Judge Philosophies

AJ Edwards - UCSD

n/a

Abby Succup - El Camino

n/a

Adrian Guzman - Grossmont

n/a

Alec Lyons - El Camino

n/a

Alec Oliver - UCSD

n/a

Alex Velez - IVC

n/a

Alex Tseng - HJ

n/a

Alissa Duong - Mt. SAC

I am not a debate coach nor a debater, as such I approach all debates with a layperson's perspective. To win my ballot, I am looking for clear and concise arguments that outline the fundamentals of your points without any of the debate jargon. This is especially true in an IPDA round where in general I do not believe Parli terms or structure has any role to play. In an IPDA round, the focus should be on the overarching argument (the resolution) that is supplemented simply and clearly by the contentions. I am not looking for a plan text or an agent of action or anything of that sort. I understand Parli is a more technical form of debate and have grown to appreciate it. However, the surest way to lose my ballot is to spread. As a non-debater this is not a speaking style I am accustomed to nor is it one that I, in general, appreciate in Forensics. Straightforward plan text, agent of action, timeline, and funding is key, but emphasis on straightforward. Again, I am not a debater so I will not vote on any unnecessary K's or T's that are run, preferring that you focus on the argumentation instead. Finally, don't be rude y'all...it's really not that deep. TL;DR - Clear, eloquent, and concise arguments win my ballot, spreading, technicalities, or rudeness loses my ballot.

Alyssa Rodriguez - UCSD

n/a

Amanda Everett - PLNU

n/a

Andrea Jauregui - RioRunners

n/a

Andrew Salazar - Chaffey

n/a

Andrew Jassick - Grossmont

Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa

Debate is about persuading your judge. Having said that, please talk to me, not at me. For all types of debate, let's have some clash? Call points of order in the rebuttal, I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive (I know this will look different in a remote setting but the concept still applies), I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments please just be sure that they are warranted and fully explained. Structure is vital to a clear case. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you donÃ¢t want to leave it up to me. PS-all road maps are in time.

IPDA:
Â Â This event is not Parli lite. The best way I have heard it explained is that it is dueling extemp speeches. There should be clash, clear arguments, and clear reasons to vote for you.

NFA-LD:
I prefer a conversational rate and a speaker who engages with their audience rather than just reading their cards. I have only judged 2-3 rounds of LD all year, if you run the round like I know the topic as well as you, you may lose my ballot.

Remember to have fun!

Athena Zhang - UCSB

n/a

Atticus Gonzalez - UCSB

n/a

August Jones - RioRunners

n/a

Austin Waterhouse - SD Mesa

n/a

Ayden Reams - PLNU

n/a

Ben Mason - El Camino

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

Bianca Solis-Le - UCSD

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandan Whearty

Palomar College

Short Version: You Talk, I'll Listen

Long Version: I tend to view debate as a negotiation between the government and opposition over what will happen during the 45 minutes of engagement. This means that whatever parameters both teams agree on are ok. I will listen to fast technical debate, slow rhetorical debate, and alternate forms such as performance with equal interest. I will listen to Topicality, C/Kritiks, Vagueness, Value Objections, Resolutionality, etc. Remember that just because its a procedural issue it doesnt mean tags will suffice. Asking me to drop a team on procedural violation requires a warrant or two, and I'm happy to listen to procedural level offense from the Affirmative as well.

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT I HAVE REPETITIVE STRESS INJURIES TO MY HANDS AND SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING, WHICH MEANS A TOP-LEVEL TEAM CAN SPEAK FASTER THAN I CAN FLOW. I CAN KEEP UP WITH 70%-75% OF TOP SPEED, PROVIDED THAT THE SPEAKER'S ARTICULATION IS EXCELLENT (SO I CAN CHEAT A LITTLE BY READING LIPS) AND THAT THE SPEAKER'S STRUCTURE IS PERFECT. IF NEITHER OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE TRUE, YOU MAY NEED TO SLOW DOWN MORE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU. Later in the tournament, I may need you to slow down even more as my hands fail. If you're losing me, you'll know immediately and loudly. Also, please avoid strategies that require me to fill sheets of paper with arguments that we all know will be discarded in the next speech. If there are more than 10-13 pages per debate, the burning in my hands starts to drown out your arguments.

Though I consider myself a flow critic, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by laundry lists of taglines filling in for substantial, warranted analysis. I think that the words, because and for example are important, and you should probably use them a lot.

Please call important points of order in both rebuttals, in order to save me from guessing which arguments you want me to intervene and discard. If both teams want me to intervene and throw out arguments I see as new, mention it in the round and I will defer to your collective judgment. Abusing Points of Order will destroy your speaker points and compromise your tournament seeding.

I collect ACTUAL TURNS. People use the word turn a lot in parliamentary debate. This confuses me, because it is usually followed by an argument like, They dont solve enough, other bad things will still happen, or is not. If you make an actual turn, I will probably pound happily on the table to let you know.

I appreciate lighthearted jabs, and heckling is fine as long as it is funny rather than rude. If you have ever wanted to run an extreme or bizarre advocacy, I may be your best chance to pick up on it. Enjoy yourselves,be nice, and speaks will be high.

A few more preferences that may help you win my ballot:

* Explain your perms and provide a clear text for each one. Otherwise, you may accidentally win the argument that your side should lose.

* It is way easier for me to vote for your procedural with demonstrated abuse in round. Potential abuse is almost impossible for me to evaluate without wondering about potential answers and potential turns.

* I am getting bored with delay/politics strategies. If you're going to run them in front of me, engage my interest with an amazing demonstration of this strategy's power and legitimacy. If you have a choice between delay/politics and a kritik debate, please choose the latter.

* Please make sure I understand what you're saying. If you want me to cast my ballot because "...durable fiat is instantaneous," you should probably make sure I know what you mean. I can *guess* at what you mean, but that's no good for either of us.

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

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

BG:

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

Impacts:

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

Case Debate:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Counterplans:

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

Conditionality:

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

Kritiks:

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

Identity Arguments:

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

Theory:

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

Speed

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

Defending the Topic:

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

Speaker Points:

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

Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

Bryan Malinis - SD Mesa

What is your experience with speech and debate?

I have coached and judged 2-year and 4-year speech and debate since 2011. I coach all events: oral interpretation, platform, limited preparation, NPDA, and IPDA.

What does your ideal debate round look like?

An ideal debate round is one in which debaters perform with professionalism and respect. I do not condone distasteful or disparaging remarks made against opponents, nor insulting nonverbal behavior. Such behavior tarnishes your own credibility as a persuasive speaker. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Insults will result in me dropping you or your team. Above all, make me happy to be in your presence. Have a good time and I will, too!
For IPDA, treat me as a lay judge. I firmly believe IPDA is different from all other debate formats in that IPDA is intended for anyone. Do not treat this event like a Parli or LD round. Eliminate jargon. This is pure persuasion, as if we are all sitting at a dining table and each of you is trying to persuade me to take your side.

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

For NPDA/LD:
- I am stock issues all the way! I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-articulated by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. I am not a fan of Kritiks.
- Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate effectively. I have dropped teams in the past due to their lack of a CLEAR structure. Do not simply tell me that legalizing marijuana leads to dying children. Provide links, internal links, and impacts. Do not assume that I will make the argument/connection for you in my head. I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. Most important, give me clear voters.
For all debate types:
- Your delivery skills are unequivocally tied to my perception of your credibility and competence as a speaker. I pay close attention to your speech rate (breathe like a human), volume, pitch, gestures, posture, eye contact, etc. Since nonverbal communication comprises up to 90% of what we communicate, you must be mindful of all the aforementioned elements during your speaking time. I am comfortable with jargon and technical elements, though I am partial to a more straightforward, narrative debate style.
- I time everything: roadmaps, thanks, etc.

Chris Sullivan - Maricopa

I'm a communication professor new to the competitive forensics circuit, bringing academic expertise but still learning circuit norms and conventions. I prioritize clear, organized communication over speed, please speak at a conversational pace and avoid unexplained jargon, as I may not be familiar with them. I value substance and quality argumentation with well-supported claims, effective delivery, and genuine engagement with opponents' arguments rather than simply advancing your own. Sign-post clearly, explain the significance of your arguments, and tell me why you're winning the round. Treat everyone in the room with respect and professionalism, competitive spirit should never create a hostile environment. If I can't understand or flow an argument, I can't evaluate it, so help me help you by making your case accessible. I'm excited to learn from you and provide constructive feedback as we make this a positive educational experience together.

Christiaan Pipion - IVC

First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
Next, clash is incredibly important for me. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think you did better than the other side, what top of case issues you think you win on, critical drops by your opponent, etc.
If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them. Otherwise, I'm happy to give critiquesafterthe round is finished,aftermy ballot is turned in, and only if it doesn't impede with the tournament running on time. If you see me after the round, I'm also happy to give you feedback then.
Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
Speed: I don't like it. I think speed gets in the way of clarity. If both opponents know each other, the debate format allows for it, and both debaters are comfortable, I'm happy to flow more quickly, but I will say "clear" or "speed" if I feel you're spreading your opponent out of the round.
Kritiks: While I love critical theory, I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of. That said, if both teams are down with it, I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer.
IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could still buy that argument. I do also have a higher standard for what demands this kind of response in IPDA ompared to other debate formats. The closer we get to argumetns that are more about sematics than fairness, the less likely I am to buy these arguments in IPDA.
Finally, PLEASE be respectful to your opponents. I will get very frustrated if I see laughing, put downs, or any other behaviours that could make others feel disrespected. I'm willing to speak with your coach if I feel that you're treating others in ways that have them feeling particulalry dispirited by the end of the round. Men, be mindful not to talk down to women. I've already seen far too much of that in this activity. Respect your opponents pronouns. Be kind.
Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

Christiana Patton - CUI

n/a

Cindy Gutierrez - Mt. SAC

-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If youre going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have someincrediblystrong evidence.
-Dont be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, dont ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.

Colette Murphy - MSJC

n/a

Courtney Meissner - SDSU

Hi Everyone!

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

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

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

On that note, I wish everyone a great tournament!

DANIEL ZAROGOZA - Grossmont

Danny Cantrell - Mt. SAC

Debate should be presented in such a way that a lay audience can understand the arguments and learn something from the debate. In general, debaters should have strong public speaking, critical thinking, and argumentation. Don't rely on me to fill in the holes of arguments or assume we all know a certain theory or argument -- it is your burden to prove your arguments.

David Zahnd - HJ

n/a

David Fountain - Grossmont

n/a

Devon Simmons - SDSU

n/a

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Though I am known as a dreaded "communication judge" which is code for "she has no idea about debate and wouldn't know a kritik if it dropped on her head".....I actually love debate, and have judged it over the years. I appreciate well-read teams: meaning I am up on current events. Speed doesn't win my ballot, unless it is executed in such a fashion that the speaker isn't stumbling over themselves to spread their opponent out of the room with ten off case positions. I appreciate clarity, labeling, and solid argumentation. I am judging only IPDA now, which means, this debate should be run before a lay judge without the demonstration of debate jargon, technical prowess, or extreme speed necessary/popular to win a parli debate. I appreciate competitors that are professional both in round towards their opponent, and out of round post debate. You will win my ballot on both content and presentational style. I am a firm believer that the competitor not only represents themselves, but their entire team and coaches that put heavy instructional time into them. In essence, make this round count. I will be most appreciative of your efforts.

Donavan Fanella - HJ

n/a

Dr. Vanessa Fountain - Grossmont

n/a

Drew Wynne - UCSD

n/a

Edgar Torres - Grossmont

n/a

Edward Minasyan - RioRunners

When evaluating debate rounds I find that I look for structure and clarity of all arguments made. An argument without proper taglines or a response without signposting ends up being a thought thrown out with the hope that the judge or opponent flows it in the proper place.

I like to see topical affs who engage with the resolution, regardless of debate format, and negs who engage with the aff through DA, CP, T, and other arguments on case. Stock issues are extremely important to me in both Parli and NFA-LD. If you don't meet those burdens as an aff you will lose if the neg points it out. Fairness should be a priority for everyone, so take questions and be courteous to all.

NFA-LD specific things:You should come prepared to the rounds. That means making sure everyone has access to your case and any cards you read. It doesn't matter if it's a paper copy or on speechdrop.net. I believe that the rules matter, are important, and are the guidelines to competitors and judges in this event. That means stock issues are the most important voting issues, neg should have logically consistent arguments, and excessive speed will mean a loss.

General Notes:I like straight up debates and will almost never vote for K's just run without a truly justified reason. I think spread delivery actively hurts the competition of debate, so just don't do it in front of me if you want my ballot. Don't run excessive or abusive theory just to win a ballot in front of me. Try not to run apocolyptic impacts because they're never explained enough or convincing enough to be realistic. Probability > Magnitude. Don't lie or cheat.

Be nice, have fun.

Emma Fernandez - IVC

n/a

Eric Beutz - UCSD

n/a

Erika Portillo - EPCC

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

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

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

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

Erika Escobar - SDSU

n/a

Ernesto Perez - UCLA

n/a

Eshal Vadakkan - IVC

n/a

Evan Gonzalez - PLNU

n/a

Felip Gerdes - UCSD

n/a

Finley Arreola-chavez (they/them) - UCSB

n/a

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

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

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

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

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

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

Gabby Jimenez - PLNU

n/a

Gabrielle Koehler - SDSU

n/a

Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners

I debated NPDA and NFA-LD. In IE's, focused on Limited Prep and Platforms, minimal personal experience in Interps. Been coaching forensics speech and debate for the last 15 plus years.

You matter, your opponent matters, your speech matters, truth matters, rules matter, I matter. I refrain from interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also, hurting, kicking, and just violence in general, I frown upon)

In all forms of debates my guiding principle aside from fairneness, consideration and humility will be the official rules of the event. Although I might disagree with some of the rules, untill they are changed, I will abide by the existing sets.

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any students. Do not isolate, offend, or make your opponent feel less than wonderful human beings and students that they are. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attacks and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments and not a bully pulpit to bash fellow students.

I prefer good On Case/Off Case. Be aware that procedurals force judge intervention. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. If you are running a CP, you give up presumption. You take upon yourself same burdens as the Aff. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete.

I firmly believe that speed kills, "DO NOT SPREAD" as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything.

I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.

Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

On IPDA. It is a stand-alone debate. It is not Parli Light, it needs logic, anlaysis and persuasivness, which means for the duration of IPDA round I do not speak Parli. Make your arguments conversational, logical and devoid of lingo that has no place in this event.

On NFA-LD. Its stock issues and spread delivery is antithetical to this event.

Greg Gorham - GCU

Harry Schulte - EPCC

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

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

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

Izzy Terranova - UCSB

n/a

Jaden Nakamura - UCSB

n/a

Jadine Montanez - Grossmont

n/a

James Jovanovich - Grossmont

Jared Hoffart - UCSD

GENERAL

My ballot comes down to keeping this atmosphere fun, fair, and educational. If a strategy is within those lines you should be good.

I don't prefer speed. Additionally, if one side is not comfortable with speed, you shouldn't be going fast. That being said, if both sides are cool with speed and I am made aware of that I won't tank speaker points.

Signpost where you are going ("Responding to their contention 1..."). Try and stay in chronological order and take care of top of case argumentation first.

Also, please note that I don't flow cross. If something comes up in cross and you want to make sure it's on my flow, you need to mention it in the speech following cross.

I appreciate a good narrative. Tell your story how you want to.

NPDA

Theory: I'll vote on it. I'll also toss aside frivolous theory if given a reason to.

Kritiks: Run them if you want. I appreciate K's with cool alts that have some sort of solvency. If its confusing, the round is probably not fun for your opponents and I probably won't vote for it anyway.

Counterplans: Awesome. I will assume it is unconditional unless you give me a very good reason otherwise.

Creative technical argumentation is cool. If you want to try running something different/unique, feel free to do in front of me. Just know that I will equally honor any creative responses.

IPDA

I appreciate this being a lay event. However, you should still structure your argumentation in a logical format that is fair for your opponent. Please tell me what type of round it is and structure it in that way.

When two debaters have a mutual respect for one another, it is fairly obvious and makes the debate a whole lot better; Expect high speaks in those rounds.

Speech

In general I don't have any preferences for speech. In impromptu, however, I prefer speeches that fall in line with the name of the event and will place those over any speeches that felt canned.

Jedi Curva - Mt. SAC

Jescel Leeh Ocampo - SD Mesa

n/a

John Symank - CUI

n/a

Jolie Reams - PLNU

n/a

Jonah Naoum - Grossmont

Jordan Kay - Palomar

NO SPREADING

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, just have fun. Be kind. Be considerate. Talk to me and your opponents like we're human beings deserving of basic decency. Ts are fine if the way the Aff has set up the round is particularly egrigous, but I'm not a big fan of 'Ts and Ks for Ts and Ks sake'. Forensics is a communication activity. Connect with us.

For IPDA, please keep parli tech and terminology minimal

Joseph Evans - El Camino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua Lopez - RioRunners

n/a

Jules Bruetsch - IVC

n/a

Julian Mackenzie - SDSU

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

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

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

All formats:

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

IPDA:

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

NPDA:

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

NFA-LD:

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

Speech:

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

Justine Kesary - UCSD

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

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

Speech: For speech I judge on content and performance.

Katie Bushelman - PLNU

n/a

Katya Azzam - SD Mesa

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

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

Kayla Mercure - Saddleback

Although my specialty is primarily in IEs, I have over 8 years of experience in forensics.

Debaters, I care most about quality of evidence and delivery of your arguments. I am particularly looking for strong LINKS. Don't force your audience to do the work for you!

I do not appreciate spreading at all and I tend to drop those who do.

That being said...be a good human! Be respectful! Have as much fun as you possibly can!

Kayla Salazar - IVC

n/a

Kevin Shufford - Maricopa

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

Kyle Duffy - COC

Kyle's Judging Philosophy

Hey there! I've been judging since 2016, mostly Individual Events like Prose, Drama, Informative, and Persuasive, so I'm more of a storytelling, logic-and-feelings kind of judge than a speed-and-theory one. Here's what I want you to know before we dive in:

The Please Dont's

Don't spread. Fast = fuzzy. I'd rather hear a select few of your BEST arguments, not all the ones you found in a panic five minutes ago.
Don't talk too fast. Talk to me like a normal human being. I have ADHD, the slower the better. I will unintentionally tune out if its a word avalanche.
Don't be mean. No personal attacks, no condescending vibes. Be passionate, not petty.

The Please Do's

Be clear and structured. Signpost your points like you're giving me GPS directions. Help me stay on the map. (I get lost easily)
Define your debate lingo. If you use fancy terms like "topicality" or "impact calculus", explain it. Pretend I'm 5 and I know nothing about debate (not far from the truth, lol).
Explain why it matters. Great logic is cool but tell me why your argument wins the round in the big picture final moment.
Time yourselves. I'm focused on you, not my stopwatch. Help me stay present.

Bonus Points (Not Really, But Spiritually)

These wont affect your score but they will make for a fun round:

Crack a joke? LOVE IT. Even if it flops, I respect the risk.
Feeling the feels? YES. Get emotional if the topic calls for it.
Use a weird metaphor about dinosaurs or robot lasers? CHEFS KISS.
Reference a fun fact, meme, or pop culture moment that fits? I'm here for it.
Make creative analogies or silly examples? I love those, bring 'em on.
Try something a little different? I'll always respect a creative risk. I'm rooting for you, not against you.

What I'm Really Judging

Two big things:

Did you convince me with logic and evidence?
Did you move me with passion and connection?

I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for people who care about their ideas and can make me care, too.

Final Words: Lets Make This Round Awesome!

Relax. Breathe. Be your weird, wonderful self. I'm fun. I'm fair. I believe that ALL students are MY students, so I'm rooting for you! Let's leave this round together thinking: Dang, that was actually fun!

Now go give 'em hell (respectfully).

Leslie Trejo - UCSD

n/a

Lily Bower-Moore - ULV

n/a

Luca Gianetto - UCSD

n/a

Madeline Marshall - PLNU

n/a

Mailyn Gilbert-Gallas - Maricopa

To keep it simple I decide who takes the W in the round based off of who has the better argumentation and articulation combined. Whichever side has the better case and can present it well will take the W. I am a very big believer that IPDA and Parliamentary should be separated as IPDA should be accessible. Off time roadmaps are allowed I also prefer having roadmaps for keeping track of each sides cases so I can make the most informed judgement. Speaking of keeping track I will flow rounds/take notes as well. Have fun you guys and I am so excited to judge. :D

Margaret Gach - HJ

n/a

Maria Garcia - UCSD

n/a

Matthew Minnich - EPCC

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

I like roadmaps and clear arguments.

Delivery is also just as important as the arguments themselves.

Melody Chen - UCSD

n/a

Mia Tobar - UCSD

n/a

Michael Shurance - CUI

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

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

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

Ks (In General):

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

Performance Ks:

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

Aff Ks:

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

Speed:

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

Ballot:

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

Impact Calc:

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

Michelle Gironda - Saddleback

The one rule to rule them all: Dont be an asshole.

Background:

I competed in all forms of debate at Orange Coast College for 2 years before moving to Loyola Marymount University and competing in BP for a year. I graduated from LMU with a BA in Communication Studies in 2018.

IPDA Generalities:

I generally believe that this form of debate should be accessible to the lay judge/person-meaning: minimal jargon, no spreading, and no mini-parli rounds. This is a separate form of debate and I will be treating it as such. While I welcome some parli structures such as plan and solvency-the should be parsed in a way that stays accessible to a lay judge. This should be a way to persuade the audience/judge that your case is the better option to choose.

General Philosophies:

Please don't spread. If you speed up towards the very end of your speech, thats fine but please don't spend all of your constructive spreading-it will end in an immediate loss on the ballot. Kritiks are very seldom going to fly with me, this is especially true for IPDA in which I really dont ever see how a Kritik would apply-so if you do it better be the most well run and effective K you have ever done. That being said a K will not immediately lose you a ballot. In Parli, I fall under the tabla rossa ideology, however in IPDA I take this stance but with a more relaxed view-in that I take into account generally wide known things that any lay person would know about or understand and will use that information to help fill in some gaps. That being said-don't expect me to fill in your case with critical details and ideas. Any case should be fleshed out to include all critical details, examples and main points of argumentation/contention, and clear structure. Make clear any voting issues as such-voters. I want to see why your case is more important, more impactful, has more magnitude, etc. Impacts are huge for me-make them clear and understandable but also extended out. Give me a clear way I should evaluate the debate and make sure your case ties back to this. Think criteria and impacts linked to that, amongst other ways.

I tend to have what many friends have lovingly called a RBF, but I do tend to show my feelings pretty clearly with my face and nonverbals in round-use this. Part of the job of a good debater is to persuade and part of persuasion is taking into account your audience and how they are receiving what you are speaking about. This holds especially true for IPDA.

TL;DR: Make a clearly structured case without abusive arguments and spreading but with good impacts and be clear how I should evaluate the round. Use all tools of persuasion within ethical and regulatory boundaries. Don't spread. Don't make debate not fun or educational.

Mikayla Holzinger - ULV

n/a

Mira Langin - UCSB

n/a

Nathan Estrick - CUI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Sciocchetti - PLNU

n/a

Noelle Planchon - PLNU

n/a

Oli Loeffler - SDSU

(they/them/theirs)

Coach for IPDA, NPDA, Impromptu, and Extemporaneous Speaking
Competed nationally and internationally in the same events
10 years of coaching experience (K-12 and college-level)
Competed for three years on the community college circuit

Judging Philosophy:

I prioritize access and education in debate rounds. Please provide clear organization in your initial constructive speechesthis sets up the framework for the round. At the end of the day, debate is about you having a fun, competitive outlet. If this means heavy tech and theory, great! If this means straight-up policy, also great! Just tell me how to evaluate the round.
I judge primarily off the flow. If you're going faster, maintain clarity. If youre responding to arguments, tagline as much as possible so things dont get lost.

Argument Preferences:

Theory: Im fine with most theory, but strategic moves shouldnt be uniquely abusiveIll do my best to engage with it.
Framework: Please give me a clear framework for evaluating the round.
Policy vs. Kritiks: Ill evaluate bothjust signpost well and make sure I understand how to weigh your arguments.
Speed: Totally fine, clarity is key.

IPDA & Other Formats:

My IPDA philosophy is nearly identical to my NPDA philosophyso just apply accordingly.

Other Notes:

Speaker points: Based on clarity, strategy, and round engagement.
No preference on sitting/standing do what makes you comfortable!
I will do my best to protect, but call your POOs to be safe.
Taglining is your best friend.

Oliver Sandoval Navarro - SDSU

n/a

Olivia Feuerman - SDSU

n/a

Olivia Zarragoza - Grossmont

n/a

Patricia Hughes - RioRunners

When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.

When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters.

I am not a fan of K s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.

I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.

While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Paulina Andreani - UCSD

n/a

Phillip Leavenworth - SDSU

n/a

Prutha Varude - UCSD

n/a

Quora Reese - Grossmont

n/a

Rachel Alarcon - Mt. SAC

n/a

Raffaela Sansone - Saddleback

Keep it conversational

Let me know how to evaluate the debate (i.e., provide a voting criteria)

No spreading please.

Have fun!

Rebekah Symank - CUI

n/a

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

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

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

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

Ryan Van Mouwerik - PLNU

n/a

Ryan Ariaee - UCSD

n/a

Sarah Walker - NAU

Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University

Altogether, I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary Debate.

I have a strong background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed, technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however, I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier judge.

Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c) Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make your arguments clear.

2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items

(a) I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy, not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b) When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those dropped args.
(d) Evidence is evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat. Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan, rather than simply insisting that it can be done.

3) Clipping Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a decision after the review. While I understand why other people proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.

4) Topicality debates: If you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the interpretations of the T.

5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.

Scott Plambek - SD Mesa

n/a

Shiloh Tamir - SD Mesa

1. Logical Argumentation: I prioritize clear and logical reasoning over jargon-heavy rhetoric. Arguments should be accessible and straightforward, allowing for a fair assessment based on their merit rather than specialized terminology.

2. Rejection of Spreading: I do not tolerate spreading. Speeches should be delivered at a pace that allows for comprehension and engagement. Clarity is key; if I cannot understand your argument, I cannot evaluate it.

3. Emotional Appeals: While emotional appeals can have their place in debate, I believe that reliance on themsuch as yelling or other high-energy tacticsindicates a weakness in logical argumentation. If you resort to these tactics, it suggests that your case lacks sufficient evidence or reasoning to stand on its own.

4. Fairness and Respect: I expect all participants to treat each other with respect and to engage in a fair and constructive manner. Debate should foster a positive environment for exchanging ideas.

Shiv Puliady - UCSD

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

Skip Rutledge Point Loma Nazarene University

40 + years judging debate (revised March, 2024)

6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate

Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer. Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995 and have added NFA LD, IPDA TPDA and BP. In addition to coaching my teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas. I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.

Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills. I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others defense. That probably makes me more of a big picture kind of critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. But I recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I dont hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15-20 minutes without direct access to very much research. Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical.

Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy. Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them. While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims, like 200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS do not become true just because it might be dropped. I think your word is your bond. If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true. If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner. The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. Sources should referenced.

I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . . I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up. I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points. It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins. Strong speakers are capable of logical errors that can sink their case.

I also think it is the debaters job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear. If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such. Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate. As such, I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo. They certainly should if the resolution requires it but may not have to if it does not. I think the resolution is key to the debate.

Having said that I do have some a priori biases. Since I believe the resolution is what is being debated, that has implications on counter plans. My a priori belief is that they should not be topical and should be competitive. Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even better way than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am certainly open to good theory debates, but in fairness, you should know my beginning base of understanding on this issue.

Finally, here is the core of my belief about debate in general: Debate is a zero sum game with a winner and a loser in competitive ballot terms. So I use this template to help be decide rounds:

Debate is focused clash on the resolution.
The Resolution is an argumentative statement that fairly divides the Affirmative ground from the Negative ground.
The Affirmative has the burden of proof
The Negative has the burden of refutation, rebuttal or rejoinder.
The Affirmative case should be a fair test of the validity of the resolution.

Sylvia Ho - UCSD

n/a

Taz Hellman - Saddleback

I believe debate no matter the form should be educational and respectful at its core. This is an academic event and should be treated as such.

Regardless of the type of debate I am watching, I do not like speed, rudeness, unnecesary procedural arguments, or critical positions. If you are spreading please keep in mind that I also have to be able to flow in order to properly judge. If you speak so fast that I cannot then I will just stop flowing.

Dont try to read my facial expressions on how you're doing in debate, not even I am aware of half of my expressions and it could mean literally anything. Stay confident in yourself and you will do great.

I also believe in the rightful distinction between debate events. IPDA is to be accessible to the lay audience while Parli has the room to be more technical. I appreciate signposting/good structure so if you do that I will be a very happy judge!

I will vote solely based on what is said and what is on the flow. I will not make inferences that are not stated if it takes a lot of jumps in logic. I do flow Cross-ex and Points of Information as I believe they are just as much a part of debate as anything else when it comes to the flow.

Feel free to ask any neccesary questions before the round.

Thuy Pham - Mt. SAC

Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means

clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow.
no spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you!
you are courteous to your opponent.
you make it clear why I should vote for you.

Excited to see you all debate!

Valeria Gastelum - PLNU

n/a

Valeria Gomez Castellanos - UCSB

n/a

Van Wheelan - Grossmont

n/a

Willa Mac Ban - PLNU

n/a

stephen Fazio - Grossmont

n/a

2025 Griffin Invitational

Tournament Time: 11:14 PM Pacific