2025 Groundhog Day Invitational (Saturday)

Grossmont College - Feb 1 | Status: Completed | 7:08 PM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 7:08 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

AJ Crawford - PLNU

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

Alex Tseng - PLNU

PSCFA: I'm not a communications critic. I will evaluate the debate in the most technically way possible. Debate as national circuit as possible if that matches your skillset. If you can't, I'll still do the best I can but both sides will like my decision more, the more national circuit you are.
TLDR: Read the arguments you want. I will flow and evaluate them. I will always vote on the execution of an argument rather than whether I think it is true or not. I have a slight preference for policy debates but I also like a well-executed Kritik debate. All of my preferences are just preferences and can be reversed through good debating.
Full Paradigm:
Top level things:
-As a caveat, everything in my paradigm is just my opinion and can be reversed through good debating.
-Tech>Truth.
-Nothing is at 0 or 100% risk. I evaluate debate as to which arguments have a higher risk and which ones are quantifiably bigger or implicate the debate on a deeper level.
-Debate determines risk until I'm told why it isn't.
-I don't have a problem voting for "lies" but I'd rather vote for true arguments.
-Some people whose opinions about the debate I admire are Chris Tai, Scott Wheeler, Raam Tambe, and Danish Khan.
-In my opinion, the negative does not read enough off-case positions most of the time.
-Judge instruction is underutilized but the team that uses it more will make the debate easier to decide.
Email chains are a big vibe:alexdebates109@gmail.com
My Decision Process:
Some habits in my decision process:
-I usually evaluate defense first, I usually vote for the least mitigated argument.
-I make the techiest decision, usually without explanation from the other team. I pay more attention to implications when left to my own devices.
I will do my best to actively assess who is ahead during the debate however, this does not mean an instant decision. I will try to give a timely well thought out decision as fast as I can because I believe it's the debaters job to debate their best, and the judges to be an active listener and decisionmaker which means to think critically through the debate as it goes on. The way I use this process is by assigning risk based on explanation and/or comparison of arguments. Usually, I base the way I assign risk of on dropped arguments, explanations, and comparisons between which arguments should be considered to be the nexus question of the debate and which should not. Just to be clear when I mention explanation, I don't mean explain your argument about what is but how it fits throughout the overall strategic context of the round. This means quantifying why your evidence proves that argument has a broader scope than your opponents. Absent reading evidence, I usually vote for the team that has best articulated why their argument's risk is higher or can be quantiified as much bigger. Good ev/argument comparison, framing arguments, and evidence that can be well explained in a strategic context can shift this process in your favor. The reason for my decisionmaking process is that I believe in tech over truth and I don't try to do alot of work people. Explanation is important but only in the context of me evaluating the debate in a purely technical way because I do not want to evaluate the relative truth claims of arguments as much as I can. That is not so say I am truth over tech, the process I just listed probably only applies if the debate is close. If an argument is dropped, it's dropped and I have SUPER LOW threshold for dropped arguments which I will vote on. The more you use the process above to direct my decision, the less my predispositions factor into the decision.
I believe that the evidence determines the scope of the argument. I.E if you powertag your extinction card but it only says small scenario for war, I'll probably not against a powertagged card if the other team points it out but I'll vote for lies in any other instance.
Online Specific Stuff:
-Go 85-90% of how fast you would go in an in-person round.
-I do not require you to turn your camera if you do not feel comfortable doing so.
-If you are reading blocks that are mostly analytics, slow down a bit because not all of us have the best internet connections.
Policy Paradigm:
Kritiks:
I am a mid judge for the kritik. I think that thesis claims and links are the most important part of the Kritik. Thesis level claims should forward a description of the world that filters how I evaluate the other parts of the Kritik. For example, if you read antiblackness or Psychoanalysis, you would want to win arguments such as Blackness is ontological, Psychoanalysis is true, or the state is irredeemable. Links should be about the plan, not just rant about why a certain ideology is bad. I'm probably the worst for the K on the alt. If you don't have a K that relies heavily on winning the thesis, you should focus on winning the alt the most. I don't think I'm in the automatically assuming that the alt doesn't do anything camp but I'm not deep enough into K lit to make extrapolations based on certain buzzwords or phrases. Referencing specific lines of aff evidence that show that the aff is the ideology you are Kritiking will go far. Aff teams should leverage their aff against the K way more imho. I understand Kritik's are multifaceted and have many ways to win on them, so both sides should explain why the parts of the Kritik debate they are winning matter if you decide to divert from my preferences.
T vs Policy Aff:
Plans should be topical. Painting a scary version of the topic that creates an unreasonable research burden for the negative is always a good strategy. Depicting a litany of affs that the 2N cannot prepare for is fine. If you make a ground argument, explain why the specific Affs, Disads, or Counterplans are necessary for your side to have a fair chance at winning rather than just saying we lose "x" ground without explanation as to why that ground is necessary in the first place.
T vs K aff:
I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan but that is not a deal-breaker. I recognize that some Kritikal affirmatives have a great deal of value and are some of the best arguments in debate read by the best debaters but a lot of K affs are part of a phase that some debaters have where they want to be a "K debater" because it's fun, new, or more interesting. Rants aside, my preferences are just that; my preferences, I will ultimately vote for the team that does the better debating in the most technical way possible in every debate I judge no matter what argument the debaters read.
If you develop 1-3 pieces of good offense, I will be more inclined to vote aff. In general, the whole "we're a discussion of the resolution" argument is a decent counter-interpretation but the more aff takes the side of the discussion that affirms the action of the resolution, the more likely I'll vote aff. Redefining the words of resolution can be good too. I think that affirmatives that don't have the grammar of a plan but still affirm the action of the resolution like the "No is illegal" aff from the immigration topic are up for debate because it still gave some ground (but not enough) to the negative. Anything that goes in the direction of carte blanche rejection of the topic will be a harder sell.
If you are against a kritikal affirmative, I think that procedural fairness is the most tangible impact that my ballot has an effect over. I prefer if you read standards that engage or turn the aff's offense or demonstrate that their description of the world and debate is inaccurate or problematic. DO NOT argue racism, sexism, homophobia good, etc. but challenge the operationalization of the aff's theory in the debate by reading standards that challenge the scope of the claim that the 1AC forwards.
General Policy Stuff:
- Framing is a supplement, not a substitute for answering disads.
- Read arguments that justify the educational model of how we talk about impacts. Things "Learning about extinction is valuable" or "Extinction prediction education is bad"
-If you are reading a soft left, read arguments about extinction prediction models fail rather than some ethical orientation about immediate violence comes first.
-Debate in meta-level characterizations that tell the story of the debate. COMPARE arguments. Say things like link speaks to a broader event that the aff causes or the link evidence only describes a small event that the aff outweighs. OR "the aff's advantage is minuscule but the disad is huge because they conceded "x", "y", and "z" argument.
Counterplans:
Read them. There's not much to say here. Read a counterplan. Make sure it solves a sufficient part of the aff. Define what is a sufficient amount of the aff is solved by the counterplan and vice versa for the aff. Ideally point to lines in the evidence that identify these thresholds for solvency. Quantify counterplan solvency/solvency deficits by telling how big or a small counterplan solvency or the solvency deficit is. Solvency advocates for counterplans are helpful but not having one isn't a deal breaker.
Disads:
I evaluate them probabilistically and usually don't vote on arguments that are direct yes/no questions. Make arguments about the Aff/Disad having higher risk is the way to go for me. I care more about the impact debate than I used to but the link is still most important. Politics Disads are good and they teach valuable political forecasting skills that are extremely useful in the field of political science like making predictions about the political ramifications of political action in a probabilistic manner.
Theory:
The debate determines whether a counterplan is legitimate or not as well as any other theoretical question. All things equal, I default negative on condo, states, international counterplans, PICs, and process counterplans. If you are to go for theory, make arguments about why the negative promotes a model of debate that creates worse education or lower quality arguments rather than some claim about why it makes debate too hard for you. Counterplan theory aside, I'm agnostic. You don't have to have an interpretation but it would better if you did. Don't blaze through blocks. Do line by line.
LD paradigm:
- All of the policy stuff applies.
- I have little to no comprehension of "phil" or techy strategies germane to LD and I will evaluate "phil" like a Kritik. The closer you are to policy debate, the happier everyone will be with my decision.
- I think condo is good but I find condo bad to be more debatable in LD than in policy.
-My initial thoughts is that "Nebel" or "T: Whole Res" is a ridiculous argument. I think that it opens up the aff to all sorts of ridiculous PICs. However, I won't reject the argument on face but arguments about format distinctions between LD and Policy and justifications for why this interpretation pushes better solvency advocates will make this a more tenable argument when reading it in front of me.
Speaker Points:
I start at a 28 and work up or down from there.
27 - Still learning
28 - Alright
28.5 to 29 - You probably can break
29.5 and above - Semis/Finals

Ally Gilmeister - PLNU

n/a

Amie Clarke - GCU

n/a

Andre Abrahamian - CUI

n/a

Aniyah Kazi - UCSD

n/a

Annalise Welsh - PLNU

n/a

Arnav Sharma - UCSD

n/a

Ashton Poindexter - Utah

I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD throughout my college forensics experience and currently coach at the University of Utah.

I'm okay with whatever arguments you want to run so long as you do clear warranted analysis, argument comparison, and evidence comparison. A couple of key considerations are:
I have a higher threshold for theory if you don't collapse to it.

Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.
I'll default to topicality/theory being apriori, so if you want me to evaluate something else first you need to make the arguments.
You can't win just because your advocacy could also solve the issue if you haven't linked them to offense.
I'm good with speed, though there's two reservations. First, I often flow electronically now so I need a bit extra time between page transitions. Second, if your opponents ask you to slow I expect you to slow. If you need someone to slow, you should say slow and not clear, clarity I expect them to bite their pallet while still going quick.
In general - I like good arguments, I don't like bad arguments. Pleasemake good arguments and be a good human being while you do it.

Averie Vockel - Utah

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.

DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.

DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.

DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.

Ayush Singhal - 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.

Brianna Hosmer-Laky - PLNU

n/a

Byron Lu - UCSD

n/a

Cesar Morales - UCSD

n/a

Christian Curtiss - Utah

In my ~10 years being involved in Debate, I've come to understand debate as competitive storytelling. In a round, you're essentially telling me a story about the resolution: who is effected by the res, what happens when we adopt the res, and why that matters. Whichever side best articulates a world post resolution - as well as telling me why that world is good or bad in comparison to the other side's world - wins the ballot.

I want to do the least amount of work possible when making my decision. Your voter speech should make it clear to me what arguments I am voting on, and how I am weighing them in the round. The more that you leave the judge in the dark, the higher the chance the round is just a coin toss. Don't let that happen, make it crystal clear why you win. I don't want to have to sift through the flow to find your winning argument.

Generally, I'm fine with whatever arguments you want to run (Kritiks, CPs, Theory) in any format, as long as you justify that argument well enough. Love me some critical arguments, but please don't just drop "hyperreal" or some equally obscure term and expect your judges and opponents to know what that is.

Any questions before or after round, just ask!

Chuck Deng - UCSD

n/a

Claire Xie - UCSD

n/a

Daniel Goldzband - PLNU

n/a

Devin Brown - UCSD

n/a

Dr. Vanessa Fountain - Grossmont

n/a

Dylan Clark - PLNU

n/a

Efrain Godinez - PLNU

n/a

Eliana Clerie - CUI

n/a

Elliot DiMartino - CUI

n/a

Eric Li - UCSD

n/a

Felip Gerdes - UCSD

n/a

Giovanni Gomez - UCSD

n/a

Greg Gorham - GCU

Hagan Chan - UCSD

n/a

Haidyn Christoffel - CUI

Hi there! I am the Assistant Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. My partner and I were 3rd at NPDA my senior year.

NPDA:

Kriticisms: I read a lot of Kriticisms as a competitor, but just because I might understand some of your lit base, does not mean I will do the work for you when it comes to evaluating the flow. Also, I might not understand your specific K, so please explain it and what it does in the alt and solvency clearly. I am not voting on arguments I do not understand. I also really like specific links on neg K's, as I think they can function as independent offense on the aff if done correctly. In regards to non-topical affirmatives, I would like to see some justification for rejecting the topic to show that your aff actually does something or sets a norm in the debate space.

Theory: I am not so sure how I feel about frivolous theory, as I feel that it literally defeats the entire point of theory in the first place, which is to preserve fairness and education in debate. Examples of frivolous theory I would most likely not vote on are (but not limited to): must pass texts in the speech (just do it after your speech or in flex) and disclosure (I don't know how that even works in parli). Otherwise, I enjoy a good theory debate! MG theory is cool, again, don't make it frivolous.I default to competing interps over reasonability if no voters tell me otherwise. Please be specific and give me a bright line if you would like me to evaluate a theory sheet using reasonability.

Case: Case debate is always fun. If this is what you are the most comfortable defending, go for it!

Speed: I am personally okay with speed. Please be clear. Please read important tags like all advocacies, ROB's, and interps twice or slow down so I make sure I have them flowed correctly. I will audibly slow or clear you if I cannot keep up. I would encourage you to do the same if you cannot keep up with your opponents and vise versa.

Impact calculus: Without impact calc, I feel that the round is infinitely harder for me to weigh. Please do this in the rebuttals, even if you collapse to theory. I will most likely default to valuing the highest magnitude impact if not told to weigh the round otherwise.

Lastly, please do not make morally reprehensible arguments.

LD:

I have no preferences other than I really would like to not have to evaluate disclosure theory (on the aff or neg). Otherwise, most of my parli paradigm can be applied here.

IPDA only:

My ballot will mainly be decided on the way arguments interact with each other rather than how well of a speaker the competitors are.I will not flow cross-ex, so if you want me to flow an argument, please make it in your speech.I think the definitions debate is the highest layer in the round, and I will evaluate that before I look to the other arguments. I enjoy strong impact calculus. So if the round permits, please tell me why your impacts matter the most and why I should care. I think sometimes burdens in IPDA become unclear. I think the aff should defend the topic, even if it is in some fun and creative way that I was not expecting.I think the neg's burden is to disprove the aff or offer reasons as to why the aff causes something bad to happen, don't just negate the topic alone.

Lastly, I think debate is a game and we can all gain something from every round. I want to encourage you all to be kind to one another and have fun with the event. Feel free to ask me any other questions in person! Good luck and have fun! :)

James Laky - PLNU

Im a parli debater at heart but in my twelve years Ive dabbled with all four major styles we
practice in the PacSW region (IPDA/TPDA, NPDA, LD, BP)
Tl;dr: Give me impacts and tell me why they outweigh your opponent. If you dont, Ill have to
do the work and you might not like the results.
K Debate: I love a good K. Consequently, that also means I hate lazy Ks. If there are major
components like Thesis, ROB, or any unique solvency then it will be very easy for your
opponent to non-unique the link level of your K. Solvency is the most important area of the K
and the most historically undercovered. Tell me how to sequence the K against case and theory.
If you dont; Ill probably weigh them equally and it will be easy for your opponent to win on
probability. Winning framework wont guarantee a win if you lose the rest of your K.
Theory: As a competitor, I was a theory hack, but that doesnt mean Ill vote for you just
because you run a spec sheet. I default to reasonability unless you say the words competing
interps. I wont ignore RVIs but I have a pretty high bar for voting on them. I dont mind if you
run Theory as a time tradeoff but you shouldnt mind if your opponent calls you out for doing so.
MG theory is pretty much my favorite but it follows the same rules as theory out of the LOR
Case: Case debate seems like a lost art to me sometimes. Leverage your uniqueness, warrant
your links, and terminalize your impacts. I love the cross-application of arguments from one
sheet to another. I evaluate counterplans as an opportunity cost disad, and perms as theoretical
tests of competition.
Speed: I can track with speed and have no fundamental issue with it; however, I do have a
fundamental issue with debaters losing access to rounds, so if you can speed, great. But if your
opponent cannot, pay attention to that because I will be.
Impact Calc: Without impact calc, youre practically guaranteeing that I have to intervene in the
round in some way. I typically prefer probability to magnitude, but Ill vote on any calculus as
long as you give me reasons to prefer.
IPDA: While I typically find myself being a primarily tech over truth style judge, I understand
the purpose of IPDA is to be a more persuasive form of debate, so I will tend to be looser on my
expectations for mechanics (though not on my desire for a clean flow.) That said, if you tell me it
is a policy, you need to have a plan. With solvency. And advantages. Most of my ballots in IPDA
tend to come down to framing arguments. If youre telling me how I should vote and that youre
doing that thing best, youll probably win my ballot. I do not flow cross-x.
What I would like to see: Be creative and weird! I dont know what happened but when I was
debating, we ran advocacies based on Star Wars and My Little Pony and Starcraft and Lovecraft.
Ive won rounds on the argument that Finland doesnt exist. Im in no way saying you have to be
outlandish but please take the chance on running arguments in a way besides the most obvious
path.
Bottom line: debate is a game. Be gamey. But be fair and fun.

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.

John Symank - CUI

n/a

John Loo - SDSU

n/a

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

Jordan Shaw - UCSD

n/a

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.

Kiran Kumar - UCSD

n/a

Konrad Hack - CUI

 

Kyle Pryor-Landman - SDSU

Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am the ADOF at SDSU and Secretary of the NPDA. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.

TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.

FAQs:

  1. What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
    1. I am pretty comfortable with most of the lit in the meta! If you want to do something outside of that, just explain it!
  2. Can I spread? Sure, just don't be abusive. (I am not a fan of listening to or evaluating speed T so please just be nice to each other :D )
  3. Can I reject the topic? Update 2025 - I don't like K affs, and I think they are probably not good for parli debate. Unless there are clear links to the topic, and you're winning them, I am probably the wrong judge for a K aff. I have a pretty low threshold for buying FW-T, so do what you will with that.
  4. What do you want to see?: In order from most to least enjoyable for me to judge:
    1. Topical Aff vs. Disads/CP/T
    2. Topical Aff vs. K
    3. K aff vs. FW-T
    4. K aff vs. K (everyone understands their K)
    5. K aff vs K (no one understands their K) (I am the wrong judge to break your new K aff in front of)
  5. Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
  6. Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
  7. Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
  8. Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
  9. Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
  10. What about LD?: Cross apply everything from parli. I do pre-flow a bit to save my wrists, so be clear about where you are cutting your cards if you do.
  11. How do you feel about IPDA?: I am coming to terms with it. The closer it is to NPDA, the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am.
    1. What does this mean for me?: Strike to the policy topic, read a plan, and actually interact with your opponent's arguments. If you really want to do a value that's fine, just tell me how to evaluate your arguments. Please don't strike to the fact. In the case you do, please don't say preponderance of evidence and assume I know what you mean by that. I'm not counting warrants. INFO is for that.
    2. I am NOT EVER voting on things like eye contact (please don't stare at me), presentation (will be reflected in speaks, not the W), dress, speed, tone of voice, etc.
    3. Also, please spare me the thank yous, and don't shake my hand. I don't know where those things have been, and I want them nowhere near me.
  12. Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge? I like to have a fun, silly, goofy time in debate rounds. (This does not mean you shouldn't take debate seriously.) I also have carpal tunnel (thanks, grad school!), so my written RFDs are going to be shorter than they used to be. Email me after the tournament if you want more written feedback, but you should also write down your oral feedback anyway.
  13. Clash makes me scared! What should I do? Respond to your opponent, or you probably won't win.
  14. If I ask you what your paradigm is before the round, what will you say?: It's on ForensicsTournament if you want to check it out.

Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell

Speaks: 26-30 unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard all year, 26 being you did not include significant portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you. I am not a point fairy and I think speaks matter.

ps. don't read fun as a voter unless you're gonna terminalize that.

Lola Lambert - SDSU

n/a

Lucas Howard-Ron - UCSD

IPDA:
Please just keep things fun and approachable. I seriously discourage any rudeness or personal attacks, remember debate is still just an activity where two D1 yappers go head to head, nothing less or more. Basically just dont be a dick.
NPDA:
I am not super familiar with NPDA, but that doesnt mean you cant have super nuanced and specific impacts / approaches. That being said, if youre running tech or something completely left-field, just explain it to me in chill terms so I can consider it.
Speech:
Extemp:
Have fun here! I know Extemp is usually a very proper event but feel free to inject some personality into your speeches.
Impromptu:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE actually do it impromptu. If a speech feels canned, Ill automatically place it beneath any off-the-cuff speech. I just love people being creative with their hobbies and really making those connections to the topic on their own.

Mahkaila Browning - UCSD

n/a

Marc Ouimet - CSU San Marcos

n/a

Michael Marse - CBU

I adopt a real-world policy-maker paradigm, which means:

  • I give leeway to either side to point out deliberate obfuscation and/or spread as a procedural voter.
  • I give leeway to the affirmative to argue that critiques/kritiks should be treated as disadvantages.
  • I believe the resolution has primacy, so unless the affirmative rejects the resolution, the negative has no ground to argue for the resolution by offering a topical counterplan.
  • Value resolutions should aim for clarity with arguments used in support of a side.  Values can not, generally, become facts through argument.
  • Fact resolutions should rarely be argued since the required objective verification is difficult with no pre-written evidence allowed.
  • Affirmatives in a policy round should provide enough detail to allow the negative to make arguments, but are not required to provide absolute certainty.  So, an expensive plan should generally state what the source of funding should be, or which types of programs will be cut to pay for the plan.  Specific amounts and line items are not required.

I flow arguments, not responses. So, a claim of "no link" with no grounds will be ignored.

Ties go to the best arguments, and in the case of argumentation being close, the win will go to the best (most effective in a real-world scenario) delivery style.

Mo Tao - UCSD

n/a

Nadalie Leon-Munoz - CSULB

n/a

Nahiyan Raidah - 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. 

Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU

I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!

Nic Regal - CSU San Marcos

n/a

Rebekah Symank - CUI

n/a

Reva Saxena - UCSD

n/a

Rhiannon Lewis - CSULB

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

Please time yourselves, and have fun!

Sam Jones - PLNU

? 

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.

Sarah Howard - CUI

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

? 

Sophia Mekhael - UCSD

n/a

Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF

n/a

Varuzhan Khalatyan - UCSD

n/a

Zach Beach - UCSD

n/a