2024 Nicholas F Burnett "Hornet Cup" Invitational

CSU Sacramento - Mar 22-24 | Status: Completed | 4:57 PM Pacific

Tournament Image
Tournament Time: 4:57 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Adam DeCamp - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Alexandria Matlock - Deb@Davis

n/a

Alexis Litzky - CCSF

I have spent many years coaching/judging/directing at San Francisco State University, University of San Francisco, and now City College of San Francisco. Notice a theme?


My threshold for argumentation is relatively low: I coach and will vote on any argument that is well supported and persuasively presented. Excellent warrants and evidence will take you farther than empty tagline and generalized debating. I like topic specific education, but I also like new interpretations of education and the topic. I love this activity because in many debates I have witnessed I learned something new about the topic and about the debaters involved.

What does this really mean for debaters? 


1 - I try to let the debaters control the interpretation and framework of the debate. Try to be clear and focused about what you think the criteria or role of the ballot is/should be, and what that means for me. This is the first question I resolve whenever Iâm making a decision.


2 - You should run and go for arguments that you think are germane to the topic and politically salient for you, not what you think I want to hear. I have literally voted for every "type" or "genre" of argument, and I wish you would spend less time trying to overly adapt to my judging preferences. I take judging seriously, and you should know that I approach every debate with the same sense of importance whether it is a first-time Novice or a 2-year long competition with your favorite rival. I try to provide as much intellectual and professional integrity as one can, and I hope you do the same. 


This also means that there is no specific bright line that you need to pass on theory for me to vote for it, or any kind of specific component of an argument that will help you win. There are some normative standards that always affect judges, like you need to have some sort of impact to win the debate. But I canât in good faith say that impacts are always more important that links, but link debates can be incredibly salient if the neg is making a good solvency press. 


3 - I love the flow. Not in an overly fetishistic sort of way, but I definitely take the practice the seriously. My students think itâs weird, and maybe it is. But I love the satisfaction of tracking arguments throughout the debate. This does not mean that if you drop an argument itâs over for you, but you do have to tell me why you decided to spent 6 minutes on framework rather than answering another major argument the opponent is going for. Itâs also the primary tool that will help me resolve many debates. Unless, of course, you tell me why it shouldnât matter. In which case, I will probably still flow (because Iâm me) but please donât take that as an affront to you.


Some thoughts on style:

My background in CEDA/NDT debate means that Iâm fine with speed, but there is a limit to how much I actually think thatâs required. People who are trying to sound fast but actually arenât fast will not be rewarded. People who are clear, fast, and engaging with the arguments and the other team will be rewarded. People who actually use the flow and respond to specific arguments will be rewarded. Youâre also more likely to win the debate. I particularly appreciate it when debaters highlight arguments they think will become particularly key or relevant to the debate.


Other than that, I have some general love for: 

  • New ways of understanding the same old business.

  • Critical interrogation.

  • Thought experiments.

  • Surprises.

  • Debates that inspire and challenge my sense of political engagement.

  • Hannah Arendt.

  • Jokes, smiles, and sassy attitudes. These will get you infinitely farther than rude, brutish, and hurtful debates. You have the rest of your life to be as serious as you want, use this unique space and time to enjoy yourself and learn about the topic and each other.


Enjoy yourself, and remember to have fun! Itâs the weekend and we like to be here!


:) 

Angela Ohland - Butte

I'm a fairly new judge to the forensics community. I am primarily an IE judge/coach and have limited experience with debate. As a result, please consider me a lay judge and try to use clear roadmapping and speak clearly and persuasively. I appreciate an impactful opening and a clear preview.

Fairness and respect are paramount for me. My goal is to provide constructive (primarily delivery focused feedback) that helps competitors refine their skills. I look forward to witnessing your talents on display!

Anju Vriksha - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Arley Rodriguez - Fresno State

Interp coach with debate experience. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.

Banafshae Khan - Sacramento

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. banafshaekhan@gmail.com

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, despite the smack-talking I will endure from your opponent and their coaches. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

Bethany Davis - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Brandon Garcia - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

n/a

Caitlin Taffe - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Carlos Flores - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Cody Peterson - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Craig Hennigan - UNLV

Find my paradigm on tabroom.com

Dillon Carroll - Butte

n/a

Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY..DOUG FRALEIGH FRESNO STATE (he/him/his)

Background

Co-Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Co-Director, Fresno State Prison Debate Program. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Also coached and judged NPDA, IPDA, LD, and individual events. For the past three years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.

Overview about debate genres

My judging philosophy originated as a policy debate paradigm. It applies equally well to LD. Based on the NPDA rounds that I have judged post-COVID, it is my belief that NPDA has evolved into NDT/CEDA debate, but with a new topic every round. And every team had evidence, so it seems that the community has performatively overturned the "no evidence" rule.

I think it would be nifty if IPDA remained an alternative for students who are new to debate or would rather debate in a format where there is less emphasis on speed and the arguments are more real world, especially given that there are plenty of policy-like options for students who would prefer that type of debate. In IPDA rounds (especially novice) I will give more weight to delivery and be less flow-centric than in other genres of debate.

What Should You Know About How I Judge?

  1. I am not opposed to any genre of argument. In IPDA, there is less time for constructive speeches (and only a single constructive in one-on-one debates), so arguments that require extensive development may not be the best choice. I will judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round, rather than my general familiarity with a position.
  2. I flow debates and the line-by-line arguments are important. However, I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. T is an RVI, fairness), even if it is dropped.
  3. I am not looking for speed in IPDA. It could benefit you to briefly explain the story of your argument, especially if it is a major position you plan to go for in rebuttals.
  4. Theory arguments are ok, but I do not look forward to them with the enthusiasm that some of my colleagues do.

What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?

  1. Clash with your opponents arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.
  2. Although debaters are not supposed to "read evidence" in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
  3. Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. For example, instead of just saying you are on the case or the disad and mashing all your arguments together, identify the specific argument you are rebutting or extending. If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.
  4. Good delivery is a plus. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit and emphasize the most essential arguments in final speeches, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.
  5. Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner (in some debate formats anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege (this is especially true at nationals); have fun and enjoy the journey.

Procedural Considerations

  1. Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument in the next speech and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.
  2. I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.

Policy Resolutions

  1. For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff a 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.
  2. On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in your last rebuttal) and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than policy rounds.
  3. Counterplans can be a very good strategy, but they should be explained in the same detail as an affirmative plan. (Affirmative permutations also need the same detail, don't string together three or four permutations without analysis or explanation.) Your CP needs to be non-topical and competitive.

Fact and Value Resolutions

  1. The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
  2. The negative is welcome to dispute the affirmatives classification and/or criteria. My default is that non-policy resolutions which contain a subjective term like "best" or "more important" are value resolutions not fact.
  3. In neither side clearly wins the resolutional analysis issue, my default method for resolving the conflict is which teams vision for the round promotes a more educational and equitable debate.

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

Ethan Stern - Deb@Davis

I believe that theory, of all types, is the aPriori issue. I will be voting next on the core argument of the round as it is based on the voters. I believe that it is not necessarily the team that speaks better that should win the round, but the team that has more merit on the issues they are trying for that will win. As a person, I prefer to see debates without huge amounts of theory, that said I will still vote on it as the aPirori issue.

Evan Valerio - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Evangelic Schumeier - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Farzam Oshidary - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Jackie Blair - UNLV

n/a

Jackie Blair - Sacramento

Experience. I have competed for four years at California State University of Sacramento in the following events: National Forensics Association Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, Public Forum, and Impromptu.Additionally, I have participated in the Communications 111 class rookie tournament for four years as a coach and a judge.As a rookie coach, I have worked on debate evidence in the following areas: as a writing coach, case writer, rookie tournament judge, research student, and on-case and off-case writing for constructive and rebuttal speeches.Lastly, I have competed in the affirmative/negative debates at the local city council's online reading practices.

Debate Judging Philosophy.My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate round based on policy maker paradigm, critical paradigm, and/or rule-based theory.I believe that both the affirmative and negative must meet their burdens with well-developed arguments.This means that the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language and evidence.Next, I believe debates should be followed in a recognizable format and should provide greater knowledge with the use of analysis and refutation.I will evaluate the round based on advantages, disadvantages, and weighing of impacts.Speed is Okay.

Individual Events.The mechanics of speech must be observed faithfully –poise, quality, use of voice, effectiveness, ease of gesture, emphasis, variety, and enunciation. In addition, the participant must be able to interpret the full meaning of the oration and be able to carry the interpretation over to the audience.

 

Janene Whitesell - Solano CC

I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:

1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.

2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.

3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.

4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.

5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.

6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.

7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.

8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?

9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.

Jasmine Avila - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Joey Barrows - Delta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please ask any questions before round if you'd like

Jonathan Reyes - UOP

What's up!

I competed in NPDA and LD for University of the Pacific from 2019 - 2023. Before that I competed for 6 years in middle school and high school, in PF, LD, and Policy. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for University of the Pacific.

TLDR/Parli

I like topical advocacies. I like when counter-advocacies are unconditional. I like clever and strategic theory. I can handle speed but I wasn't the fastest debater so keep that in mind.

Specific Arguments/Parli

AFF Cases

While I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy, I am still willing to vote on AFFs that do not. Those AFFs will just have to spend more time explaining their argument and their justification for not defending the topic. With that in mind, I do have a lower threshold to vote on theory/framework against AFFs that don't defend the topic.

K/CP/Condo

For the K, you can read whatever you want but I probably don't have a great understanding of the lit its based off of. A thesis would be great. I also tend to think that most alternatives don't actually solve the in-round/out-of-round harms they claim that they do so clear explanations of how the alt solves is best.

For the CP, I love them. If they are abusive or could be seen as abusive (like delay), be careful because I will be receptive to theory arguments claiming that they are.

For condo, while I prefer unconditional advocacies and probably have a lower threshold than most to vote on condo bad, I won't auto drop the team for being conditional. I will still evaluate the condo bad sheet and if the neg wins this sheet than they're good to be as conditional as they please. With that being said, the threshold is much lower when the neg reads multiple conditional advocacies.

Theory/Topicality

I have a pretty low threshold for voting on any LOC theory/topicality, even frivolous ones, if it is clear and strategic. I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger but it definitely makes it a lot easier to vote for you. I have a higher threshold to vote on MG theory except for Condo Bad, which I am much more likely to vote on.

Speed

If you were faster than me or think that you were faster than me, then you probably were so a little bit slower than your top speed will ensure I get 99% of your arguments.

LD

Read what you want. Disclose.

Email

If you have any questions feel free to email me at j_reyes21@u.pacific.edu.

Josh Harzman - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Julian Stacy - Sacramento

I am in my first semester of grad school and my first semester of judging. I competed on the CSU Sacramento Debate Team for 4 semesters, primarily in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. I started as a novice, with absolutely no debate experience. I found the debate community to be a very welcoming and safe space to learn and grow along my educational journey. Thus, I would like to see that same friendly culture continue. Especially with brand new debaters. Speed is okay, but remember why we are all here. That being said, I also appreciate the competitive nature of the activity. For that reason, I pride myself on being a fair and impartial judge. I will not buy into an argument, you must convince me in the round. I will not logically fill in any gaps in your arguments. I will only evaluate what was said out loud in the round. Even if I can read it myself on your document, I will not. On that point, I would prefer we use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If for some reason we are unable to use Speechdrop.net, I would defer to email as a backup.

As a competitor, I enjoyed topicality and other theory arguments. I will vote on a priori issues first if suitable evidence has been presented. Affirmative debaters should be very clear in their response to such arguments, and answer them completely. I also recognize that an important role in the debate game is to learn about the topics we debate. I will absolutely vote on a net beneficial case that solves for the given harms. Be very clear with signposting. I am flowing the debate, but it is important to emphasize to me where your arguments belong on the flow and how they interact with each other. I wont do the work for you simply because it is obvious. Dont forget to weigh your impacts. Impacts go a long way in providing context as to what is important in the round.

Kelly Lootz - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Kevin Ozomaro - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Kyle Shallcross - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Mari Garcia - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Melissa Tejeda - Fresno State

Recently graduated former competitor. Please be kind, ethical, and logical. Please refrain from spreading and using exceedingly technical arguments. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.

Natalie Cavallero - Fresno State

IPDA judge looking for strong organization, solid delivery & kind participation. I will judge with an open mind on a blank slate, so bring your arguments and support them well! Please don't spread. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.

Olivia Gover - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Pranav Chillappagari - SJSU

n/a

Ryan Guy - MJC

Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!

Video Recording & Online Tournaments
  • In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
  • Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.

I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!

A Little About Me
  • I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
  • Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
  • I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.

I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.

How I See Debate 1. Sharing Material
  • If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
  • Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
  • If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.
2. Speed
  • Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
  • If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.
3. Procedurals & Theory
  • Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
  • If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
  • I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.
4. Kritiques
  • I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
    • Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
    • Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
    • Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.
5. Organization & Engagement
  • Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
  • If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
  • Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
  • Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.
6. Oral Critiques
  • If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.
7. Safety & Well-being
  • Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
  • If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.
IPDA Notes
  • Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
  • Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
  • Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
  • Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
  • Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
  • Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.
How I Decide Rounds
  • Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
  • Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
  • Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
  • Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.
Specifics for NFA-LD

  1. File Sharing

    • SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
    • If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
    • Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.

  2. Disclosure

    • I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
    • If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
    • Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.

  3. Cardless LD

    • I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.
Speaker Points
  • Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
  • Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.
Topicality
  • Please make an honest effort to be topical.
  • T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
  • Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.
In Closing

I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.

Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!

Sean Cox-Marcellin - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Sean Thai - HornetCupJudge

I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE:clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold. 

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.

General 

Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

I’m willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.

It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines. 

Tech = truth

Flex time answers are binding.

Serena Jones - UNLV

n/a

Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte

I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years. 

I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:

-Using clear roadmapping

-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)

- Be respectful of your opponent and judges

-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff

- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me

Sue Peterson - Chico State

Updated 9/8/18

I am now primarily judging NFA-LD.

PARLI: If you have me as a parli critic, know that it is not my strength nor my favorite style of debate. I just think that referencing evidence with no ability to check the accuracy of your reference makes it difficult to evaluate conflicting arguments, but I will do my best. Having well-warranted arguments beyond just a source (so explaining the warrant, not just naming the source and claim) will help your efforts. I can flow pretty fast debate, but without evidence, the arguments sometimes come fast and furious and I can't write or type that fast, so slow down a bit if you want everything on my flowsheet at the end of the speech.

BOTH PARLI AND LD:

As far as argumentative preference, performance debates are not really my cup of tea. I like critical arguments and I'm relatively familiar with the literature, but if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. But, I think claiming some methodological advantage to a certain plan is fine and the negative is free to critique it up if they so choose, as long as they in some way specifically engage the affirmative's arguments (usually better if it is the affirmative's arguments and not just the resolution or the status quo, but that is debatable).

I do not enjoy nasty debates where people ad-hom each other, yell at each other, or otherwise argue instead of debate. I think debate should be enjoyable for both the debaters and me -- so be nice and have fun. And if your opponents are not nice, don't get sucked into the evil...maintain your composure.

Rebuttals are key. Make sure you take the time to explain your arguments, how they should be impacted in the debate, how they compare to the other team's.

LD:

I am no longer inclined to read much evidence, but if you want me to read evidence because of it being a focus of controversy in the round, identify the evidence by author AND warrant - not just author. I want to know WHAT to read and WHY I'm reading it. I prefer to hear the evidence and hear the explanations and vote on that because debate is about oral argumentation. So, I won't read anything unless I feel like I have to in order to be fair to both sides in the debate.

I am not prone to vote on "this is a rule" unless it is well-warranted. I get that LD has rules and I believe there are reasons for those rules, but I also believe that debaters should be able to articulate those reasons in a round in order to win on those arguments. So, if you are going to make arguments about what should be excluded in a round, be sure to provide warrants other than "its a rule". I am open to debaters asking others to speak more conversational in rounds as that is part of this activity's unique appeal, but I do think that you should be reciprocal - so don't ask for someone to slow down (or yell slow/clear during their speech) and then speak fast in your own speech.

I love a good T debate. Most pre-round questions seem to focus on in-round abuse and competing interps, so I will say here that I think both those arguments are things that can be debated out in the round. I don't HAVE to have in-round abuse, but I'm open as to why I shouldn't evaluate Ts that don't prove it. My default is competing interpretations, BUT if the affirmative is obviously topical under the negative's interpretation and explains such, I don't think they HAVE to have a counterinterp.

If you have any other questions, let me know before the round begins!

Tehreem Khan - Delta

I competed in debate at Delta college. 

Tony Escalante - Sacramento

n/a

Tyler Wyckoff - HornetCupJudge

n/a

Umbreen Khan - Delta

n/a

Yasir Khan - HornetCupJudge

n/a