Adrian Lossada - Hired

Credentials: Debated in "tech parli" (NPDA) and was kinda decent with my partner Jasper Pacheco (my goat). I am now an assistant coach at University of the Pacific in Parli & LD.

-2026 NPDA National Champion (I'm washed now).

-A whole one tournament of NFA-LD experience.

-A whole two tournaments of NDT/CEDA experience.

As you can see, I'm oh so cracked at all formats (that’s a joke btw). As you can also see, I am an unserious person.

tl;dr: Born by the flow. Made men by the flow. Die by the flow. (elite ball knowledge required)

This means as much as I like or dislike certain arguments, I will vote on the flow even if it's some nonsense. So think of this paradigm more like my thoughts on debate or certain arguments and my defaults as your reference when instructing me on what to do in round and how to vote.

My email is adrianl1104(at)gmail(dot)com so you can post round me & so I can recruit you if you're cracked <3

LD Translation: basically all my thoughts from Parli more or less apply to LD so you can still read the paradigm. If you are unfamiliar with Parli terms: PMC = 1AC, LOC = NC, MG = 1AR, MO/LOR/the block = NR, PMR = 2AR.
I will have a short section on LD specific things towards the bottom of this tho.

Actual important stuff (kinda):

An argument means AT MINIMUM a claim and a warrant. I hope that is intuitive, I am NOT backfilling warrants for anyone. If you blip a claim and go so fast that you think I'll backfill the warrant and believe you when you tell me it was conceded because I don't wanna look like a noob and pretend I can hang, sorry big dawg, I am not evaluating it. If it's not on my flow then it doesn't exist.

Collapse plz. Collapse to just one position in the MO (not LOR) and the PMR should do the same, plz stop going for everything.

Weigh - I have noticed that my defaults sans weighing done by the debaters is strength of link weighing (what offense is conceded that was collapsed to/how much ink is on it. The second level of SOL is link specificity) then magnitude then probability (plz weigh yourself).

Cheating is bad. Do not do it.

I have a psych degree, do not assume I just know common sense stuff about the economy or politics bc I don't.

Perms are whatever I need it to be to win a round. As a judge, it is a test of competition tho. Intrinsic and severance perms are bad. No, you don't get additional offense if you win the perm or a net benefit to the perm, that just means their counter advocacy is not an opportunity cost to the Aff. You'd be shifting your advocacy if that was the strategy.

I am willing to vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, different sides have different burdens and if Aff can't win that they're desirable because of terminal defense I presume Neg. I do not recommend making this your go-to strat because 9/10 times the defense you think is terminal is actually not but also if there's no other out and you think you can win the Aff does nothing, I'll vote for it. Commit tho.

Time your opponents because I'm most def not going to. I've seen people get away with reading 9:30 MGs (Jasper)

I’m pretty generous with new weighing in the PMR and new cross apps but don’t test my boundaries. New responses to the Neg are not “weighing”. Shadow extensions are probably new arguments kinda but I’m weird with Aff extensions. Call a POO if you find the PMR strategy a little sketch on it being new plz.

MG saying "extend the Aff" is enough for the Aff to be considered extended in front of me. I feel like front lining in the MG is enough for me to consider the argument “alive” on the flow for the PMR to use. I just find it ridiculous that the MG who is pressed for time has to frontline everything and then blurt out "extend (XYZ)" for 20 seconds on everything because the MG wants the PMR to have everything to go for. I also find it silly that if you frontline stuff on an advantage entirely but the Neg didn't read anything against uniqueness 3 or whatever and so the MG misses it and suddenly it becomes a shadow extension for the PMR so the judge can't vote on it…that is dumb. I am sorry, I don't care if I'm wrong, the way we approach extensions is silly. If you frontline everything and then say "extend the Aff" the PMR should have full access to the Aff.

PMR just needs to tell me the story of the Advantage they're going for, no need to line by line extend things, you're already pressed for time if the block was decent.

Also probably should terminalize your impacts.

Don't worry about me with speed, just check in with your opponents to make sure they're chill. If you actually are Lightning McQueen level tho I'll call "slow!" verbally.

Do not worry about y'all calling slow, you aren't "bad" or look like a noob! My partner and I slowed our opponents even in National Finals. It is okay to do it. Cuz honestly, maybe this is a hot take but parli lowkey needs to slow down or maybe I'm just bad at flowing but here's the thing: teams are over here going so fast that judges can't hang because of no speech docs so they're missing stuff and then these teams are backfilling warrants and saying it was conceded from the first speech and the judge doesn't want to seem like a noob so they agree with this straight-up lie. So idk bro, go ahead and call slow.

Call the Point of Order because I am bad at protecting the flow but I will try my best to do so.

I don't get judge kicking things. Like, why are you not kicking it yourself? When has judge kicking ever been the move? Outside of "drop the argument" in T debates, I don't think there's ever a time when judge kicking is strategic.

T Stuff:

I actually don’t have a problem with stuff like condo but I also think the condo bad shell is pretty strong too so go for it but be ready to respond to the new sheet.

Friv is mostly chill but I have my limits.

"Risk of a Violation" makes ZERO sense to me. I understand what the argument is saying but people need to stop reading it because it is simply an incorrect argument.

Text > spirit. Winning spirit is doable in front of me but giga difficult.

People should invest more time in the accuracy vs grounds debate on T.

I kinda don't like RVIs but am willing to vote if there's no other out.

I think MG Theory is broken but will vote for it. PMR must spend all 5 minutes on it if going for it.

I think fairness & education are terminal impacts. You can read collapse of debate or truth testing but these are more weighing tools of fairness and education for me. Jurisdiction is also completely fine as its own impact if you don't think fairness is an impact.

Winning T is not a priori / does not come prior to the burden of rejoinder in front of me will be challenging since it is my default and I kinda just believe this but I'll give it to you if you win it.

I default potential abuse is enough for T and quite frankly I don't think many judges even know the difference or threshold between potential and proven abuse. Idk, y'all can be mad, proven abuse is silly to me.

Competing interps framing does not preclude the judge from voting on we meets or impossible to meets btw.

K Stuff:

I don't understand your K lit base btw. Most familiar with Sharpe, Wilderson, Marx, Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida and kinda Althusser. You can thank Jewell DT for me now also being familiar enough with Nietzsche, Bataille and Baudrillard.

I am probably better at evaluating K Aff v FW/T than K v K.

You can reject the res in front of me. I don't really think I have too much of a preference between K Aff v FW/T but if I start to notice one, I'll update this.

If you disclose to your opponents before the round that you will be rejecting the resolution and tell them what kind of K you're running then I'll give you 30 speaks for aura. I know disclosure in parli is dumb but if it's for rejecting the resolution, I think we will have way better K Aff rounds.

You can't perm in a methods debate is a great argument but should be read as an interp and not a random blip in the perm spike in K v K rounds. Or put it in your FW/T shell.

I kinda believe that the state is inevitable but I also think the type of state/way the state operates can change.

Fiat is definitely illusory but that doesn't mean it is a good or bad thing.

I don't think I have a default or bias towards materialism, ontology, epistemology, etc. first framing in K rounds.

Just extending your ROB/ROJ does literally nothing absent extending other framing pieces. Like you just told me to extend the impact filter without extending any reason why that impact filter is good...like what are we doing? Think of the ROB like a claim and the other framing pieces like the warrants.

Plz have more than just a "you use the USFG and they're bad" link. I don't find these compelling reasons to actually vote down the Affirmative at all nor a sufficient reason for the Aff to not debate the topic.

Plz have an argument as to why you need the ballot. I think it is totally okay if the solvency of the K happens in round but there needs to be at least some reason why you need the ballot on the K. I've just seen this happen too much in K rounds and teams lose.

I often find myself being persuaded by the perm double bind argument except for Afropess since that's kinda the point.

K Teams, I BEG you put the Aff under view on top when responding to the Aff and not read too many other off. Too many rounds of teams just cross applying their Aff under view since it was conceded to the K and then we have a super boring round where no one is really engaging with the K. For the MO, if they do just cross apply means you can definitely still win the K even if conceded because you can do all the warrant comparison to show why your framing beats theirs.

For the Aff, stop just cross applying the under view to the K, it's not enough even if it is conceded. This might be the least fun I ever have evaluating debate rounds because everyone is going for concessions instead of counter arguments and doesn't want to interrogate the K. AND I think in parli I've only heard like 3 actual good Ks so idk why we're afraid. Just respond to the K plz. Your under view is not enough to win against the block going for a K collapse.

Case Debate:

Idk what's going on in the actual world so explain any new tech/politics/IR stuff to me.

I'm pretty cheeks at case debate but I can evaluate it fine (I think)

Uniqueness matters like BIG time. Don't sleep on it. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link is just true.

Neg gets fiat. I didn't realize this was like a hot take or something but like, how do people think counter-plans work? Same process as the Aff.

Condo is fine but be ready to answer T. Dispo makes the round super interesting, I like it, although plz know what dispo is before reading it. Uncondo is fine.

Not reading linear disads is super cool guys.

I think link specificity can win you more debates than you think. They are at worst, tie breakers on who I grant the offense or defense to and at best they are reasons to simply ignore the warrants of your opponents.

Not sure if I've ever seen reading multiple counter plans been used well specifically in parli.

I find myself less persuaded by impact turns compared to link turns & impact defense. But they're usually funny so go for it if you'd like.

Reasons why I'd intervene:

bigoted stuff is said

you cheated

I accidentally did (my bad chat)

Final Things:

I'll disclose after round verbally (I'm not evil).

I'm down to get post-rounded but I can't change the ballot after so if you're just ego challenging me, you're probably going to have a rather unproductive time. I also have a big ego so that might not end well anyway.



LD Stuff:

Everything I said about parli more or less applies here unless I used the word "parli" when explaining something in the paradigm.

Yea, share a doc with me plz. And can we make it as close to what we actually read in the round? If the doc and what you say in round are incongruent, my flow will be cooked (you might take an undeserved but lowk deserved L as a result).

Interps on topicality should have a card. Procedurals don't need one (duh)

I'm new to this format so idk why solvency advocates are such a big deal but I guess bro, go for it.

I don't think you need to disclose if you break new until after the round.

More than four planks on a counter-plan feels unnecessary to me.

I think evidence ethics is totally a sufficient reason for decision. Clipping and power tagging are not okay and can result in an auto L.

For Ks, not sure if I've ever flowed a performance but I will flow the explanation of its significance afterwards. If you would like me to flow the performance part, lmk.

I think I have a lower threshold than most judges for reading uncarded responses. Yea, if they have a carded one I will likely take theirs over yours but saying "you don't have a card for that" is not a sufficient answer when the analytic has either an empirical example that is common knowledge and has been explained and makes sense.




Policy Debate Stuff:

My Parli paradigm has a lot of my thoughts about the K or T and even case tbh. Here's just some specific Policy trends I've seen that I have thoughts on-


I don't believe anyone knows how to impact out PerfCon. If you can then plz prove me wrong.

Some of y'all need to start understanding the arguments that your blocks say. Some simple explanations of how things like limits informs grounds can be round winners but instead I'm noticing a lot of retreating back to our blocks.

Idk why I've seen more sheets covered in the 1NR instead of the 2NC, what are we doing?

I think reading offense in the 1AR is aura and a really good way to make the hardest speech in the round be a game-changer round-winner speech. If you think it's bad to read new cards in the 1AR 1. you're kinda right and I don't love when it's all just new cards but 2. y'all should go watch more DDI and realize my take is based.

I have never seen more than 4 planks in a plan or counter-plan ever be used effectively.

---

Akilah Dawkins - Hired

n/a

---

Alan Fishman - Hired

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. Tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and don't care about delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com.

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat. Slow down a little on analytics not in the doc though. Also, while I am fine with tricks and spikes, I think you should put them in the doc for the sake of accessibility.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have.

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event.

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. Also, I love good vagueness shells but I am tired of the generic vagueness shell that cites the rules and doesn't say how specific the aff needs to be - if you run vagueness, give me a brightline.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I mostly follow Lila Lavender's position on speed theory, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove objectively that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against an RVI if you win it on the flow. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another.

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I understand why people read these arguments, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity or lived experience, I will be more willing to vote on theory. The only way I know how to evaluate the debate is the flow of what happens in round, and I have trouble evaluating frameworks that ask me to look at something other than the flow.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I do not mind voting for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group.

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I personally don't think IPDA should exist and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's and I think most IPDA topics are so bad that we get more education from K's and theory anyway. I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

---

Alyx Dickson - Lewis & Clark

I am the Director of Speech at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, OR. I have well over a decade of experience competing and coaching across all IE and Debate events. I competed in Texas as part of (AFA) D3, NFA, PKD, and Phi Rho Pi (TX Region 6 - when that was still a thing), and have a very strong passion for Community College access to education and equity within the speech and debate space(s).

Debate:

I believe that the debate space is yours. I am well read on critical theory and philosophy. Speed likely won't be an issue. I am an offense/defense judge. Biggest thing I care about is being respectful,in the space. Any targetting or discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you have more particular questions about how I evaluate specific arguments or in certain round situations, please feel free to ask prior to the debate. Different formats exist for reasons, so don't just go for inequitable, easy wins that take away debate space access, instead be strategic in/with the game of debate.

Speech:

For speech, I prefer to have CW/TW always given to help myself and other members of the audience to better prepare and engage with/in the performances of the round. My take is that this activity is only as beautiful as its community and the intentional choices of space/place creation that we cultivate it to be. Be mindful of the potential impact(s) on the room and the community both in your performances and speeches, but also outside of the rounds and as you traverse the community of/within speech, and all of the cultures and communities that we engage with through travelling and being an activity participant in Speech as public competition.

---

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 - 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.

---

Autumn Trivison - Hired

n/a

---

Brandon Spars - Santa Rosa JC

n/a

---

Brendan Sullivan - LPC

n/a

---

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

n/a

---

Carson Moreland - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Charlotte Brockman - Hired

n/a

---

Chloe Ayabe - SFSU

n/a

---

Christina Sabee - Hired

n/a

---

Daniel Lopez - Hartnell

Prof of Comm specializing in cultural and critical comm. Please be kind, organized & easy to follow. I like a solid argumentation supported by polished delivery & performance.

---

Danny Cavallero - Hartnell

Prof of Comm specialising in Interpersonal. Please be kind, organized & easy to follow and flow.

---

Dess Bruketta - Hired

n/a

---

Destiny Riley - CCSF

n/a

---

Dev Mehra - USFCA

n/a

---

Diego Paez - Hired

n/a

---

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.

---

Emma Mink - Hired

n/a

---

Eric Cardenas - UOP

Hello everyone!

I hope you are all doing well and feeling good about the tournament you are currently competing in.

TL;DR: Theory is always A priori. Win competing interps when running theory, win reasonability when answering. Dispo superior. Presumption flips AFF when NEG reads and maintains its advocacy throughout the entire debate. I default to no judge kick. T-FW > AFF Ks that reject res. Weighing and collapsing good. Always do those two things. Overviews in the final speech are highly appreciated also

A quick background about who I am:

I did 1 year of Public Forum at Bear Creek High School, 4 years of Parliamentary debate in total as an undergraduate student at San Joaquin Delta College (SJDC) and the University of the Pacific (UoP), and 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas debate in total as an undergraduate student at SJDC & UoP. Most of what I know about debate is mainly based on what I learned at these institutions.

Notes about me as a judge:

I try to be tabula rasa (clean slate) for the most part and judge the debate based on what I have written down on my flow, but also I won’t prioritize case debate over theory even if A priori gets dropped and I won’t vote on a reverse voting issue (RVI) if the thesis behind it is just time skew and there was only 1 theory shell read. Everything else is fair game I suppose. If the argument you're going for has impacts/voters I’ll consider it. Also please make sure to debate in good faith and give me a clear thesis as to why you clearly won the debate in your final speech.

Furthermore, speed is okay, but if you’re going to go fast please don’t sacrifice clarity. I genuinely think speaking 300 words per minute, while simultaneously being really unclear is pretty bad for the activity since there's no evidence sharing in parliamentary debate like there is in other debate platforms, so this creates unnecessary problems. I will also just go ahead and take initiative by saying the word “slow” or “clear” if I feel like my notes are getting worse and you’re spreading me out of the debate. For LD my concerns with speed and clarity are less relevant.

In regards to theory:

The first layer of the debate that I will always evaluate first when making my decision is topicality/theory.

 If you're running topicality/theory please argue why competing interps is good and why your definition of the word or interpretation is better for research and clash. You should also be able to explain to me the extra offense that the other team was able to garner through the writing of their abusive plan text in clear straightforward easy-to-understand language.Predictability of an interp > Predictability (produced) from an interp.

If you’re answering topicality/theory and genuinely think that you did nothing abusive or wrong during your 25 minute preparation: Win reasonability and why your counter-definition/interpretation is either okay enough in context of theirs or better.

In regards to Kriticisms:

I think they’re fun, I probably read Nietzsche the most tbh and then Colonization in 2nd place. Can’t guarantee you that I've read about your specific K though. Fiat inevitable, so you probably don’t need to spend too much time explaining why it's good or illusory (Don't drop fiat is illusory though).

If you’re running a K you should try to win that your method (framework) excludes a policymaking FW and also that your alternative alone is better than any part of the AFF. When answering Kriticisms, I think an effective approach could be relinking/turning the K and then winning a perm. You can also just win access to your policy framework and outweigh the K using your AFF. The former is probably more effective than the latter but both work.

In regards to AFF Ks that reject the resolution specifically:

I'm not a really big fan of them. I think the impacts of any version of T-Fw probably outweighs the AFF K if debated well. Also it is technically possible to be kritical on the AFF while affirming the resolution at the same time, so this truth of debate kind of just non-uniqueness the educational value of needing to read an AFF K that rejects the resolution to begin with.

In regards to Counter-Plans:

If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof that a change is needed has shifted from the AFF to the NEG.

CP + DA is a good strat, although technically you could just win the debate on an internal net benefit of CP. Read Condo if they have more than one counter-advocacy. Dispo is superior. Read PICS Bad if they read a PIC CP. Furthermore, if you’re going to argue that I should Judge Kick the Counterplan, make sure to explain why Judge Kick is politically correct/good for debate and then Maybe I'll Judge Kick.. Also Delay CPs boring don’t read in front of me

In terms of on-case debate:

WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. Use the words timeframe, probability, and/or magnitude. Also reading more than 1 case answer is good: [(BUTTON = No brink, Nonunique, Link turn, Impact turn, Outweigh, No impact/link) (Also, uniqueness overwhelms links, status quo solves, the link has been tested, etc]

That is all.

Best regards,

Eric Cardenas

---

Eric Fletcher - FCC

Many decades of CEDA/NDT/NPDA/BP/LD and IPDA coaching.  Feel free to ask me specific questions.

---

Ethan Jennings - Hired

n/a

---

Evan Lingo - UC Berkeley

Introduction/Background

Hi! My name is Evan (he/him), and I'm an undergrad 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). I've 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:

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. However, in IPDA, I will expect speeches to be delivered in a way that a general audience could understand. This means speakers should not should not rely heavily on debate jargon without explaining it and should not excessively exceed a conversational speaking pace. This also means 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 thoroughly explained in a manner that a lay audience could understand and be persuaded by. For Ks in particular, you will have to explain your argument very clearly and very well, and I will be very receptive to common sense responses from the other team, even if they aren't dressed up in the technical language of normal K debates.

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.

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, I'd 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 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.

---

Ginger "the boss" Nichols - Butte

n/a

---

Gloria Ekezie - TSU

n/a

---

Hannah Schroers - Parli at Berkeley

n/a

---

Isaac Ramnani - CSULB

n/a

---

Jaime Thomas (she/her) - USFCA

n/a

---

Jane Wilson - DVC

Philo: I competed in parli, LD, extemporaneous speech, and IPDA for DVC. I am pretty chill; just please make your definitions clear and accessible to your competitor. I’ll vote for anything (counterplans, theory, kritiks, etc.). Tell me why you win and why your opponents lose. Make your voters clear, give me two-world analysis, lay out a proper framework. I love me a good story. If you want to speak fast or spread, please be clear. Most importantly, be kind and be mindful of how you address your opponents. We are all here to learn and be articulate debaters, and there is never an instance where somebody should walk away from a round feeling personally offended. Have fun and remember to take a deep breath!

---

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.

---

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

---

Jennifer Franco - UOP

New to speech and debate world. 

---

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

 

---

Joey Barrows - Delta

(Updated 3/1/26 I got added to NPDA late sorry)

Background: I have been Director of Forensics at Delta College for two years. I am not super active in coaching parli and when I do work on debate I work mostly on LD, but the majority of my time coaching is in speech, not debate. I was a graduate assistant UOP and did LD at Sac State.

General things I think would be useful to know about me judging parli:

I am okay with speed but not the fastest at any tournament. If you think you are the fastest person there you are probably too fast for me and you should definitely at least slow down for your tags. My flow is decent but not as tight as other people's.

If your opponent slows you I think you should make a noticeable effort to accommodate them. If you are going to slow someone you probably shouldn't then spread in your next speech.

I prefer case debate and I prefer when affs are topical (lol) but also to vote on topicality arguments I much more prefer proven abuse. I have a high-ish threshold on topicality. To me topicality is about the definitions of words in the topic and therefore I really like to know why the definition you're using is better than the other team's for predictability and/or education.

I generally do not find nuclear war scenarios or other extinction scenarios to be super persuasive against more probable or structural impacts.

To vote on the K I really need a good explanation of what the alternative does and how the aff links to the kritik. I am probably not super familiar with the literature/author your kritik is based on.

I think debate should be as fair as possible and I think that the purpose of debate is primarily is education. I will not vote on blatant lies.

I generally prefer your arguments to follow consistent logic, have good evidence, and be explained in a persuasive manner :)

Please ask any questions before round if you'd like

---

Jonathan Reyes - Hired

n/a

---

Jordon-Evander Williams - TSU

n/a

---

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa JC

I am open to whatever you present.

---

Josue De Leon - SFSU

n/a

---

Kara Ketchum - SFSU

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!

---

Kris Sanville - Chico State

n/a

---

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.

---

Madison Gillen - Chico State

n/a

---

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 :))

---

Marcus Peoples - Sacramento

n/a

---

Marvin Carter - FCC

Little bit about myself: multiple NDT qualifier, nationally traveled debater collegiately for 5 years in college, been involved with debate for the last 20~ years, coached several high school teams, and coached collegiate policy teams. I am trained in policy, so if I am judging your round and you do LD, IPDA or Parli I am going to default to how I have been trained, which is policy.  

I hate paperless, but love technology: I am only 26, but I guess that means I am old.  When cx ends your prep time begins. When you say you are done prepping you need to be ready to start speaking (not saving to a jump drive or organizing your flows). If there is an issue in the debate that means we should deviate from this norm I will tell you, not the other way around. Do not waste time playing with each other’s flash drives, I won’t be thrilled. Try to look up every once and while. It will help your speaker points. Prep stops when the other team has the jump drive. 

Framework: If circular claims about predictability and fairness are how you roll, I am probably not the judge for you. If framework is based on comparative claims which construct the importance of differing roles for the judge/debate/space, I am fine for you. I am voting on whom convinces me does the better debating at the end of the round. 

Topicality: I lean a little aff here on question of reasonability and “most limited” vs. “best/reasonable limit”, but as with any argument, the burden to do the debating is on you, don’t assume you can blow it off and wait for me to conclude in your favor on reasonability.

Disads: They are cool; even better if they are intrinsic.

Critiques: These are the arguments I know the most about. I am familiar with most critical literature. I will do my best to exclude my background knowledge from affecting my decision. Just because I know a lot about criticisms does not mean you should go for the argument. Don't adapt to me, just be yourself. There is a much better chance that you will do better playing the game you're ready for rather than trying to do something that you think* I want to hear. The more specific the link to the affirmative, the better your argument will be. This also applies to affirmative answers to the author the negative is using. I do not think the aff has a right to a permutation on a criticism. This does not mean the aff cannot justify one, but that is where I start.

Counterplans: They're cool. The more specific the better, like most arguments in debate. 

Please be comprehensible: I will not tell you to be clear, but I will be staring at you with a puzzled look which will probably mean to slow down so you are understandable. I’m pretty much willing to listen to whatever debate you prefer to have (K, policy, Other). You’re better off doing what you’re good at than trying to adjust to what you think I want to hear.

Making fewer, smarter args: Typically, you will get you farther than speeding through some unexplained "more evidence". Impact assessment and evaluation of the debate in the last rebuttals are important. Oh, and there is such a thing as zero risk of a link.

Debaters argue; evidence does not: If you just list 35 authors, I will not read your cards. I do not want to read your cards. Persuade me. It is a speaking activity. Read and say what you want. It's your debate so own it. That being said, I don¹t enjoy listening to debates in which gendered/racist/ableist language and so on is used. At the very least your speaker points will probably be affected.

Random Thoughts: I am trained to judge naturally off the flow, unless told otherwise. I do think rules exist in debate: speech times etc. These rules do not set restrictions on content or curriculum. All of these things are up to the debaters. I'm not stranger to K on K debates or traditional vs K debates. Typically, I am not in traditional vs traditional debates (except in high school), but I will judge whatever. 

Judges I model after: Izak D., Luis M., Toni N., Jon B., Dan F., Pointer, Ode, Symonds, Sarah, Joel R., Amber K, Hester and obviously Jack E. 

Questions? Email me at: Marvin.carterjr@gmail.com

 

---

Michael Warshower - USFCA

n/a

---

Michael Sullivan - LPC

n/a

---

Mikey Dodds - SJSU

n/a

---

Millie "the boss" Kinnamont - Butte

n/a

---

Natalie Kellner - LPC

I am an Individual Event judge. I value clarity of structure, specificity of examples & illustrations, preciseness of voting criteria, and (above all else) a delivery that enables ease of understanding for the listener. Avoid "debate speak" at all costs....I will not understand you, and if I do not understand you then you can not win the ballot. Civility is also of key importance. I will look at an IPDA debate as if it were an interactive Persuasive Speaking round: be clear, be organized, be understandable, be engaging. I can't be any more clear than that I think.

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.

---

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.

---

Nicholas Adair - Delta

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 NATO—it's been a member since 1952) I will not flow them. Make sure that your arguments are rooted in fact, because that is the only way to achieve both education and fairness in round. 

 

I am not a big fan of topicality/counterplans/Kritiks. I feel that most rounds should be fought straight up with ADD’s, and DA’s, as most topics are debatable by design. Using theory /CP’s 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 to the round, I find myself voting on T/CP’s/K’s more often than not, even though I would rather not do so. One last note for T in particular, 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 don’t say “a-priori”, I will simply treat it as an additional DA, which I do not mind voting for. 

 

Limited prep

Speeches with less filler words creatine 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. 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/theme. Some of the best speeches I have watched, hit all of 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, blocking second, and well-articulated story theme third. 

 

---

Nikki Morrison-Fountain - SFSU

n/a

---

Orion Steele - SFSU

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at SFSU.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a because statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

Im sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what Im doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I wont vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of judges that say do not pref me if you make x argument or I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

---

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated July 2026.

Hey Gang,

My name is Paul Villa, I am the Co-Director of Forensics at Diablo Valley College, I am also one of the founders of Proteus Debate Academy, which isn't actually an actual academy but is instead just a Youtube channel where my friends and I share our thoughts on debate.

Email: PaulicydebateATgmailDOTcom

Parli:

- Be nice, be classy, we're all still friends at the end of the round.

- Almost all of my viewpoints on debate start from the premise that debate is a game but not "just" a game. This means I am frequently guided by the lens of "how does this argument impact the competitive balance of the game" and "what player incentives is my ballot shaping".

- Everyone should slow down, I judge based on my flow, if it isn't on my flow, I won't pretend it is. I like fast, technical debates, but many of you have put all of your skill points into speed and your clarity, emphasis, and ethos are lacking as a result. An argument is, at a minimum, a claim and a warrant. I hate when people backfill based on blips.

- The aff should defend the topic or be exceptional at answering T and I default to T coming before the substance of the aff absent a compelling reason not to.

- I think conditionality probably is unfair, but the negative having 1 conditional advocacy is reasonably defensible. I have voted on Condo 0 times in the last year, but that is likely because no one collapsed to it.

- I vote on negative kritiks a substantial amount of the time because the Aff just extends whatever 2 minute block they read at the bottom of the 1ac instead of actually answering the argument. This is probably my least favorite thing about contemporary parli. Many kritiks can't survive 2 minutes of cross-x, give it a try. If you aren't ready to defend your aff/model of debate, you're in for a bumpy ride.

- If you read anything a high school debater would describe as "tricks" I think you have 0 reason to be upset about the debate no matter how I vote. The worse an argument is, the lower my threshold for response. Things like "death good" can more or less be defeated by a thumbs down in the following speech.

LD:
- I am following the doc and otherwise only flowing when instructed to.

- The NFA-LD rules exist, I am familiar with them and an arbiter of their justice.

- Clipping is cheating and drop worthy.

- Evidence ethics are absolutely a valid reason for decision.

---

Rebecca Edwards - TSU

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!

---

Ryan Wenzel - Santa Rosa JC

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!

---

Sabrina Clendenin - MJC

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.

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.

You can take this to mean that I believe all interps are standard-setting debates.

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.

---

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

---

Sondera Malry - TSU

n/a

---

Soren Chavanne - Santa Rosa JC

n/a

---

Stephanie Yeh - UCSD

n/a

---

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!

---

Steven Webster - Chabot

n/a

---

Steven Farias - UOP

(Reviewed Jan. 2026; changes- added details on NEG Counterproposals in Overview) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become enables what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think there should be limits on NEG counter proposals in parliamentary debate. For example, I think offering 3 or more clearly skews the debate or being conditional is based around an idea of negation that functions under different constraints. The concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. As such, I think that NEG teams should be deliberate and thoughtful in how they respond to theoretical objections by the AFF to counterproposals.

There are some clear distinctions that should help when debating in front of me:
1. Theory and advocacies are distinct as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defenseable changes to the status quo.
2. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in the topic.
3. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof that a change is needed has shifted from the AFF to the NEG.
4. Vote NEG on presumption when a counterproposal exists does not function for me.
5. The AFF cannot kick the case. In order to win turns on the off case, there must be a stable locus for the AFF to generate offense.
6. Judge kicking must an explicit argument made if you want me to do so and you need to explain why it would be legitimate decision given you are essentially saying you get access to two win conditions while the AFF has one.

Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 17 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 12 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

---

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!

---

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.

---

Ula Young (she/her) - USFCA

n/a

---

Veda Dean - Sacramento

n/a

---

Zachary Waters - SFSU

n/a

---