AJ Crawford - PLNU
Adam Navarro - Palomar
Ali Aldalhimi - Grossmont
Alicia Hoey - Dillard
Alix Lopez - Mt. SAC
Andrea Ruiz - CSUF
Andrew Yllescas - CSUN
Andy Kyle - PLNU
Angelica Grigsby - MCCC S&D
Debate is about persuading your judge. Having said that, please talk to me, not at me. For all types of debate, let's have some clash? Call points of order in the rebuttal, I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive (I know this will look different in a remote setting but the concept still applies), I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments please just be sure that they are warranted and fully explained. Structure is vital to a clear case. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you donâ??t want to leave it up to me. PS-all road maps are in time.
This event is not Parli lite. The best way I have heard it explained is that it is dueling extemp speeches. There should be clash, clear arguments, and clear reasons to vote for you.
I prefer a conversational rate and a speaker who engages with their audience rather than just reading their cards. I have only judged 2-3 rounds of LD all year, if you run the round like I know the topic as well as you, you may lose my ballot.
Remember to have fun!
Annalise Welsh - PLNU
Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - SDSU
Ayden Loeffler - El Camino
T - If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well. SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively. CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. Collapse - Please collapse.
Brandan Whearty - Palomar
Brenden Hawk - Grossmont
Brittany Hubble - El Camino
Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â
I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round.Ã??Ã?Â
You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate.Ã??Ã?Â
I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LOÃ??Ã?Â¢?Ã??Ã?Â¦in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well.Ã??Ã?Â
Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability.Ã??Ã?Â
Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea.Ã??Ã?Â
I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it.Ã??Ã?Â
I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than Ã??Ã?Â¢??they used the state.Ã??Ã?Â¢?Ã??Ã?Â I am not saying this canÃ??Ã?Â¢??t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I donÃ??Ã?Â¢??t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should.Ã??Ã?Â
With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual.Ã??Ã?Â
I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! DonÃ??Ã?Â¢??t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win.Ã??Ã?Â
Speed is fine but please be clear. I donÃ??Ã?Â¢??t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments.Ã??Ã?Â
Defending the Topic:
Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument.Ã??Ã?Â
If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.
Be organized and sign post. DonÃ??Ã?Â¢??t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.Ã??Ã?Â
As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time.Ã??Ã?Â
I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory.Ã??Ã?Â
Bryan Malinis - SD Mesa
Cindy Gutierrez - Mt. SAC
Claire Crossman - CUI
Claire Kueffner - Tulane
Connor Eades - El Camino
General - I am not willing to consider arguments without impacts. If you blip out an argument no matter how good it is without explaining what the argument means within the context of the current debate I will not do the work for you and vote on it. In the case of competing arguments I will default to the more warranted argument, and if neither have evidence to support the claim I will default to whatever argument seems more true. I protect against new arguments, but you should still call a point of order if you think the argument is new and has the potential to lose you the round.
Theory - I default to competing interpretations, but I am willing to vote on reasonability you win it. All theory arguments need impacts, just saying this hurts fairness and education isn't enough. You will need to explain why violating your interp negatively impacts-in round fairness and education. A we meet usually isnÃ?Â¢??t sufficient to answer a theory sheet on itÃ?Â¢??s own, you should expect to read a counter interp. I think dumb theory is fun to hear, but it is rarely a good argument to go for unless it is brutally mishandled and it has clear impacts.
Speed - When I was competing I usually didn't have a problem with speed, but that was in a time before this online format. Now I will ask you to slow or clear if you are going too fast or if you are unclear. All I really ask is that you don't intentionally try to spread teams out of rounds especially with the online format making voices less clear in some situations. Try to be accommodating for everyone.
Kritical Arguments - I primarily ran policy when I was competing so I am more comfortable with those arguments. However, I will vote on Kritical arguments, but I am not as experienced with them. I think that these kinds of arguments are fine on either aff or neg, you just have to be able to beat T-Framework if you are aff. As I haven't run a bunch of types of Kritical arguments I'd expect a higher level of explanation the more niche/obscure the argument is. I'm likely not going to vote on it if I'm completely lost.
Please don't lie, lies are not very epic OR educational.
Danny Cantrell - Mt. SAC
Das Nugent-Odasso - SD Mesa
Dawson Khoury - Mt. SAC
Denise Spirmont - El Camino
History: My partner and I finished first in the nation overall on NPTE year long rankings 2019-2020. I am now studying the Middle East at the University of Chicago.
Arguments I like: True arguments.
Arguments I donÃ?Â¢??t like: Ridiculous ones (if you have to ask in prep Ã?Â¢??will Denise buy this?Ã?Â¢?Ã?Â donÃ?Â¢??t run it).
Auto-drop: I will autodrop you if you use a racial slur.
Dennis Gulyas - SD Mesa
Destinee Sior - MCCC S&D
Eduardo Pacheco - UCSD
Elyssa Hulse-Schultheiss - Saddleback
Eric Maag - Southwestern
Erick Roebuck - SEARK
Francesca Bishop - El Camino
My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
I had my years of debating; it is now your turn.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â There areÃ???Ã??Ã?Â lots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, butÃ???Ã??Ã?Â I try notÃ???Ã??Ã?Â to bring them into the round.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you can lose a round if you drop one little argument, though it's unlikely unless your opponents blow it up, but if you dropÃ???Ã??Ã?Â a lynchpin argument, or a framework argument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One isÃ???Ã??Ã?Â if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool in any way, or ask me to vote on real world impacts.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have "won."Ã???Ã??Ã?Â A secondÃ???Ã??Ã?Â exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--soÃ???Ã??Ã?Â please don't guess or make stuff up.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
Because I try to base my decision based solely on argumentsÃ???Ã??Ã?Â that are madeÃ???Ã??Ã?Â in the round,Ã???Ã??Ã?Â I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Likewise, you don't have to run only conventionally believed positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or if they are "true."Ã???Ã??Ã?Â In general, know that I don't believe that debate is a search for the truth; I believe it is a game. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â As when you play all games, you should have fun!!!
Gianna Mandich - Tulane
Griffin Abrams - CSUN
Hans Khoe - Westmont
Jacqueline Yu - IVC
James Jovanovich - Grossmont
Jay bourne - Cumberland
Jazanna Riddlespriger - Dillard
Jedi Curva - Mt. SAC
Jen Montgomery - CSUF
Jennifer Baney - MSJC
My judging paradigm is a policymaker. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot.
Tips for the neg team: I will vote heavily on disadvantages and counter plans. I find that the chance for students to build their neg case in relation to those items makes for a debate round that is both entertaining and educational therefore easier to judge. However, something that I do not value in a debate is arguments used to fill time rather than which appears to be the overall use of Topicality. Specifically, unless someone is clearly not topical I think it just fills time in debate and removes any educational value so don't run it just to run it. Additionally, my paradigm solves so there should be no need to have a topicality. K's are okay but again unless there is a blatant obvious or necessary it removes the educational value from the debate. To clarify K's are awesome when if you want to sip on some coffee and talk about all sorts of theories, please send me an invitation. However, in a debate round.
Tips for aff: you should make sure that you are calling the neg for these items. It is your job to shape the round fairly and to hold a lasting impact. Do not remove education by making the round too restrictive and please include advantages as well as impacts that are unique.Â The simplest way to view the debate and remove bias is weighing affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages because it allows for impacts to decide the ballot. Impacts win my ballot 9/10 times but this does not mean claiming the biggest impact wins but rather the most logical impact carries the most amount of weight.Â
General tips: I like clear speed but you have to create the most inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. If you are competing against someone who cannot handle your speed it is your responsibility to become inclusive. I flow on a laptop so that means that I need labels to be explicit regardless if you spread or not. I refuse to take "outside gossip" as a role on my ballot and if you decide slander is your game, best of luck.
TLDR; All I really care about are impacts, however, if you want to make the round more enjoyable for me and follow the other stuff I really enjoy, sounds good.Â
Jonah Naoum - Grossmont
Jordan Elliot - CBU
Jordan Kay - SDSU
Joseph Evans - El Camino
Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â About me:I have been involved in forensics for over 13 years including 7 years of coaching. I have debated in High School, College and I am now currently a full-time professor and Director of Debate at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of argument and impact prioritization. Thus, I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. Please feel free to ask me for clarification before the round!. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
Framework/Role of the Ballot:Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â I will evaluate and weigh the round through any framework that the Aff or Neg presents to me. I have no predisposition towards one specific FW because all frameworks can either be strategic or not depending on how itÃ??Ã?Â¢??s debated. In terms of evaluating competing FWs, I will only make my decision on how each are warranted and impacted out in round and will never insert my own beliefs. In terms of the ROB, I will weigh the ROB through the FW presented and if itÃ??Ã?Â¢??s not contested, this will frame how I evaluate the rest of the round.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â If no one tells me how to frame the round, I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the lens of utilitarianism (net benefits). When impacting out why you win a policy debate, please frame your impacts through lenses like timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversibility.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
TLDR: Framework is important! You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and impact out why your framework is best.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
Theory: I will evaluate theoretical positions the same as others. The interpretation will frame how I evaluate the position. You must have a clear description of how the debate round should have been constructed. Additionally, I will evaluate the interp/counter-interp debate based on the standards/impacts presented.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â I donÃ??Ã?Â¢??t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps you must justify why I should frame theory through either. If a teams decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them (unless there is conceded offense).Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
Counter Plans/Alts/Perms:Ã???Ã??Ã?Â I view counterplans or alternatives as a test of competition against the affirmativeÃ??Ã?Â¢??s advocacy. I believe that counterplans/alts can compete based on impact prioritization, functional competition, or (sigh) textual competitiveness. I have no predisposition towards one type of competition. Teams must justify why I should vote on the competitiveness or lack of in the CP or Alt debate. In terms of the perm debate, perms also tests of the competitiveness of the counter advocacy. In order to win the perm debate you need to justify and impact out why it outweighs the CP or alt. I am also open to theoretical reasons why the CP/ALT or Perm should be rejected in the round.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
Speed:Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Go as fast as you want but please be clear! I have judged NPTE/NPDA finals and/or semi-finals the last 3 of 4 years so I will be able to keep up. However, if you are unclear, I will give you non-verbals or yell Ã??Ã?Â¢??clearÃ??Ã?Â¢?Ã??Ã?Â. My priority is getting everything you say on my flow so sacrificing clarity for speed is not advisable. Additionally, I have voted on speed arguments a few times when teams use speed as a bullying or ableist technique. So be conscious of how you use speed within the round. If you can beat a team without going fast, itÃ??Ã?Â¢??s a win-win for both teams. You get the W and the other team has an educational/ teaching moment.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in most critical arguments, but I am not by any means an expert on critical theory. Therefore, if you are running something new or obscure, donÃ??Ã?Â¢??t assume I understand the literature.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Regardless of the K, I will listen how your frame, impact and weight the FW and Alt/Alt solvency. Additionally,Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
Julia Leslie - IVC
Justin Durbin - Cumberland
Justin Jung - El Camino
Kathryn Fulhorst - UCSD
Kyle Duffy - College of the Can
Lana Mack - CBU
Li-Ren Chang - El Camino
Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Ã??Ã?Â Important stuff:
Maple Flores - SMC
Marc Ouimet - Palomar
Megan Holt - Tulane
Melissa Deleon - Cal State LA
Michael Marse - CBU
Michael McHan - Grossmont
Mikay Parsons - SDSU
I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."
Full disclosure: I use the same philosophy for judging high school and college so these may seem like simple things but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do them?? If you have more specific questions feel free to come ask me.
Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.
The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches, use violent/triggering language without some type of warning, or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.
Speed: I was a decently fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card/warrant. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).
Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.
Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.
Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg!
Monique Gevorkian - CSUN
Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU
Nicholas Thomas - Palomar
Nick Matthews - Cerritos
Hello! I am a coach at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching in PSCFA since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:
- I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a
conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed that is faster than the
dialogue of "The West Wing" will probably result in me understanding maybe
20% of what you are saying, which is not conductive to your
chances of winning.
- My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan
to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As
a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans,
procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at
judging. Donâ??t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with,
but my understanding of straight-up debate is a hell of a lot stronger than my
understanding of K debate.
- I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative impact calculus,
and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.
- I rarely vote for arguments I donâ??t understand.
- I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may
vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will
likely defeat them.
- My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
- Whining: â??Their implementation is vague and they donâ??t explain it! They donâ??t solve!â? (Waaah!)
- Argument: â??I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. Firstâ?¦â?
- The affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement
with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.
- I donâ??t care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.
Odalys Zavala - CBU
Paul Jimenez - Providence
Paxton Attridge - Cal State LA
In NPDA, I find clear warranting in-case and impact calculus very helpful, particularly direct comparison between the world each side's impacts create. I am more than fine following quick speed in delivery, though clarity is still appreciated in both delivery and argumentation (the latter particularly within rebuttal). Argumentative consistency helps me in adjudicating, and so clear disclaimer regarding which arguments within cases are being addressed or rebutted is very useful. In line with this organization's values, I value more critically-directed debate, though this approach does not necessarily require argumentative structures idiosyncratic to NPDA or other forms of debate. I believe that the debate space should be safe for protected populations, and behavior that threatens these populations will be at the very least remarked upon on the ballot, and may impact my judging decision if egregious. My familiarity in debate is more philosophically and policy-directed, though arguments making other appeals will still receive full consideration.
Rachel Lobo - El Camino
I competed in college circuit parliamentary debate and LD debate for 3 years, and also coached Parli at South Torrance High School.
TLDR// It's your round, do what you want with it.
As far as arguments in-round, there is rarely one I will not vote on. I am flow-centric, and will try my best to keep any outside knowledge away from the debate (although I am not sure that anyone is actually capable of this, so don't make things up, etc.). Also don't be indignant to the other team. I love sass and sarcasm but there is a line that you should do your best not to cross. specifics:
Spreading is fine with me as long as you do not use it as a weapon to exclude your opponent. If you go too fast or become incomprehensible, I will clear you but your speaker points will not be affected. I would certainly never vote against you because of your delivery. I would also not vote for you based on your delivery so say something substantive. IÃ?Â¢??m not sure how speed plays out in the new online format but we can all try our best and work with each other.
I will gladly vote on any theory position, if the abuse is potential or articulated. That being said, I will be annoyed if you kick a cool CP for NIBS. I also default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Read a competitive counter-interpretation.
Unless told how to evaluate the round, I will default to net-benefits, so make sure you read impacts. That being said, if you do read a framework, you need to extend it throughout the debate or at the very least tell me how it functions. I find myself leaning towards probability calculus but you can always convince me that my bias is wrong and that magnitude outweighs probability. Idk.
I would prefer links to be specific to the topic rather than tangentially related to the idea of something like the topic. Defend or reject the topic, either way you have to justify it. I donÃ?Â¢??t believe that links of omission are very compelling but if you want to convince me otherwise, be my guest. Framework debates, specifically good framework debates, can also be very compelling and I think that sometimes one-off framework theory is an underrated neg strategy. In my time as a debater, I focused on orientalism, antiblackness, biopower, and security K's though I've debated several others and am familiar with some lit. DonÃ?Â¢??t assume I know your author though! I have never read anything written by either Karl or Richard Marx.
If you have any questions that I haven't already answered, always feel free to reach out and ask before the round!
Raffaela Baker - Saddleback
Ralph Castellanos - SCC
Rebecca Gonzalez - Cerritos
Renee Orton - MSJC
Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm
I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.
I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.
In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.
Robert Campbell - UCSD
Ron Newman - MSJC
Ryan Corso-Gonzales - El Camino
Ryan Corso Pronouns: He/Him/His
I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California, and one-time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there, I competed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. My senior year, my partner Benji and I, took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I am now a student at the University of Louisville, I'm getting my masterÃ¢??s in communication, my studies focus heavily on Marxism, Neoliberalism, The Public Sphere, and Networking.
I owe all my knowledge in debate and my success to my amazing coaches, mentors and teammates that helped me through my career most significantly Amanda Ozaki-Laughon, Joe Ozaki-Laughon, Benjamin Lange, Alyson Escalante, and Judith Teruya.
I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow centric judge. Debate is a game; you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I am open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, fascists args, etc) just be prepared to justify your actions, and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran policy args, just as much as I ran kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most. I think people on the circuit would have referred to me as a K debater, yet I would not have.
Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I love learning new things (Policy, Kritiks and even theory) so you can feel free to use me as a test for a new kritik or position, I'm not affiliated with any school atm, and I just want to experience debates where people talk about what they want to talk about.
I default to policy making good framework, if both teams accept this then great, however, this doesn't mean critical arguments don't operate within that framework. Policy debates should consist of advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact structure, because I believe it provides the clearest format for debate. I am very familiar with other structures for policy debates as well. Value and Fact rounds do exist and provide unique educational and fairness aspects to them (this probably has to do with my CC background).
Theory is the most important aspect to debate in my view. A good theory consist of a clear interp, and an unique violation that explains the operative nature of that interp. Standards, are not tag lines, this is the substantial aspect of theory. There is a very good lecture on NPTE 14 (youtube) about how standards consist of Links, Internal links and Impacts. Fairness and Education are the only two competitive impacts that I have heard in regards to theory. Do not just read tag lines on in theory debates, I will not fill in arguments for you. Each round is specific and this should be clear in your reading or responding to theoretical positions.
You need a CLEAR link to the AFF, or the topic, for me to even consider voting for you! I will not do the work for you filing in your links. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round. You do not get to win just because you read a Kritik, you need adequate links in order to win, and an alternative or advocacy that resolves the impacts identified. (This means I'm more then willing to not vote on a kritik that has adequate forms of terminal defense against it. If I believe there isn't an adequate explanation of a link I will not vote on the K.)
If you believe your kritik is complicated, please have a thesis portion! I am a firm believer in providing a thesis for kritiks. Almost all the kritiks I wrote had an in-depth thesis. I enjoy complicated kritiks, and at the end of my career I even began to utilize Kritiks without frameworks, so I understand how a well written kritik has the potential to operate in that manner.
Kritiks are a great method to layering the debate, it doesn't mean that all other impacts are invalid just that new framework arguments are needed to balance or relayer the debate. Please make sure your impacts are terminal and do impact comparison and make sequencing arguments in the rebuttals, even if you believe that you have out framed your opponents.
Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Nietzsche, Reps and Rhetoric. (This doesn't mean read these Ks in front of me, I am much more open to the idea of voting down a bad K shell, then I am picking up a bad K because it's relatable.)
I am not a fan of the speaker point system, I view it as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. An easy way to think about this is in regards to Ethos, Pathos and Logos. I value Ethos and Logos far greater than Pathos. While all are essential to argument making, I don't find pathos as compelling in the debate setting. I give speaker points based on the idea "Who ever did the best debating".
* I will clear or slow you if I feel like I need to.
* I do NOT vote on RVI's, they are illegitimate arguments and I will dock speaker points if you read them in front of me!
* Substantial engagement, or whatever this theory arg was called, is NOT an impact! You will not pick up a ballot from me be reading this, it is an internal link to Fairness and Education. If you decide to collapse to a theory shell with this as your only impact, you can just assume you already lost the round.
* Solvency deficit is not a compelling theory position; this is defense at best. Attempting to turn a defensive argument into an offensive position is not how you win that argument. This falls into the category of relabeling arguments in manners that they do not function. I believe this is bad for debate and creates "improper" forms of education which only harms the event.
* DO NOT LIE in round, I feel that debate is first an educational event, I do feel that it's appropriate to fact check people in round if I believe they are lying, or just factually incorrect.
* DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents.
* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. Therefore, I do not believe that debate is a space for you to impose or weaponize certain religions or religious, or other non-falsifiable content. For instance, I do not feel educated enough on these matters and or comfortable being put into a spot affirming or disaffirming your faith in a certain religion. I think it's also probably disingenuous to weaponize a religion that you do not believe in within the debate space.
*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I don't know what these kritiks are being labeled these days, but I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person (especially at a national tournament). This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, because I will. Being able to witness the link occur is a lot more of a viable link argument in my opinion then one team claiming things happened outside of the round, or in the past. If have no way to validate an argument I therefore won't feel comfortable voting on something. Please don't expect me to already "know" (I'm removed from the debate community for the most part), also please don't attempt to prove something occurred to me. Also, I feel very compelled by apologies as a method to resolve the kritik, for in most instances I've seen this run, I think? I know this is probably a controversial opinion and that's ok with me, if these kritiks are viable and important strategies to you as a debater I think you're better off striking me. Sorry...
I am 2 years removed from debate, I do not watch debate rounds frequently and very rarely engage in conversations about debate. I'm sure not as strong at flowing or keeping up with speed as I used to be. Please keep that in mind when debating in front of me.
I will do my best to weigh the round in the manner I think is most fair in regard to how you present them. I will try my best to vote for the team I think won... I guess that's all I can do.
If you think my decision is wrong please feel free to talk to me about it. I won't hold grudges for people defending positions they had in rounds. Debate is a very passionate event, I was a very passionate debater, and I think that's a beautiful aspect about debate! That being said there is a difference between being a passionate debater and a jerk in round, I don't think you should belittle your opponents in debate, but you can question me. It is my job to vote for the team I think won, and I believe it is part of a judges job to defend and explain their decision in the instance that occurs.
Good Luck, Have Fun! DEBATE IS A GAME! ENJOY THE RIDE, PLAY IT HOWEVER YOU WANT!
Note to Seniors: Your success in debate does not in any way correlate with your worth as a person! Debate is a GAME! This should be a fun experience and I hope you make as many friends as possible in debate and cherish every moment with your teammates and opponents. Some of the most incredible people I have ever met have come into my life because of debate and I hope that applies to you. Please try to have fun, don't hold grudges and enjoy every moment. The real world is so different then the debate world and I hope your transition from the debate world is smooth and incredible! I've realized that so much of what I thought was important and damning in debate has very little value outside of that echo chamber. That's not always for the best, but it is the reality. Stay friendly, humble, and smart moving forward in life! I wish the Best of Luck to everyone who leaves this community!
Sabrina Tsai - UCSD
Samal Senaratna - El Camino
Sarah Swope - CBU
Scott Plambek - SD Mesa
Shaunte Caraballo - IVC
Shayan Saadat - El Camino
Sloane Robertson - PLNU
Stephen Stohs - UCSD
Stephen Hosmer - PLNU
Thuy Pham - Mt. SAC
Tiffany Chen - LACC
Tim Seavey - SDSU
Treasure Ganassi - PLNU
Zihad Amin - IVC
2 year community college debater. Competed at state and nationals. Open to everything. Prefer to see debate centered around the resolution. Will flow critiques, but need to make sure the link is clear and strong. Be respectful to your opponents. Partner to partner communication is acceptable, but do not speak for your partner. Will only flow what the primary speaker is saying, nothing that the partner says will be flowed. I have a hearing disability so try not to speak too fast and be clear. Extremely important to be clear so I can get as much of the argument as possible. Will default to judging rounds based on net benefits unless am told otherwise. Really enjoy impact calculus and the round will heavily be weighed on which side provides the clearest and most powerful impacts. I am willing to answer any specific questions debaters may have prior to the round