Abel Rodriguez III - Sacramento

n/a

---

Alan Fishman - NorCal

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 prefer technical/progressive/circuit-style debates

---

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!

---

Angela Gaba - SFSU

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.

---

Arielle White - Delta

I did forensics but did not compete in debate. I have limited experience judging debate as of Spring 2026. I try to vote on the flow but do not want to cast a vote for blatant misinformation or hate speech. I am not familiar with debate jargon so make sure to explain things to me in layman's terms and clearly weigh your impacts in your rebuttal. Please ask me questions to clarify before round if necessary. I am not comfortable with speed and prefer conversational debate, ESPECIALLY when you are not reading cards.

---

Arley Rodriguez - Fresno State

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

---

Brandon Garcia - NorCal

n/a

---

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

n/a

---

Carlos Flores - NorCal

n/a

---

Craig Hennigan - UNLV

Find my paradigm on tabroom.com

---

Dillon Brouwer - UNLV

For cases we use speechdrop. - I don't shake hands.

Me: Current Assistant Coach at UNLV. NFA nationally ranked. Com instructor at UNLV. Theater undergrad. 9+ years debate experience

Ive competed in a everything, but primarily college NFA-LD (1 person policy)

TLDR: Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

- I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

- I can handle about a 7/10 with speed. I'll vote on anything but make sure the K makes sense.

(I keep getting questions on speed, what I mean is I can handle spreading, however if you are going so fast that you must pause mid speech and take a puff of your inhaler, you are going too fast)

Debate is as much much as a performative game as it is a argumentation game

Argumentation

Prefer standard Advantage v Disad debate but I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

For HS debate (LD specifically) I believe that fundamentally

1) Good FW is an ultimate truth and is the most important thing of the round.

2) It is the debaters job to prove a general principal.

3) The proof is in the logic, plans cant be proven and so use your skills to explain it to me with logical lines of thinking. Go over the line by line, give me good overviews and explain where your winning and why.

Safety

If you feel as though you cannot continue the round for any reason and have the ability to knock on the table 3 times please do so and the round will end immediately and a discussion can occur about where to go from there. (I get it, my anxiety attacks freeze me up entirely)

---

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.

---

Emma Schumacher - CCSF

n/a

---

Finneas Brumbaugh - NorCal

n/a

---

Fletcher Wingfield - Santa Rosa

n/a

---

Garry Lee - FTC

n/a

---

George Vang - NorCal

n/a

---

Gregg Fishman - NorCal

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.

 

---

Jasmine Avila - NorCal

My paradigm is asfollows: Rules are good, love it when there is a clear direction to go in the debate. Love a good impact weighing, and always try-or-die for the affirmative. I don't really enjoy K arguments or anything super dense, if you do decide to run a K you'll have to do a lot of work to explain it.

---

Jay Villanueva - Nevada

I have 14 years of debate experience. I have 2 years of high school LD, 1 year of Policy, and finished with a year of Senate. In college I competed in NPDA, LD, IPDA, and BP at the University of Nevada, Reno. I am experienced in debate, so don't be afraid to run technical arguments. That said, I prioritize accessibility, so if your opponent cannot handle spreading, you should make a meaningful attempt to not spread or be incredibly clear. I will make it a voting issue if presented as a theory argument. That said, the interp, standards, and voters need to be fleshed-out and time must be dedicated to it if you want me to vote on it.

Quickly: For speech events, I evaluate based on how much evidence you use, how well memorized/performed it was, and your speaker's triangle, depending on the event of course.

Pronouns: She/Her

I plan on judging high school and college debate. Please refer to the appropriate section. Thank you!

--------------------------------

LD: Connect your contentions to the (V)alue and (C)riterion. Probably should justify your V and C as the most important/relevant V and C for the RESOLUTION. You can use an analytic, but carded evidence to uphold your V & C would be stronger. You can run your case like a Policy case, but keep it in the format of LD (Value Net Bens through the Criterion of Cost Benefit analysis for example). You can run Ks, just connect it back to your V and VC. You can run whatever really, just justify the argument to me. I'm still not used to hearing CPs in LD, but go for it! I have Parli, Policy, and college LD experience, I can keep up. Be nice to each other.

PF: The only high school debate event I never competed in (before BQ was a thing). Be straight-forward. You have evidence, tell me why it matters. Be nice to each other. I often default to preponderance of probability (more likely than not).

Policy: Run whatever (K, DA, CP, Aff-K, Performance, Topicality, Theory, etc.) butbe inclusive. Arguments need to connect logically between cards. Don't make leaps in claims. Have links and internal links for Neg. Be nice to each other.

--------------------------------

NPDA: I competed in NPDA for 4 1/2 years at UNR. I will be upfront by saying that I was not nationally competitive. I did not do well at NPDA (Nats) nor NPTE and have difficulties flowing Elim 2 and beyond at either tournament. That said, I can keep up with most and usually flow on paper.

Here is how I evaluate the round:

T/Theory comes before the K unless there's enough work on why the K should come first. I default to competing interps. If you believe the T/Th to be abusive or problematic, I will vote on an RVI for both equity and education. Don't waste my time spreading out your opponents with 3 T/Th and collapsing to the under covered one. That said, I'm more likely to vote the argument down and not the team on an RVI. So at least it's not a one-shot kill(?)

Ks are an important part of critical thinking, and thus important to education. However, I also believe that in a world where the resolution is the only guaranteed point of research, and where Debate should be about having equal access to good education, you need clear links to the resolution. This includes Aff Ks. I think performances face a unique problem in this case. I say, contextualize your perf to debate or the world around us and explain why it's a more pressing issue than the resolution if your perf is not topical. Give your opponents options to compete against your performance. Disclosing your perf at the start of prep could easily resolve competitive equity claims for me.

The second part of Ks for me are Solvency. I have a hard time buying K solvency. Unless it's rooted in fiat, K solvency often sounds like it's some high theory, PoMo, Ivory Tower analysis that I can't wrap my head around without having prior knowledge on the subject. That said, I try to be tabula rasa, but I obviously have my knowledge bases. I understand Security, Borders, EcoFem, EcoSec, Queer Args primarily, although not exclusively.

RoB/RoJ: I think these are fine, except when you're aff and you also run a Plan alongside the K. Just because your read "PT: The res" does not mean you are doing the res. Unless you are. If you are just saying it to answer back a Theory Interp by saying, "we did read a PT" without actually integrating it into your K args, then you're just wasting your time in my opinion.

Also, give me reasons why your RoB/RoJ is preferable, even in the PMC/LOC.

CP/DA: On the perm, is it feasible to do both? Is it preferable to do both? What are the advantages of doing the CP alone (the DA that goes with it)? What are the DAs of doing the CP and the Aff? What are the ADVs of doing the CP and the Aff?

ADV: I need a clear link story. Internal links are helpful here. Solvency is fine instead of IL. Critical impacts will win my heart, but magnitude, probability, and timeframe are definitely also important. I'll vote on any of the three if you explain why in this round one matters over the others. Or go for all three, whichever.

IPDA:As a competitor, I did not take this event super seriously. I only did this event a handful of times, and they were often collapsed with JV (which proved to be easy Gold). That said, I have had a year of experience judging, including at Nationals (Jan-Dec 2025) and my opinion has drastically shifted.

Framework:Have a clear FW. The Aff should set the FW, but the Neg can rebut if the FW is abusive. Otherwise, the Neg should try to work with the FW that the Aff presented.

1AR:I am not a fan of the two 3-minute Aff rebuttal speeches. They're too short to say much. That said, please at least bring up your own case contentions, even if just the taglines. If you don't, I evaluate it as a dropped arg.

NR: Line-by-line for half the time, crystallization for the other half. Weigh your impacts via magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

2AR:I would argue that this is the most difficult speech in the round. I don't know the "correct" strategy, but I prefer hearing strictly impact weighing with a clear link story to how you reach those impacts. Compare the two worlds of the Aff vs the Neg. This should be much more conversational and less line-by-line.

Don't be rude. Don't attack the opponents, attack their arguments. Be clear in your delivery. Signpost. Have fun. Learn a lot! :D

---

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

---

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

---

Josiah Murray - NorCal

n/a

---

Josue De Leon - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

---

Justin Flick - NorCal

n/a

---

Kanar Muqatash - NorCal

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!

---

Kirsti Copeland - FTC

n/a

---

Krista Phair - NorCal

n/a

---

Kyle Landrum - Chico State

n/a

---

Lindsay VanLuvanee - NorCal

n/a

---

Madison Gillen - Chico State

n/a

---

Marin Spalding - NorCal

n/a

---

Mark Faaita - NorCal

n/a

---

Natalie Cavallero - Hartnell

Prof of Comm/DoF specializing in argumentation. Please be kind, organized & easy to follow. I like a solid argumentation supported by polished delivery & performance.

---

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 - UOP

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 NATOit's been a member since 1952) I will not flow them. Make sure that your arguments are rooted in fact and evidence, because that is the only way to achieve both education and fairness in round.

I am not a big fan of topicality/counterplans/Kritiques. I feel that most rounds should be fought straight up with ADDs, and DAs, as most topics are debatable by design. Using theory /CPs 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/actor to the round, I find myself voting on T/CPs often, even though I would rather not do so. One last note for T, 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 dont say a-priori, I will simply treat it as an additional DA, which I do not mind voting for.

IPDA

IPDA is not Parli or LD so do not try to make it such. This event is supposed to be accessible for any person, so dropping hyper specific labels, ie. links/uniqueness is a quicker way to my ballot. That said, you should not let the debate become unorganized either. Using language like contentions, or main points is highly recommended. In IPDA I will evaluate the round as competing extemp speeches. I desire performance and persuasiveness as well as excellent clash and contextualization of data surrounding the topic. If you have competed in public forum as a debate event in high school, I view this event as the 1v1 version of that event. One last note for this event, I will not vote for Krtiques/Topicality/or any theory under any circumstance. This does not mean the Aff gets to bring in obviously skewed definitions, and the neg should be ready to have an alternative definition if the round needs it.

Limited prep

Speeches with less filler words 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. Far 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/argument. Some of the best speeches I have watched, hit all 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, a clear argument second, and well done blocking third.

---

Nissi Jim Rakesh - USFCA

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.

---

Ornaldo Gonzalez - 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.

---

Rafael Fogo-Schensul - Chico State

n/a

---

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.

---

Ruth Kimes - NorCal

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!

---

Ryan Wenzel - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present. However, I am a newer judge, so make sure I can keep up.

---

Sean Thai - Delta

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.

I need clear perm texts, e.g. PDB is not a valid perm text for me. If you get called out for, I will not accept the perm.

Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations and net benefits without some other D-Rule. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I will always try to use the criterion + impact framing from the round if possible. I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. 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.

You can take this to mean that I believe all interps are standard-setting debates.

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.

LD:

I have trouble with implied clash, and it marks it harder to evaluate debate rounds. Please signpost clearly where you want your arguments.

Tech is a form of truth.

Flex time answers are binding.

"Email me for cites" is NOT a form of disclosure to me. If that is the extent of your disclosure, there is a much greater chance you will lose on that argument.

---

Sean Riordan - NorCal

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

---

Steven Farias - UOP

(Reviewed Jan. 2026; changes- added details on NEG Counterproposals in Overview) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become enables what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think there should be limits on NEG counter proposals in parliamentary debate. For example, I think offering 3 or more clearly skews the debate or being conditional is based around an idea of negation that functions under different constraints. The concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. As such, I think that NEG teams should be deliberate and thoughtful in how they respond to theoretical objections by the AFF to counterproposals.

There are some clear distinctions that should help when debating in front of me:
1. Theory and advocacies are distinct as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defenseable changes to the status quo.
2. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in the topic.
3. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof that a change is needed has shifted from the AFF to the NEG.
4. Vote NEG on presumption when a counterproposal exists does not function for me.
5. The AFF cannot kick the case. In order to win turns on the off case, there must be a stable locus for the AFF to generate offense.
6. Judge kicking must an explicit argument made if you want me to do so and you need to explain why it would be legitimate decision given you are essentially saying you get access to two win conditions while the AFF has one.

Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 17 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 12 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

---

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.

LD

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!

---

Tehreem Khan - NorCal

---

Tony Escalante - NorCal

n/a

---

Tyler Gardner - Sacramento

n/a

---

Veda Dean - Sacramento

n/a

---

Victoria Boyle - NorCal

n/a

---

Zachary Waters - SFSU

n/a

---