FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Mitchell - Santa Rosa

n/a

Alan Fishman - Standby

I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.

Please include me on the email chain or speechdrop if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com - also I strongly prefer .docx to pdf

Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I am fine with speed, but I think you slow down if your opponents ask you to. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should prove you made an effort to get them to slow down and they didn't. Otherwise it can be difficult to prove a violation, but I do think speed bad arguments can be necessary in situations where one team is deliberately weaponizing speed as a tool of exclusion.

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.

RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.

PARLI ONLY:

If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.

I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.

PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:

I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility

POLICY ONLY:

I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech

NFA-LD ONLY:

I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.

I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.

I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.

Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".

IPDA ONLY:

I don't believe in the mission of IPDA and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's unless there is an argument made in round that they are bad for accessibility (which I am open to especially for students from teams that don't do other formats). I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.

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!

Alexis Howard - Community Member

n/a

Alyx Dickson - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Amber Brooks - CSUN

n/a

Andrew Yllescas - CSUN

n/a

Andrew Morgan - DVC

Updated 2/24/24 at 7:46 AM.

I view debate as an educational event. That being said, both sides need to have equal access to debate. If you run 8 off case positions against a novice because the divisions were collapsed, I will drop you. Theres no education in that debate. If you are a junior level debater and you want to run the super cool and fun K that your open teammates are running against the junior level competition, I will drop you for a few reasons:

You are trying to skip learning the fundamentals of argumentation and debate so that you can do cool stuff
Its abusive to your opponents
Neither you nor your opponents are learning anything from that debate. I certainly wont be either.

My position on Ks changes in the open division. While I personally think its incredibly silly to try to explain Marx or Buddhism in 8 minutes or less, I will vote for them as long as you can link the K to the topic. If novice or junior are collapsed into open, please do not run a K against them. Please just debate the topic. If you are an open competitor, you should be totally fine without needing to spread a novice/junior debater/debate team in order to win.

Lastly, I am not a fan of potential abuse when running a topicality. I also think its weird and contradictory to run Disadvantages that clearly link to the plan but then say the plan is untopical.

Overall, I am some fine with speed as long as you are also clear. Articulation is key here. I also appreciate it when debaters are very organized throughout the round. Off time road maps are good; just signpost as you get there. My experience in debate is very limited. I almost exclusively competed in Individual Events.

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!

Angelica Guzman - DVC

n/a

Anju Vriksha - FTC

Judging Philosophy: As a judge, I approach debate as both a competitive activity and an intellectual journey. My philosophy blends the principles of the Tabula Rasa and the Game Player, creating a framework that balances flexibility with structure. The ultimate aim is to foster an environment where both the clash between arguments and the educational value of debate are paramount. 1. Tabula Rasa: A Clean Slate for Each Round I start each round with an open mind, adhering to the principle of Tabula Rasa. I allow the debaters to define the terms and framework of the debate, ensuring that their arguments stand on their own merits. This allows for fresh, unbiased evaluation. While the government side carries the burden of proof, both teams share the responsibility of creating meaningful clash. I expect them to engage directly with each other’s arguments in a way that challenges, tests, and refines the positions being debated. Clash is central to my evaluation—without it, debate loses its depth, and the round becomes less dynamic and intellectually stimulating. 2. Game Player: Structure and Strategy Debate is a structured activity with clear rules, and as a judge, I hold both sides to these standards. The government side must justify their case with sufficient evidence and reasoning, thereby meeting their burden of proof. The opposition is not only tasked with critiquing the government’s position but could also present a well-developed counter plan, pushing the debate forward. Both sides must create strategic clash—through argumentation, evidence, and rhetorical skill—while utilizing their time effectively. The manner in which debaters use their time and structure their arguments speaks to their understanding of the game, and I reward those who demonstrate this skill. 3. Debate as an Educational Activity Beyond the competition, I see debate as an opportunity for intellectual growth and learning. I encourage debaters to treat the round as an opportunity to challenge their own ideas and expand their perspectives. Debate should be a space where ideas are not merely defended but also questioned and tested. Clash is a vital part of this process, as it enables participants to confront different viewpoints and, in doing so, foster intellectual development. The most successful rounds are those that lead debaters to reflect on their arguments and ideas in a meaningful way, both during and after the debate. 4. Personal Preferences: Language and Eloquence As an old-school debater, I have a deep appreciation for the flow and beauty of language. Clear, precise, and eloquent arguments not only convey ideas but elevate the discourse. I value the use of language to both persuade and enhance the round, especially when combined with intellectual rigor. Rhetoric should complement logic, and I reward those who skillfully weave both into their arguments. Eloquence, however, must not overshadow substance. I am most impressed when debaters use language to clarify, sharpen, and advance their case while maintaining focus on engaging with the opposing side. 5. Conclusion: A Balance of Flexibility and Structure In conclusion, my judging philosophy combines the flexibility of a Tabula Rasa with the clear structure of a Game Player. I place a strong emphasis on the importance of clash—debates that lack meaningful engagement fail to provide the intellectual rigor necessary for growth. The government holds the burden of proof, and both sides must contribute to the development of the round through strategic clash and clear, structured argumentation. Ultimately, I believe that debate should challenge participants to think critically, inspire personal growth, and serve as both a contest and a chance for deeper understanding. Through the art of strategic clash and intellectual engagement, debaters will not only compete but also grow as thinkers and communicators.

Banafshae Khan - Alumni

n/a

Ben Mann - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Bethany Davis - Alumni

n/a

Brandon Garcia - Alumni

n/a

Brett Butler-Camp - CSU Chico

n/a

Caitlin Taffe - Alumni

n/a

Carlos Flores - Community Member

n/a

Charles Garcia-Spiegel - CCSF

I am mostly a speech/individual events guy. I am one step up from a lay judge, but only one step up. Please have patience with me (and with each other! and with yourselves!). Take the event seriously, but dont take yourself seriously.

I prefer arguments that are concise, but thoroughly explained. Yes. Concise and thorough. Thats your challenge for the round. I want to hear (brief) definitions or explanations of jargon when there's time. This shows me that you know what you're talking about, and helps me better follow your train of thought. Signposting is also important to me: tell me what you're going to say so I can prepare myself to listen for your main points. Please avoid spreading (speaking in an overly rapid way to cram in as many arguments as you can) whenever possible. You may have the best and most correct argument in the world, but I will vote against you if I can't understand what you're trying to tell me.

Thoughts on criteria: I want you to tell me why I should vote for you. Do not make me decide the criteria on my own. I walk into each round with the expectation that you are the experts, both on the topic you are debating and on the structure of the activity itself. In each round, I trust you to explain to me why your approach to the problem is the correct one, and why it matters. Whoever does a better job of that will get my vote, whether or not I agree with that position in the real world.

Please note: I can't flow on paper, but I will be flowing electronically and following along. My use of a laptop does not mean I am not paying attention. Similarly, my facial expressions are not a reliable indicator of my inner thoughts. I don't do subtext, and I'm much friendlier than I look. Please assume that I am listening and paying attention and genuinely interested in what you have to tell me, no matter what my face or hands look like.

Overall: I prioritize thorough explanation over cramming in one more argument. I'm nicer than I look. I trust you to be the expert. I want you to tell me why I should vote for you, and then earn my vote by demonstrating you know a: what you're talking about and b: how to argue.

Cyril Bhooma Goud - SJSU

n/a

David Kirker - Alumni

n/a

Dillon Carroll - Butte

n/a

Dillon Brouwer - UNLV

n/a

Dr. Chris Miller - Alumni

n/a

Emma Mink - SFSU

n/a

Erika Jauregui - Alumni

n/a

FS-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?

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.
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.
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.
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?

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.
Although debaters are not supposed to "read evidence" in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
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.
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.
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

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.
I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.

Policy Resolutions

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.
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.
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

The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
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.
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.

FS-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.

FS-Rhiannon Genilla - Fresno State

I am a forensics coach and a graduate student at Fresno State and I competed in IPDA debate.

I value critical thought, respectful competition, and logical creativity. I find value in debaters being reflexive and thinking quickly on their feet. I am more likely to be persuaded when debaters are enthusiastic about their arguments. It is important to clash with your opponent and to develop strong arguments.

Farzam Oshidary - Alumni

n/a

Fatima Hernandez - DVC

n/a

Geoge Vang - Alumni

n/a

Gordon Fowler - Community Member

n/a

Gregg Fishman - Community Member

n/a

Gus LaDue - UOP

I have been in forensics since 2016. I am currently an assistant coach at the University of the Pacific.
TLDR/Parli
I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to have warrants and evidence to be supported by a claim. I believe you are entitled to make any argument you see fit, but I would advise you to know what arguments you are making. This is more so for novice debaters. I like topical advocacies. I am okay with counter plans being conditional even though I prefer unconditional. I view myself as referee, that meaning I try to keep my bias out of it as much as possible and evaluate the evidence. I am okay with speed, just as long as you are understandable, and your opponent has an opportunity to compete. And if I miss something on the flow because of your are not understandable that is on you.
Specific Arguments/Parli
AFF Cases
While I prefer when the AFFs defend topical advocacy. I will vote for AFF that do not, but I will need you to do a lot of work to explain their argument and justification for making the argument. Also do acknowledge because of my preference I am more likely to vote on theory/framework against AFF that do not defend the topic.
K/CP/Condo
You can read whatever you like for K, I would just note that I do have a vast knowledge of the lit base. With that in mind I probably would need a clear explanation in the form of thesis would be ideal to get my ballot. Also, I would like the Alt to have some form of in/out of round. And once again be clear on how the alt solves the best.
I enjoy a well-done CP. But as stated earlier I have a lower threshold for voting on theory so I am receptive to theory arguments that can prove the CP is abusive.
For Condo, I am an assistant coach at the University of Pacific, so keep that in mind. I will say I will evaluate the Condo bad/ Condo good arguments on the sheet. But my preference tends to lean more towards unconditional counter plans.
Theory/Topicality
I have a low threshold for voting on Theory/Topicality. It is clear and strategic in my opinion. With that in mind I have trouble voting for unproven abuse. Potential abuse to me going to be harder to win on then showing me how you are having the rug pulled from under you.
Speed
Like I have stated before, be clear. If you speed me out of the round or I deem it abusive to your opponents, and they make the argument, it is on you.
LD
Speed
You have the cards in front of you. I have a higher threshold to vote one down on speed, when the evidence is open to all.
Argument preferences
I have none, you read what you want, if you can back it up.
General Approach to Evaluating Round
Weigh you Impacts. I have seen too many rounds get me to the link scenario and not value impacts. At the end of the day make arguments how you outweigh your opponent. And as stated in my parli section, I have a low threshold for T.
T
It is a rule, so I will vote on it. Show the ground you have lost though. Potential abuse for me is hard to win the ballot. It will take more explanation.
NFA LD rules
I have read the rule, and I do my best to enforce them.
Neg path to victory
You do not need to win a disadvantage, but offense is a good thing to have. If Aff is reasonable in solving I will vote for it.
Dropped arguments
If you drop an argument on you. Like you need to respond strategically with in the parameter of the game.
Ks
It is a valid strat, not my preference but do what you want and explain why you are doing it.
Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying.

Gus Garcia - Standby

Updated March 2025

Me:

High school debate for 2 years

Did collegiate debate for University of the Pacific

Update: Due to an unprecedented level of general shenanigans in our government, here are some arguments that I believe have been made weaker or outright aren’t good to run (you can still run them if you wanna, just know my threshold for these arguments is so incredibly low)

Heg (either heg good or heg bad)
Biz Con
Politics DA
K links that are just about the rez or the aff playing as the USFG (pls be more specific with your links, I don’t really wanna see competitors get called bootlicking fascists just because they’re doing the resolution)
Allied freakout

Overview:

•I literally don't care how you choose to make arguments, I'm not a cop so I won't come into the room with any predispositions as to how an argument is made. So long as you make it make sense and the argument is weighed across the round you can do whatever you want.

• Cool with partner communication in any event, as long as you don't become a puppet for your partner (only what the speaker says gets put on the flow)

• Speed? Pls not too fast (like 300+ wpm), I retired from debate and have not kept up + I have nerve damage in my hands now. I will lyk if you are going too fast for me

• If using computer, share cards in email chain gusgarcia5397@gmail.com

• At this point in my life idc if you go with the res or not. Run literally whatever you want

General In-round Judging

I enjoy good clash in round, I know a lot of people say this but I don't want to see "Two ships passing by in the night" as that's just a boring debate to watch. Do a lot of weighing during your speeches and why you are winning the debate and where I should be voting on and you will more than likely have me voting for you if your opponents have neglected to do any of these.

SIGN POST PLEASE I cannot tell you how many otherwise good rounds were ruined by not sign posting and going on the flow. I'm cool with offtime roadmaps and if you need to talk about multiple arguments that are all over the flow I'm okay with that as long as you tell me where you are on the flow.

My general rule is I don't believe in speaker points, so I will give high speaks to everyone in the round, you can um and stutter all you want (I get that nerves are a thing, I won't give you bad speaks for being human or have you not break because of low speaks even tho you had bomb arguments) BUT I will give you low speaks if you are being incredibly rude to your opponents. I may still vote for you because of your arguments, but you will receive low speaks from me. I generally like some light-hearted humor and cleverness in rounds but being a mean person will not leave me with a good impression of you in future rounds. If someone is being mean-spirited towards you put some trust in me to punish them for that. Other than that I tend to give near perfect speaks to everyone in the round. I feel that if you aren't too worried about speaker points then it brings out a more calm and collected side of you in a debate, just be chill and don't sweat the small stuff as long as you get your point across.

I generally do disclose as long as the tournament hasn't specifically prohibited me from doing so, and if the tournament is running on schedule (lmao doubt that) then I will spend some time to feedback if both sides would want that. If not then you are welcome to leave the room immediately after the round.

Some Specifics

Topicality: Love it, holding the aff to the resolution can result in some fun debate, but please don't just run a T for the sake of running a T. I vote more on articulated abuse but potential abuse will also be voted on if articulated right. Some standards I like to see: Education, Brightline and strat/prep skew with evidence of said abuse happening.

The K: I am ok with k's of any type on either AFF or NEG. I ran a K 90% of the time in my senior year of college and am comfy with a lot of lit. The k's I ran most were: cap, fem IR, singularity, Biopolitics, transhumanism, Zapatismo, ecomanagerialism, and D&G

I tend to enjoy a good K round as long as some requirements are met:

• Do not assume that I have read your author, be clear and treat it as if I am a layman when going through your thesis/framework. Please try your best to be educational throughout your debate instead of drowning us in a flurry of words. Actually APPLY your kritik to the round and the mechanisms by which your alt (or whatever) can resolve

• Make sure the alt is explained as to how it solves, rejecting and embracing is cool, but what does that do?

• If aff K, please be ready to respond to Framework with reasons that aren't just relinks to your K.

Speed: Speed in a debate round is a given, I personally love speed and you should not worry about spreading me out of the round, if I feel that you are too fast tho I will say "slow" or "clear" as I have been out of the game and also have nerve damage in my hands now. BE THAT AS IT MAY,IF YOU FEEL EXCLUDED because of a debater being too fast and they have done nothing to fix the situation (eg you've told them to slow down numerous times and they haven't) please run a procedural on that. I am VERY receptive to speed theory when it is warranted. If you purposefully exclude your opponent(s) out of the round with speed then the flow no longer becomes an objective view of the round and you will lose because of this.

Weighing: Idc just make it make sense

Any other questions? Feel free to ask me before the round!

JR Saling - Lewis & Clark

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 - Alumni

n/a

Jason Ames (he/him) - Chabot

Hello! Glad you are here! Forensics is awesome and I hope you are having fun and learning a lot. Those should always be the focus.

I have been in Forensics for multiple decades and have competed in, judged, and coached every event. First, I tend to vote on arguments that are well explained and impacted over arguments that are undercovered. If there's a drop on the flow, it doesn't guarantee my ballot until you tell me why it does: impact and weigh arguments, compare/contrast, and give me a reason to vote for you/your side. Second, I'm open to multiple types of arguments and will vote on multiple types of arguments if you tell me why they matter and why they outweigh the other side.

I do appreciate the distinction between different types of debate events: I hope debaters use their skills to create and debate arguments made in prep time and I prefer debates on the resolution, especially in tournaments where debaters have the option to strike topics. However, I am open to listening why that might not be the best use of the prompt/round and respect your need to define the round in the way that you see fit. If you run K's, I tend to prefer alternatives and being told what the world looks like post-K.

I'm getting older and my ability to keep up with speed is diminishing by the year, so feel free to go fast but you might find me asking you to slow down for me more than I used to. These things happen, I suppose! This probalby doesn't apply in IPDA, however. FYI, I'm fine with some debate jargon in IPDA and organization is ALWAYS valuable, but my hope is that IPDA debaters continue to keep it accessible to all.

I prefer debates where folks are kind and respectful to each other. Advocate for your position with energy and vigor, but remember that the other side isn't your enemy. Please make sure you are inclusive and respect all folks.

If you have specific questions feel free to ask me. Thanks!

Jason Sabbadini - Sacramento

n/a

Jazmine Ryan - Community Member

n/a

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

Joey Barrows - Dark Horse

I competed for three years in LD and one semester in Parliamentary debate. I was primarily a case debater and did not run many critical arguments. I try my best to vote strictly on the flow and have voted for K's even though I don't particularly like a lot of them. I have a tendency to lean towards the K not having an ability to solve whatever the harms are (if that's what is being claimed). Aside from that, I think I am pretty straightforward in most positions. I am not incredibly fast and I flow on paper, so if I say "slow" or "speed" and you do not adjust then you risk the chance of losing me. Please ask me any necessary questions before the round to clarify something you don't understand here or to address any of the things I did not mention. Thanks!

Jonathan Reyes - Standby

n/a

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Joshua Harzman - Standby

n/a

Joslynn Howard - Community Member

n/a

Josue De Leon - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Julia Giacomet Thomazoni - Texas Tech

n/a

Justin Flick - Alumni

Background: 4 years of NFA and NPDA, also competed in IPDA as well as I.E.’s, 4 years of NFA National qualifying, Won multiple regional NFALD tournaments and broke at NFA nationals twice. Pi Kappa Delta All-American. Was a volunteer assistant coach for Sac State for 3-4 years.

Judges I looked up to: Jared Anderson, Chad Meadows, Scott Laczko, Sue Peterson

TL;DR: You do you. I will vote for any position if you win it on the flow. I have preferences, and those preferences will influence speaker points/ close rounds.

I will judge on the flow. But I expect debaters to extend dropped arguments in their last speech if I am to evaluate them. I want you to tell me what to weigh on the flow. If you don’t I vote on comparative risk, meaning if I don’t get a compelling argument why you solving extinction in 40 years outweighs the risk of a relations DA that leads to war, I default to the greater risk.

Specific Issues:

Speed: I am cool with it. I used speed and I think it is an important part of debate. Be clear. I will never call speed, but will call clear. Debaters, know the difference. If an opposing debater calls speed, at least make an attempt to include them. I am NOT receptive to speed procedurals. I am receptive to Speed is ableist/occularcentric kritiks. Basically, just be inclusive.

Kritiks: I love K’s. Please, please, please cut them yourself and read the literature. I don’t want to hear your backfile Heidegger K off of Open Evidence. Make it relevant to the topic and link to the plan. If it’s an identity K, you got to tell me why the topic or affirmative issue areas particularly engages that identity. I WILL NOT vote on links of omission. Alt has to at least solve the impacts of case or tell me why the impacts of case don’t matter. Aff, engage in the Kritik. Defend your methodology. I don’t want to hear “K’s are cheating”. That’s a bad argument. If you don’t read framework, tell me why K outweighs case. I need an Alt. I need to know how the alt solves.

Topicality: Me likey T. I don’t like the dichotomy of T vs every other position. Topicality has kritikal implications and I am more than fine with interrogating T from a Kritikal perspective. Give me reasons why education and fairness matter. They aren’t just magic words that win you the debate. I default to competing interps. T is ultimately your version of how the round should happen vs your opponents. Aff, if you are going to argue reasonability, I need to you tell me what be reasonable looks like. It doesn’t need to be a full on interp, but even something like “The aff has to reduce military. We do that.” I don't need proven abuse. It helps sure, but you can win my ballot with potential abuse. That is a recipe for low speaks in front of me.

Procedurals/Assorted Theory: I vote on the flow. With that caveat, there are some arguments I dislike. I dislike full cites procedurals. I have little desire to vote for it. I dislike voting on spec arguments. Run specs to get links to your positions. I think stock issues work best as a procedural in NFA-LD debate. I will vote on solvency/inherency procedurals. You aren’t clever running Time Cube. It’s not funny or edgy. UPDATE: I am extremely receptive to disclosure theory, when appropriate. I believe debaters should disclose the 1AC the round after they read a new aff. I disclosed all aff and neg when I debated, but I think the bare minimum is the 1AC. It’s not an auto-win, but I do think until debaters lose because they don’t disclose, coaches won’t care to make them disclose. It’s good for the community and for education. Full stop. UPDATE 2: I have an extremely low threshold on Test Case Theory.

Counterplans: I love a good counterplan and I don’t think anything is off-limits. So feel free to run a conditional consult PIC in front me. I don’t think PIC’s or Condo are bad, but I will vote that they are if you convince me via well-warranted analysis and win it on the flow.. I need you to articulate some form of competitiveness, but it’s the aff’s burden to challenge it. I think CP’s can be competitive just through net benefits. I’ll listen to them, but please for your sake no ridiculous consult Ashtar/Loch Ness monster/Chluthlu counterplans.

Perms: This is where I may deviate from others in the community. I don’t automatically assume a perm is a test of competition. If you say something like the perm solves better and your whole AR is vote on the perm because it solves best and the neg runs theory on that, I am willing to listen. To flesh this out more, 9/10 times the perm is a hypothetical test of competition and test of alt/CP solvency. It all depends on how it is framed and I expect debaters to be diligent in understanding the way the perm is framed before they automatically pull out “perms bad” theory. Explain why the perm proves it’s not competitive. I’m also willing to listen to perm theory. I tend to think severance/delay perms are abusive, but again debate it in front of me and I will listen and vote on the flow.

DA’s: I love a good disad debate. I prefer specific links, but if you have a good card that says why any action causes it and you support it with good analysis, I’m down. I have no problem voting on the risk of the DA. But tell me why the disad outweighs. I think the best disad’s have something that indicates the impacts are a root cause or take out the solvency of the aff; I just think it gives you more outs on the DA

Aff’s: Affirm the resolution. I give you some leeway in the 2AR because you really are at a structural time disadvantage in NFA-LD. I like to see good aff structure. You have infinite prep time to prepare a well thought out structured aff.

Performance: I think if you are going to run these sorts of position I am going to hold you to a high burden to prove why I shouldn’t vote on framework or T. I prefer neg teams argue the methodology of the performance, rather than reading bad impact turns that make you look like a jerk. As I said, I will vote on the flow, and since a lot of debaters don’t know how to answer performance well, it can be effective, but I would err heavily toward voting on framework. Not that I don’t think your performance has no merit or I’m a racist/sexist/homophobe/transphobe, I just think you have a lot to justify on why I should vote for your performance. But I WILL listen, and won’t automatically vote against you. It’s more that I just don’t want a neg team to get up there and cry “Cheater!”. But please, you do you and I will listen and vote on the flow.

NFA-LD (or whatever format I am judging) Rules: I don’t like voting on rules in debate. That being said, I will. But I think there are so many ways to bend the rules that teams should have answers to most rules issues. Basically, it’s like cool, I get that NFA-LD rules say Solvency/Inherency/Topicality, but what’s the impact other than breaking rules? I don’t think the rules themselves are an impact, so figure out how they relate to fairness, education, or the other impacts.

Kaitlin Foster - Butte

n/a

Kami Ames - Chabot

n/a

Karenna Pullen - Standby

n/a

Kelly Lootz - Standby

n/a

Kenneth Wilburn - Alumni

n/a

Kevin Ozomaro - Alumni

n/a

Kim Yee - Ohlone College

I like my debates like how I enjoy my toast in the morning, no spread and all buttery.(t-shirts coming soon!)

What this means is that I don't like having to be Robert Langdon (professor of symbology and art history at Harvard) and have to try and decipher what you're saying. But in all seriousness, I am an IE judge and I much prefer the quality of argument over quantity. I also appreciate it when delivery is engaging and tangible. In the real world, there's no point in rushing through your case if no one can understand you. Accessibility is important to me and I value it when students are able to educate and connect their arguments to me as an audience member and judge.

Other than that you know what you need to do.

May the Force be with you!

Kirsten Lofgren - SFSU

Hi I’m Kirsten, I’m a graduate student and assistant coach at SFSU.

Parli:

Any arguments go: case, theory, critique. I want to hear what you have to say; I don’t want you to tell me what you think I want to hear.

affirmative must meet burden of Harms/Uniqueness, Inherently, Plan, Solvency. Make sure to number your impacts for me, especially in novice.

I will protect the flow. I don’t flow new arguments in the rebuttals even if a point of order wasn’t called.

Spreading:

Feel free to spread if that makes you the most comfortable, but I will evaluate slower, common sense arguments above a fast but confusing argument, especially when it comes to Ks. Making yourself clear should be your number one priority.

Critiques:

I love a critique, but you must be organized and the thesis / alternative must be clearly stated and make sense. At least some links or impacts should be contextual to the resolution.

Novices:

If you’re in novice and you don’t use all your speech time, wait 15 seconds or so, don’t be afraid to think quietly about your arguments, make sure you’re not missing anything before giving up the rest of your time. There is no standard in novice parli to be able to think of every little thing off the top of your head. I’d rather hear a round with pauses than a round that the student didn’t get the time they need to carefully think through their argument.

Counter plan in novice:

Please, please take two seconds to make sure your counterplan in actually mutually exclusive.

Topicality in novice:

I have very low expectations for topicality / other theory in novice. This is because some novices are at their first tournament and have never heard it before. Topicality must have all four parts Interpretations, Violation, Standards, Voters. Novices, if you skip standards don’t expect me to vote if your T. Affirmative, pretty much any basic response: “counter interpretation” or “we meet” will fly for me.

Topicality in Open:

I typically prefer Ts that can prove in round abuse, rather than Ts for pure strategy.

I will vote on reverse voting issues or any other offensive on T, feel free to make these arguments.

Kristina Sandville - Standby

My background for judging and expertise lies primarily within IE, I’ve been judging for four years and was a former IE competitor with CSU Chico State. I have been judging IPDA since 2021, and my paradigm approaches the rounds as a “layman judge”. I expect the round to go as intended for the mission of IPDA, with you presenting the most persuasive and logical argument for your position. I am not interested in technical arguments, present the facts that allow you to develop, your advocacy skills in a forum that promotes appropriate and effective communication. With that being said, regardless of the event, IE, or debate, my goal as a judge is to facilitate a space or environment where students feel comfortable participating, sharing,g and developing pieces or debates that are important to them.

Lindsay Van Luvanee - Standby

n/a

Manahil Syeda - DVC

n/a

Maria Burke - Alumni

Lay Judge Philosophy - Maria Burke

I’m an alumni judge with 4 years of LD debate experience. However, that 4 years of experience was 5 years ago, so while I am familiar with how LD works, I’d treat me like a lay judge in round. I’m comfortable listening to most arguments- kritiks, counterplans, topicality, ect.. I’m used to listening to people speak quickly, but please don’t go crazy. I’ll try to keep up, but please slow down if I ask you to slow down. Other than that, I’m pretty flexible. Just keep things civil and comprehensible (be sure to sign post clearly) and we’ll have no problems. Have fun today!

Mark Espinosa - Sacramento

Mark is a Graduate Assistant at Sac State and is in his 3rd semester working with the team. Mark competed for 2 semesters in 2021-2022, but only ever at online tournaments. Make clear arguments, explain your evidence, and try to slow down a bit.

Mark Faaita - Alumni

n/a

Matt Stannard - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Michael Andreas - Butte

I come into every debate with a curiosity and desire to see what I can learn from you, it is your job to convince me well reasoned analysis and evidence, which means I cannot and will not ignore a patently false claim, so support your arguments accordingly. While spreading may be somewhat unavoidable, replacing bulk info with well reasoned analysis would be my preference. Running topicality for topicality-sake is a sham. If you are going to make that claim, make sure there is something behind it, otherwise you waste all of our time. Show me some clash, debate hard and don’t give up, get creative, and most of all, show me you are having fun!

Michael Thiagasingh - Ohlone College

n/a

Nahom Semere - Community Member

n/a

Nathan Steele - CCSF

Have fun and claim the space-time of the debate round as belonging to you. Aspire to present clearly organized and supported arguments in your constructive speeches. Your general approach should be to invite dialogue over controversy and offer clear reasoning why your position is preferable. Provide criteria by which I might evaluate the arguments in the round. When inspired, embrace your creativity and wit. Share the time with your opponent during cross-examination. Use rebuttal speeches to extend arguments as you see fit. It is good practice to provide some key voting issues or summary of the competing narratives within the debate to illuminate my decision-making process (i.e., my pathway to voting for you). Delivery doesn't factor heavily into decision-making. Be yourself. Focus on conveying the arguments so your opponent and judge understand. I may comment on features of your nonverbal communication on a ballot, but you'll win the debate with the argument(s).

The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Focus on the arguments during the round. Be good to yourself too. Debate can be difficult at times. Keep bringing your best and youll get better.

Nicholas Adair - Dark Horse

Parli/LD

I am an old school flow judge (pen and paper) so if you spread me out of the round I will drop arguments because I cannot keep up.

I am also not a tabula rosa judge. I will believe most arguments that are based in fact, but if you tell me untruths (ie. Turkey should become a part of NATO—it's been a member since 1952) I will not flow them. Make sure that your arguments are rooted in fact, because that is the only way to achieve both education and fairness in round.

I am not a big fan of topicality/counterplans/Kritiks. I feel that most rounds should be fought straight up with ADD’s, and DA’s, as most topics are debatable by design. Using theory /CP’s feels like an underhanded way to skew the Aff out of its ground. However, that does not mean I will not vote on theory. If Aff brings an inaccessible plan/definition to the round, I find myself voting on T/CP’s/K’s more often than not, even though I would rather not do so. One last note for T in particular, if you say Topicality is “a-priori” and then kick it in the MO/LO, it will flow against you as the neg. Either it excluded you from the round, or it didn't. Both cannot be true in the same world. If you don’t say “a-priori”, I will simply treat it as an additional DA, which I do not mind voting for.

Limited prep

Speeches with less filler words creatine shine above the rest. While most speakers don’t use “ums” or “likes”, most extempers do use “now” and “well”. These are still filler words, and they become noticeable quite quickly. Also, bring your own personality and fun to the event. Too many limited prep speakers are too robotic in their delivery. Humor is always a plus.

Speech events

What I look for in speech events is a well-polished piece with excellent blocking and a good story/theme. Some of the best speeches I have watched, hit all of these points as well as engaging with the audience/judge if applicable. I am not a fan of superfluous blocking for the sake of blocking, but I will appreciate the effort. Overall well-polished pieces are what I look for first, blocking second, and well-articulated story theme third.

Noah Gordon - Standby

Speed isn’t a problem.

Case writing should be relevant, crafted strategically, and not just a bunch of random or poor information for the sake of it. We don’t need to stuff the staff sheet.

Logic and consistency matter. If the claims being made can’t stand up to scrutiny, then they’re not good arguments.

Also, I’m not going to entertain nonsensical arguments. If someone says, “I said pigs are purple, and the Aff didn’t respond, so vote for me,” NO—that is not an ARGUMENT. Get good and stop trying to BS me!

I don’t care if you use higher-level debate styles like theory or counterplans. Do whatever you need to do to be successful! At the highest-level tournaments, you’re going to have judges who are debate gurus (hopefully). Make me adjust to you!

IMPORTANT: Dropping arguments can be a death sentence. It’s not the end of the world—context matters, and so does the importance of the argument. But dropping a key point makes life very convenient for the other side.

Cross-Ex:

IMPORTANT: This often illustrates who’s winning the round. A lot of debaters expose how prepared (or unprepared) they actually were prior to the debate. A lot of arguments fall apart here, and things get forgotten, so it’s a great way for me to get the flow of the round.

Etiquette:

I don’t like debaters who are unnecessarily rude to their partners or opponents. You don’t have to be super friendly—just don’t attack anyone. Getting nasty in a competitive way is one thing, but this isn’t a COD lobby.

Disclosure: If you don’t like the decision being made, do not argue with me. The ballot has already been sent in—you’re cooked, buddy. If you’d like to talk afterward, that’s fine! I have no problem with that. I’m sure we can have a very fruitful discussion, but coming at me in the round is just going to get you roasted.

Miscellaneous (Important):

Pet Peeves: I can’t stand scummy debaters who clearly have no idea what they’re doing and try to use obtuse tactics or rigged strategies to win a round. Do not randomly add an argument last minute or drop something earlier in the debate just to bring it up at the end like, “Judge, judge!” It’s silly and won’t get you very far anyway. The goal should always be high-level national debate, not some random tournament… like, who even cares???

Animated: I’m a crowd reactor. I’ll be saying “Yeesh” or “Dayumm,” and I can’t hide my facial expressions. If you don’t like that, please let me know before or during the round. My feelings won’t be hurt, lol.

Noeh Nazareno - Community Member

n/a

Noel Mora - Community Member

n/a

Orion Steele - SFSU

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

Pat Hume - Community Member

n/a

Patricia Harris-Jenkinson - Alumni

n/a

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: August 2024

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isnt what I mean. I dont think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical completely fair to an equally mythical completely unfair. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to completely unfair. Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when asked to

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didnt especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the Co-Director of Forensics at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school, and I coached the most successful NPDA team of all time. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

Robert Hawkins - DVC

I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in high school LD and sometimes judge Parli & IPDA. I am not a technical judge in NFA-LD. I am not big on complicated language. I am more impressed if a student understands the argument and can make adjustments to different judging pools. I would classify myself as LAY judge for debate, but I can hang if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.

Rosalie Zuckermann - Lewis & Clark

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

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.
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.
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!

Scott Thomson - Texas Tech

n/a

Scott Lankford - FTC

EXPERIENCE: Prior to teaching English at Foothill Community College for 35 years — I’m retired now! — I was a high school Colorado State Champion in Extemp. But that was, ahem, in a prior century! My academic degrees are in Philosophy (BS from Williams College) and Modern Thought and Literature (PhD Stanford).

Now that I’m retired, I’ve started volunteering as a judge — as a way to “pay it forward” for the next generation. That’s you! I’ve always said that Speech and Debate was the most valuable training I ever got in any class, in any school, anywhere. It’s served me well my whole life. And I’m pretty sure this experience will serve you well too — no matter what career you choose.

Based on my “critical thinking and research” teaching experience, extemp experience, and academic training, as a judge I especially value:

Clear argument structure with plenty of framing and signposting
Evidence-based arguments with source citations
Polished speech presentation in terms of vocal variety, pacing, effective use of body language and gestures, and eye contact.

Scott Lankford

Professor of English (emeritus), Foothill College

Sean Thai - Dark Horse

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.

Im 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.

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

Shaur Kadiyala - FTC

n/a

Tatiana Trujillo - Alumni

n/a

Taure Shimp - MJC

ALL DEBATE EVENTS

Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.

IPDA

I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.

PARLI

Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.

Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.

Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!

Teresa Ong - FTC

n/a

Tony Escalante - Alumni

n/a

Torin Dunnavant - Chabot

n/a

Zack Davis - Alumni

n/a

2025 Nicholas F Burnett "Hornet Cup" Invitational

Tournament Time: 10:51 AM Pacific