junior debater/debate team in order to win.

Lastly, I am not a fan of potential abuse when running a topicality. I also think its weird and contradictory to run Disadvantages that clearly link to the plan but then say the plan is untopical.

Overall, I am some fine with speed as long as you are also clear. Articulation is key here. I also appreciate it when debaters are very organized throughout the round. Off time road maps are good; just signpost as you get there. My experience in debate is very limited. I almost exclusively competed in Individual Events.

---

Andrew Yllescas - CSUN

n/a

---

Angela Ohland - Butte

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

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

---

Angelica Guzman - UOP

Hello!

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

TLDR/Parli

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

Parli Specific

AFF Cases

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

Theory/Topicality

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

CP/Ks:

CP

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

K

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

Condo

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

Speed

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

LD

Disclose. Read what you want.

Email

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

---

Anna Faalogoifo - Hired

n/a

---

Annika Fisk - CSULB

I am primarily a speech judge but I have debate experience and I can follow debate. I appreciate strong arguments specifically be very clear about claims and warrents and signpost very clearly. I do not like speeding or spreading when it makes me hard for me to follow the debate. I generally do not like Kritiks and Topicality unless it is done very clearly, and if I cannot follow it I will not vote for you. It is your job to tell me why you won the debate and tell me why your arguments are stronger than your opponents. Please self time and have fun!!

---

Arielle White - Delta

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

---

Arley Rodriguez - Fresno State

Interp coach with debate experience. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.

---

Arturo Cosio - CCSF

n/a

---

Ben Mann - Lewis & Clark

Hi! I'm the assistant director of forensics at Lewis & Clark College. My background is over 12 years of experience in college debate, including coaching roles in NPDA, NFA-LD, IPDA, and BP. A few general principles on how I evaluate debate are below:

• I view debate as comparative access to comparative impacts. Demonstrate to me that you best access the most important impacts of the debate, through framework/sequencing control, links, and an articulated impact story, and you have the easiest pathway to my ballot.
• I'm a flow judge and prioritize content over delivery. Typically, I give speaks based on argument quality and strategic decisionmaking.
• Yes, I'm comfortable with spreading if your opponent is. Please slow down a bit for tags and when moving between positions, and signpost clearly. If you're going too fast for me to flow, I'll say "slow." If your speaking isn't clear, regardless of your rate of delivery, I'll say "clear." Please accommodate your opponent if they can't follow you.
• Yes, you can read T and other procedurals in front of me, just sequence them properly (such as a priori).
• Yes, you can read Ks, critical affs, unique arguments, or even reject the resolution on the aff in front of me. However, I'm also open to framework and other responses to these arguments. The K lit needs to be in your argument: I won't fill in gaps that aren't present in your speech.
• No, don't be unnecessarily disrespectful to your opponent or judges, either through in-round behavior or argument types that actively disparage marginalized populations. Who you choose to be in the round matters more than W/L, and this behavior will at minimum impact your speaker points.

I judge primarily out of tournament need and may be in different formats round-to-round. Ultimately, I'm format-agnostic and invested in the educational/skill benefits that come from different styles of debate. If you have a format-specific question for me, you can reach me at bmann@lclark.edu

---

Branden Bradley - CCSF

n/a

---

Brendan Sullivan - LPC

n/a

---

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

n/a

---

Camila Silva - CCSF

n/a

---

Carson Moreland - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Casey Snell - SFSU

n/a

---

Cereza Wu - CCSF

n/a

---

Charlotte Brockman - Hired

n/a

---

Chloe Ayabe - Hired

n/a

---

Christina Sabee - Hired

n/a

---

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

---

Courtney Meissner - SDSU

Hi Everyone!

I primarily enjoy I.E. but occasionally judge debate. I teach public speaking alongside a world of other Communication courses and am very fond of international education and topics, as well as interp events specifically!

ADS and Duo are my favorite, but I am always impressed with how compeitors can bring these skills to other events as well! I focus a lot on the speaker's abililty to evoke and illicit emotion from their audience as well as hone their nonverbal skills (gestures, movement, vocalics, etc.).

I would also much rather see speakers perform confidently rather than speedy. Organizing your speech with a clear structure and pattern will brighten my day as well! But most importantly, I want to see the contestants having a good time and learning from one another in these competitions.

On that note, I wish everyone a great tournament!

---

Cyril Bhooma Goud - SJSU

n/a

---

Dahlia Todd - Chabot

n/a

---

Daniel Bolanos - CCSF

n/a

---

Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY..DOUG FRALEIGH FRESNO STATE (he/him/his)

Background

Co-Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Co-Director, Fresno State Prison Debate Program. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Also coached and judged NPDA, IPDA, LD, and individual events. For the past three years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.

Overview about debate genres

My judging philosophy originated as a policy debate paradigm. It applies equally well to LD. Based on the NPDA rounds that I have judged post-COVID, it is my belief that NPDA has evolved into NDT/CEDA debate, but with a new topic every round. And every team had evidence, so it seems that the community has performatively overturned the "no evidence" rule.

I think it would be nifty if IPDA remained an alternative for students who are new to debate or would rather debate in a format where there is less emphasis on speed and the arguments are more real world, especially given that there are plenty of policy-like options for students who would prefer that type of debate. In IPDA rounds (especially novice) I will give more weight to delivery and be less flow-centric than in other genres of debate.

What Should You Know About How I Judge?

1. I am not opposed to any genre of argument. In IPDA, there is less time for constructive speeches (and only a single constructive in one-on-one debates), so arguments that require extensive development may not be the best choice. I will judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round, rather than my general familiarity with a position.
2. I flow debates and the line-by-line arguments are important. However, I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. T is an RVI, fairness), even if it is dropped.
3. I am not looking for speed in IPDA. It could benefit you to briefly explain the story of your argument, especially if it is a major position you plan to go for in rebuttals.
4. Theory arguments are ok, but I do not look forward to them with the enthusiasm that some of my colleagues do.

What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?

1. Clash with your opponents arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.
2. Although debaters are not supposed to "read evidence" in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
3. Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. For example, instead of just saying you are on the case or the disad and mashing all your arguments together, identify the specific argument you are rebutting or extending. If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.
4. Good delivery is a plus. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit and emphasize the most essential arguments in final speeches, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.
5. Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner (in some debate formats anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege (this is especially true at nationals); have fun and enjoy the journey.

Procedural Considerations

1. Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument in the next speech and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.
2. I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.

Policy Resolutions

1. For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff a 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.
2. On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in your last rebuttal) and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than policy rounds.
3. Counterplans can be a very good strategy, but they should be explained in the same detail as an affirmative plan. (Affirmative permutations also need the same detail, don't string together three or four permutations without analysis or explanation.) Your CP needs to be non-topical and competitive.

Fact and Value Resolutions

1. The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
2. The negative is welcome to dispute the affirmatives classification and/or criteria. My default is that non-policy resolutions which contain a subjective term like "best" or "more important" are value resolutions not fact.
3. In neither side clearly wins the resolutional analysis issue, my default method for resolving the conflict is which teams vision for the round promotes a more educational and equitable debate.

---

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

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

---

Ethan Stern - Deb@Davis

I believe that theory, of all types, is the aPriori issue. I will be voting next on the core argument of the round as it is based on the voters. I believe that it is not necessarily the team that speaks better that should win the round, but the team that has more merit on the issues they are trying for that will win. As a person, I prefer to see debates without huge amounts of theory, that said I will still vote on it as the aPirori issue.

---

Ethan Percival - Deb@Davis

n/a

---

Evan Lingo - UC Berkeley

Introduction/Background

My name is Evan (he/him) and I'm currently a speech coach for the Mountain View Los Altos Speech and Debate team. Im also a college student competing in persuasive and informative speaking. Before college, I competed in parli debate for about 5 years from 2018-2023. Before high school, I did duo interpretation for 3 years (I highly recommend doing duo btw it was probably the most fun I had in speech and debate ever, sorry parli). Ive been outside of debate-land for a while, so I would currently put myself in the washed flay judge category.

I mostly did lay and technical case debate, but I occasionally ran some theory (mostly in response to other theory or Ks).

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round!

Speech Paradigm:

I'm open to speeches that break with conventions, as long as they abide by the rules of the event. I think it's really cool to see students stretch the boundaries of what's considered possible in a given event, so don't be afraid to try something new!

In general, my rankings and feedback will focus on the content of your speech (in events where you had to prepare the content of your speech yourself), and the delivery of your speech (in all events). I will do my best to let nothing else influence my decision. That being said, I think it's pretty much impossible to judge speech (or debate) objectively. I'll do my best to judge everyone on the same general standards, but with people presenting a variety of unique pieces, Im inevitably comparing apples to oranges. So please dont read into rankings or feedback too much. Its ultimately just my opinion.

As with any opinion, Id ask you to hear it out, but I dont expect you to agree with all of it. Use the parts that are useful and discard the parts that arent! And most importantly, remember to keep up the amazing work, strive to grow into the speaker that you want to be, and never let anyone convince you that youre not capable of greatness, because you are.

Also remember to have fun!! Rankings are just numbers on a computer that you'll forget by the time you leave high school. Skills, friendships, and memories those can last a lifetime. That's what makes speech worth doing (at least in my opinion).

IPDA Paradigm:

Off-time road maps are fine, and competitors timing themselves and each other is encouraged (although I will also have my own timer just in case)! No need to say "thank you"s before every speech, unless you really want to (I won't stop you). I appreciate the sentiment, but it won't affect my decision or speaker points, and I often think just saying "good debate" at the end of the round is enough to show your appreciation for your opponent and the judge.

I will evaluate IPDA rounds in much the same way that I evaluate parli rounds, so see my parli paradigm for more specifics. The gist is that I will do my best to resolve the debate based only on the arguments made in the round and how the debaters leveraged those arguments to prove their points. In IPDA, though, it will be a lot harder to get me to vote for technical arguments like Ks or theory. Given the event description of IPDA, if you run Ks or theory, I'll expect the argument to be explained in a manner that a lay audience could understand. For Ks in particular, you will have to explain your argument very clearly and very well, and I will be very receptive to commonsense responses from the other team, even if they aren't dressed up in the technical language of normal K debates.

While cross-examination may affect speaker points, I will not allow arguments made in cross-examination to affect my decision unless those arguments are referenced during one of your later speeches. So, if you make a point or got an answer in cross-ex that you want me to consider, please bring it back up in your next speech!

Parli Paradigm:

TL;DR - Be nice and have fun!!! I prefer technical case debate, but I'll do my best to evaluate any arguments you present. I consider myself tech over truth. I'm most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and leveraging dropped arguments. Theory is cool. I dont like frivolous theory, but I will vote for it if you win it on the flow. Ks are cool too, but I do not feel confident about my ability to properly evaluate them. It's probably best to assume that I'm not familiar with your K lit, and I probably wont vote for an argument I completely don't understand :(

What do I think is a strategic argument

I think a strategic argument is composed of a clear claim, good evidence to support that claim, and a well-explained reason why your claim being true means I should vote for you.

How to win arguments (at least in my book)

In my opinion, the best ways to prove that your argument beats your opponent's argument are:

• Leveraging dropped arguments! If your opponent doesn't respond to one of your arguments at all, I will consider that argument to be true. Given that, tell me how the dropped argument proves that your opponent's side is wrong in this debate. But remember, (at least in my opinion) an argument consists of a claim, at least one warrant (which can be a cited warrant or a logical warrant), and an implication. Be warned: even if an argument is dropped, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have each of those 3 parts!

• Weighing! Tell me why your warrants (logical or "cited") are better than your opponent's warrants and/or tell me why your argument matters more.

• Using "even if" scenarios! This means tell me why you're winning "even if" I believe that their argument (or at least some part of their argument) is true. Often, your argument can't win if I believe everything they say is true, but do your best to pick as many parts of their argument as possible and explain why you're winning even if I believe all those parts you picked!

New Arguments in the Last Speeches (LOR and PMR)

I'll do my best to protect the flow (meaning I won't consider new arguments made in these speeches), but calling the POO (Point of Order) is still appreciated!

I count new metaweighing arguments as new arguments in the last two speeches, even if they're technically "just weighing". Otherwise, I think aff would win every round with new metaweighing in the PMR (last aff speech).

Other than metaweighing, I think new impact weighing/comparison is generally fair game in the last two speeches since they're supposed to be summarizing and crystalizing the round.

Theory

I'll default to evaluating theory using competing interpretations. If you can prove that their interpretation is bad I don't really see why you need to read a counter-interpretation though. If you don't read a counter-interpretation, I'll just assume you're defending the debate status quo (which is usually just their interpretation but replace "must" or "must not" with "may or may not"), kind of like I assume the neg is defending the status quo if they don't read a counterplan.

Remember when I said I dont like friv theory. That's probably true in most cases where you don't know your opponents. But, if you do know your opponents and you know everyone in the round will have fun with it, then go for it! I'm not the fun police (I hope). But, if both teams aren't really comfortable with it, I'll be sad.

Kritiks

Ks weren't really my thing in high school, so I don't have too many thoughts on them. I'll probably be more receptive to common sense responses than the average tech judge, even if these common sense arguments don't have the technical jargon commonly used in effective K responses.

Please explain your arguments clearly! Both so your opponents can effectively engage in the round, and so I can do a better job evaluating your arguments. Assume I don't know your K lit because I probably don't!

If you can tell your opponents you'll be reading a K before the round, it would be great if you do. It would be even better if you disclose your advocacy or the thesis of the K you're reading.

That being said, I think disclosure theory debates can get messy since the violation debate is hard to resolve without just taking one team's word for it. If faced with disclosure theory I'll do my best to evaluate it based on the arguments made in the round, but in all honesty, Id probably feel forced to intervene if I had to reach a decision on the theory shell, so I'll do my best to find something else to decide the round.

I do think I'll probably be a little more receptive to TUSfg/Framework T than the average tech judge, (but if you run framework T you'll certainly still have to work for the win).

I consider the ROB (Roll Of the Ballot) the thesis of your framework section. In my view, the arguments you make in the framework section are the evidence supporting your ROB. If your opponents effectively respond to your framework, but they don't explicitly answer your ROB, I won't consider your ROB conceded (because I'd consider the evidence behind the ROB refuted).

Other random thoughts

Please don't respond to an argument by saying, "This claim doesn't have any evidence, so you shouldn't consider it" and then moving on! They may have no evidence that their claim is right, but if you move on I'm also left with no evidence that their claim is wrong! Your evidence doesn't need to be from an online source. In my opinion, especially in parli, logic is considered evidence. So, if you point out their claim doesn't have evidence and then ALSO give me some logical reason that their claim probably isn't true, you're golden!

When it comes to speed, remember that I am washed. I can probably handle a fast conversational pace (maybe 200 words per minute). If you go too far above that, I might miss the content of your warrants, but I'll hopefully catch the main ideas for most of what you're saying. I'll slow or clear you if I really can't keep up, but even if I haven't said anything it's best to slow down if there's anything really important that you want to make sure is on my flow and you've been going fast.

Tag teaming is fine! I'll only flow what the designated/current speaker is saying though (so the current speaker will have to repeat whatever their partner said if they want me to consider it). My definition of tag-teaming is when a person talks during their partner's speech, usually to give them an idea or tell them to respond to some argument.

I won't flow questions asked (or statements made) during POIs or during flex.

---

Gavin Patchet - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

George Vang - Hired

n/a

---

Geri Merrigan - Hired

n/a

---

Gray Stacy - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Haley Woods - Chico State

n/a

---

Harrison Sherwood - CCSF

n/a

---

JR Saling - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Jackie Blair - Sacramento

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

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

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

 

---

Jackson Huston - Deb@Davis

n/a

---

Jan Gilbert - Hired

n/a

---

Jared Anderson - Sacramento

Logistics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Jason Hough - Hartnell

n/a

---

Jasper Pacheco - Hired

n/a

---

Jay Villanueva - Nevada

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

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

Pronouns: She/Her

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is how I evaluate the round:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Jim Dobson - LPC

I prefer to see debate rounds as something that a lay person could watch and think was cool. Rapid delivery, technicalities, and rude people are not what I am looking for. A lively and fun debate with good attitudes is what I will want to see.

If it looks good for general public speaking it should look good for debate.

---

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

 

---

Joel Lemuel - CSUN

n/a

---

Joey Barrows - Delta

I competed for three years in LD and one semester in Parliamentary debate. I was primarily a case debater and did not run many critical arguments. I try my best to vote strictly on the flow and have voted for K's even though I don't particularly like a lot of them. I have a tendency to lean towards the K not having an ability to solve whatever the harms are (if that's what is being claimed). Aside from that, I think I am pretty straightforward in most positions. I am not incredibly fast and I flow on paper, so if I say "slow" or "speed" and you do not adjust then you risk the chance of losing me. Please ask me any necessary questions before the round to clarify something you don't understand here or to address any of the things I did not mention. Thanks!

---

John Loo - SDSU

Background:

• I've coached speech events for about 12 years and NFA-LD for 6 years.

Philosophy:

• I evaluate rounds tabula rasa: if it's said and extended, I'll consider it true unless refuted. Dropped arguments can be decisive, especially framework or round-defining claims.
• I do not assume anythingimpacts must be explained (e.g., why climate change, nuclear war, etc. matter). Debate is not a search for truth; it is a competitive game.

Exceptions:

• I won't vote on arguments that require me to insert my personal beliefs (use the ballot as a tool, etc.).
• I won't reward dishonesty. In LD, I read cards and will not vote for debaters who misrepresent evidence.
• Excessive rudeness or bullying will result in very low speaker points and likely a loss.

Ks and Theory:

• I am largely tired of kritiks in their traditional forms. You can win one in front of me, but it needs to be distinct, well-applied, and not a generic recycling of the same arguments I've heard for years.

Other Notes:

• Speed is fine if clear, but only flow what I can understand.
• Framing and weighing are essential: tell me what matters most.
• Above all, debate should be competitive, respectful, and fun.

Speech Events

• Clarity of Story/Argument: Clear throughline guiding the audience.
• Organization: Clear structure and logical flow.
• Depth & Research: Strong analysis, evidence, and reasoning.
• Purposeful Blocking: Movement enhances performance, not just for show.
• Polish & Professionalism: Well-prepared, confident, smooth execution.
• Audience Impact: Voice, expression, and connection elevate the piece.

Overall: Prioritize clarity, organization/depth/research second, thoughtful blocking third, and polish/impact last.

---

Jonathan Reyes - DVC

n/a

---

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

---

Josue De Leon - Hired

n/a

---

Julian Mackenzie - SDSU

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. All sections are bolded for your ease as a reader. Do not read more than you have to, please. I know it's a lot, but I wanted to be as clear as possible.

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.

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

Ks: I want to start off by saying that I love ks and I think that they have a solid place in debate. Taking a critical approach to the structural systems that dominate and oppress everyday citizens is something that should be supported and not diminished. That said, I dislike when Ks are just badly structured and used as a gamey tactic instead of a real advocacy for change. Have I run bad Ks? Yes, did I win? No. I will not reward Ks that are badly structured. Please make sure your K is well-written and thought out. With solid link work that truly connects the K to the topic at hand, if your links are weak so is your K, and I have no problem rewarding the win to the opposing side if they show me the links do not connect back to the topic. Also, if an Aff K is ran T-Framework is a very strong response. Please define every word in the resolution if you are going to run a T-Framework, even words such as the or of.

Theory/Topicality: I love both theory and topicality, and often times found it to be a fantastic strategy on the neg side. I think if you are running a theory or a topicality in a round, it should be well structured, and there needs to be proven abuse. That said, I oftentimes find teams that run a theory or topicality without proving that some form of abuse has taken place, which makes it easier to vote on a wemeet or a counter interp. In those cases, it is often easy for me to be convinced by an RVI, especially time skew since it is probably going to be kicked out of in the MO. In that case, the MG must put as much offense as possible on the theory or topicality to make sure that the MO has to spend time on it. In that case, the MG will even the playing field, allowing for the debate not to be one-sided. In addition, my interpretation of a priori is that it must be evaluated first before I evaluate the debate. Thus, if I am given an argument that if I buy the theory or topicality, I must vote neg, I will. If I do not get that argument, or the aff convinces me otherwise, I will evaluate the theory or topicality, then the debate. Meaning if the Aff wins on the case even with the new theory interpretation in the round, I will vote aff. This is rare and only usually occurs when there is a challenge to values. Although I should mention that I do not throw out the case debate without a justified reason to do so.

Phil: I love Phil and feel like it is underutilized in debate. In order for me to vote on a Phil argument in debate, the literature needs to connect back to the resolution or the arguments that are being made by the aff or neg. Make sure to pick a strong value that your literature connects back to. If you need to run T to make that happen, please do so, and give me proof of abuse or reasons to prefer your value over that of the affirmative. I should mention I know a lot of phil arguments have devolved into extinction, good, and thats an argument that could work, but it often is not rooted in a solid literature base, which ends up making it a weak philosophical argument.

Trix: I think tricks are incredibly smart in debate and can be a very strong aff argument. This was my go-to argument, especially on the tech side of debate. I think while tricks are strong in NPDA & NFA-LD, they are strongest in IPDA. If you are able to convince me that you win because of X top of case reason, it makes my job evaluating an IPDA round a lot easier. If you are going to use a trick, please keep it at the top of your case. In addition, please dont just say, for example, vote for Aff on presumption; give me a reason that presumption flips to the Aff side.

Speed/Spreading: Not a fan of speed as a tactic to make debate inaccessible. Everyone needs to have equal opportunity to engage in debate, and if speed or clarity hurts someones ability to participate in this activity, it should not be used. I am ok with speed as long as both debaters/teams are comfortable with it. If I or your opponent needs to clear or slow you, please do so. If not, speaker points will be docked.

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.

---

KJ Harris - CCSF

n/a

---

Kaden Chen - CCSF

n/a

---

Kara Ketchum - SFSU

n/a

---

Karen Cornwell - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

---

Katia Fuchs - CCSF

n/a

---

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!

---

Ksenia Novikova - Hired

n/a

---

Kyle Barber - Bellevue College

---

Kyle Landrum - Chico State

n/a

---

Kylie Duncan - SFSU

n/a

---

Lindsay Walsh - SJSU

I am primarily an IE coach, so I'm looking for clear, organized arguments with evidence and impact. Why does this matter? I can infer, but lay it out. Delivery and conduct with your opponent is something I consider. Keep things professional, courteous, respectful, and energetic. Have fun with it!

---

Mack Sermon - Chabot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Malika Amin Mirador - Solano CC

Firstly, I put respect for other competitors and teammates above all else; I really dont like disrespect in round, whether that comes from ad hominem attacks, rude behavior, or making other people in the room feel uncomfortable. In order to make sure the debate space is as accessible and inclusive as possible, Ill drop any team/debater that does not respect the other people present.

On the actual debate stuff, Im a parli debater, so most stuff is okay with me. Ill vote on theory and procedurals (I really like good T debate), as long as everything is clear, and there is proven abuse. That being said, I also really like RVIs, and will vote on them. This is the same thing with spec and trichot, as well as aff positions like condo bad, PICs bad, etc. As long as there is a clearly articulated reason to vote on it, Ill weigh it. With K, just make sure to be extra clear. If theres no signposting, Ill probably miss most of it.

When it comes to case debate, again, please signpost or I will get lost. Im tabula rasa, and willing to hear pretty much whatever as long as 1) its not disrespectful, and 2) has a rationale behind it. I like weird arguments, econ arguments, environmental arguments, etc. I just really like case debate thats super interesting and has a lot of clash.

On speed: I really dont mind. Usually, I can keep up pretty okay, as long as you start off a bit slower than top speed so I can get used to your speaking. Overall, I see speed as a tool to get a bunch of quality arguments in BUT, if opponents call clear/speed, just make sure to slow down or clear up; sorta goes back to that whole accessibility thing again.

ALSO, I view parli and IPDA as two different kinds of debate. Im okay with most parli things being in IPDA, but I do think that running theory and procedurals, or trying to spread your opponent out of the round in IPDA is abusive. Also, because IPDA has no mechanism for actually making sure this is fair (i.e. no points of order), I dont flow new arguments in the last rebuttal speech unless it was the first opportunity to respond to it.

TLDR: Im cool with pretty much everything as long as everyone is kind to each other :))

---

Mark Espinosa - Sacramento

Mark is a Graduate Assistant at Sac State and is in his 3rd semester working with the team. Mark competed for 2 semesters in 2021-2022, but only ever at online tournaments. Make clear arguments, explain your evidence, and try to slow down a bit.

---

Mason Leon - USFCA

n/a

---

Matheno Frazier-Bey - Hired

n/a

---

Maya Donis - CCSF

n/a

---

Melissa Cheng - SFSU

n/a

---

Michael Warshower - USFCA

n/a

---

Michelle Gorthy - CCSF

n/a

---

Mohan Singhal - Deb@Davis

n/a

---

Nathan Wensko - Clovis

My main focus in the area of all debates is to focus on how the debate is defined for each of its categories. I like to adhere to the guidelines presented for each format. So, Parli is Parli and has jargon, IPDA has some emphasis in delivery and sure be attempted with less jargon, NFA LD has priority of stock issues, and so on.

Beyond that, my philosophy is grounded in structure and clarity so that I can let the arguments do the work instead of myself and my perceptions.

The main focus within constructive speeches is looking at links, impacts, and solvency. I believe these to be highly persuasive elements.

In refutation, I look for the clear line drawn by the speaker from the point they are making and its relation to the point they are addressing.

In Rebuttal speeches, I do like to hear clear Voting issues and why they matter and a comparative approach to the status quo versus changing it.

Regarding Topicality and Kritik. I am open to these arguments; however, using them just to throw everything at the government is problematic for me. Essentially, there must be sound cause to introduce such arguments into the round.

Partner Communication should not be disruptive to the speaker.

Finally, I also enjoy seeing collegiality and community in rhetoric and language. I know that the heat of a debate can be invigorating and can be healthy, but if there are any ad hominem arguments, I will take this into account as a voting issue.

In any Individual Event, I am open to anything presented to me.

---

Netta Rich - Hired

n/a

---

Nicholas Adair - UOP

Parli/LD

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

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

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

IPDA

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

Limited prep

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

Speech events

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

---

Nikola Ninkovic - Deb@Davis

n/a

---

Nissi Jim Rakesh - USFCA

n/a

---

Ornaldo Gonzalez - Fresno State

Recently graduated former competitor. Please be kind, ethical, and logical. Please refrain from spreading and using exceedingly technical arguments. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.

---

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: August 2024

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 asked to

- 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 Co-Director of Forensics 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, and I coached the most successful NPDA team of all time. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

---

Philip Enguancho - Chabot

---

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

---

Rafael Fogo-Schensul - Chico State

n/a

---

Rhiannon Lewis - CSULB

I am primarily a speech judge, however I can and will flow the debate. I teach public speaking and argumentation, so I like when you speak with clarity and provide clear warrants for your claims. Explain to me why your argument is stronger than your opponents'. Don't mumble, and don't speed. It is your job to tell me who I should vote for and why. If you choose to not engage with certain arguments, please make sure you make it clear to me why you are doing so. Organization and verbal signposting will make my job easier too, and it is your job as the speaker to ensure I understand you.

Please time yourselves, and have fun!

---

Rob Boller - USFCA

What is your experience with Speech and Debate?

20+ yrs coaching and judging; mostly BP, Civic, and Parli. 25+ yrs teaching argumentation. Former high school debater a loooong time ago. Extensive experience with coaching and judging IEs + lots of performance stuff in my background.

What does your ideal debate round look like?

Well organized. Accessible to an average educated person. If my Dad couldn't follow you, or you'd make little sense in a courtroom or city council meeting, I'm not interested. Debate for debaters only is a silly game. My ideal round avoids spreading and speed at all costs and instead focuses on well fleshed out arguments with solid evidence/examples and warrants. I love good rebuttal and good manners. Finally remind me what your big picture ethical angle is and why you won the round.

Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?

Avoid debate jargon. Be nice to judges and fellow competitors. Don't be angry when you "lose"...its just the opinion of one person. Think about how you want civil discourse to be in the world and model it in your debates.

---

Ryan Wenzel - Santa Rosa

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

---

Ryan Guy - MJC

Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!

---

Video Recording & Online Tournaments

• In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
• Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.

I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!

---

A Little About Me

• I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
• Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
• I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.

I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.

---

How I See Debate

1. Sharing Material

• If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
• Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
• If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.

2. Speed

• Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
• If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.

3. Procedurals & Theory

• Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
• If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
• I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.

4. Kritiques

• I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
  • Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
  • Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
  • Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.

5. Organization & Engagement

• Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
• If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
• Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
• Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.

6. Oral Critiques

• If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.

7. Safety & Well-being

• Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
• If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.

---

IPDA Notes

• Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
• Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
• Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
• Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
• Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
• Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.

---

How I Decide Rounds

• Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
• Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
• Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
• Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.

---

Specifics for NFA-LD

1. File Sharing

   • SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
   • If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
   • Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.

2. Disclosure

   • I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
   • If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
   • Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.

3. Cardless LD

   • I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.

---

Speaker Points

• Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
• Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.

---

Topicality

• Please make an honest effort to be topical.
• T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
• Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.

---

In Closing

I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.

Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!

---

Samar Barakat - Hired

n/a

---

Sean Thai - Delta

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

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

Text copying happens during flex time, unless the interpretation or text is significantly long. I WILL enforce the rules on time and prep, as per tournament invitations.

Theory/Framework/Topicality:

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

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

K's:

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

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

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

General

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

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

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

LD:

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

Tech is a form of truth.

Flex time answers are binding.

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

---

Sedrick Wang - CCSF

n/a

---

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

---

Stephanie Eisenberg - Chabot

I debated and coached at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. My competitive experience and some of my coaching is in policy debate, lately most of my coaching and judging is in NPDA & IPDA.

I have been "out of the game" for the past 4 years so keep that in mind when it comes to speed, understanding current norms in your event, etc.

I am first and foremost a judge of arguments, regardless of the debate format. I value argumentation over delivery style but will also adapt to the different expectations of each debate format.

I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for teams who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over teams who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them.

I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply "reject the team" and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy a well applied, smart disad debate with real world scenarios and clear, coherent links to the aff. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it's an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate.

I'd say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. I'm very sympathetic to "reject the arg, not the team."

I'm fine with cross talk and partner communication so long as one partner does not dominate the conversation or consistently talk over the other. If that becomes an issue, it will certainly affect your speaker points and may affect my decision.

I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the "style". I look forward to watching you do your thang!

---

Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF

n/a

---

Steven Webster - Chabot

n/a

---

Sydney Alexander - DVC

My specialty is in individual events, and that is most of my background when it comes to forensics. But, I enjoy watching, and judging debate events. When it comes to speed, I can keep up, so that's no problem. But if I slow you then please slow. I think organization in debate events is really important. Clear signposting throughout the round is a must for me. All things considered, please respect each other and have fun.

---

TaNiyia Smith - Butte

n/a

---

Taure Shimp - MJC

ALL DEBATE EVENTS

Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.

IPDA

I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.

PARLI

Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.

LD

Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.

Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!

---

Tehreem Khan - Hired

n/a

---

Timothy Heisler - LPC

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

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

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

---

Tyler Sasabuchi - Solano CC

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

---

Walter Aguilar - Hired

n/a

---

Win Mon-Kyi - CCSF

n/a

---