Judge Philosophies

AJ Crawford - PLNU

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

Andrea Wuerth - PLNU

n/a

Andrew Jassick - Grossmont

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

Brianna Hosmer-Laky - PLNU

n/a

Byron Lu - UCSD

n/a

Caitlin Drees - IVC

I am an argumentation professor who has a very little experience with debate in competition. I do not know all the technical jargon so it will not help you in the round. You will want to explain your arguments and how they matter in the round. If you need me to understand the jargon you will need to explain it. Also be polite and nice to each other because I hate rudeness.

My forensic experience as a competitor was limited prep events.

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. 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 your points are better than the other sides'.
If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them. Otherwise, I'm happy to give critiques after the round is finished, after my 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 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: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for 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 definitely buy that argument.
Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

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!

Claire Xie - UCSD

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!

Dan Goldzband - PLNU

n/a

David Fountain - Grossmont

n/a

Devin Brown - UCSD

n/a

Dr. Vanessa Fountain - Grossmont

n/a

Efrain Godinez - PLNU

n/a

Eric Li - UCSD

n/a

Gary Pascale - PLNU

n/a

Greg Gorham - GCU

Hagan Chan - UCSD

n/a

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.

John Symank - CUI

n/a

John Loo - SDSU

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.

Kaitlin Rauh - 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:

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!
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 )
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.
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)
Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
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.
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.
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.
Clash makes me scared! What should I do? Respond to your opponent, or you probably won't win.
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.

Leane Hepburn - UCSB

n/a

Marc Ouimet - CSU San Marcos

n/a

Nadalie Leon-Munoz - CSULB

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!

Rebekah Symank - CUI

n/a

Rebel St. Lilith - CSULB

n/a

Reva Saxena - UCSD

n/a

Robert Campbell - UCSD

Head Coach, University of California Speech & Debate. Former member of the national championship teams at the University of Kansas. An ideal debate round involves organization of case and arguments, clarity, and clash (direct argumentation). I despise "spreading" (no auctioneer ever won an argument) and any Affirmative "K"s (debate the resolution).

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

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.

Sophia Mekhael - UCSD

n/a

Toni Rutledge - PLNU

Toni is big on sources to back up the claims made and warants offered, with current sources.

She is also big on eye contact and not just reading from notes, to help in training for real life skills.

And if she cannot hear and understant you, she cannot accurately evaluate the debate or event, and especially due to speaking too quickly. This might also extend to making technical debate philosophy points rather than focusing on the resolution.

Please avoid rudeness, disrespect of partner and or opponant, and she also values professional dress and appearance.

Speaking style and politeness are both important, as is organizational layout and formatting. Clarity is often key.

If you want to get a better idea of the resolution focus you might look to Skip Rutledges comments on the 5 core elements of debate in his judging philosophy in FTN. So strategically this might mean, arguing the resolution might be more effective than exploring issues extraneous to the core of the resolution.

Varuzhan Khalatyan - UCSD

n/a

Yuyang Gu - UCSD

n/a

Zach Beach - UCSD

n/a

Zeke Falcone - PLNU

n/a

2025 Groundhog Day Invitational (Sunday)

Tournament Time: 8:43 PM Pacific