FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Akshay Nathan - UA Debates

Alexander Cadena - RioRunners

Background Information:

I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. I have experience judging policy while I was in graduate school. This is my third year of coaching forensics. I enjoy the spirit of this event and I am hoping to do so for more years to come.

How I evaluate rounds:

I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like filled and completed arguments. Do you have Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? I would like Plan texts and CPs to be stated twice. In the rebuttals, tell me what arguments to vote on and why they have greater importance than your opponent's arguments.

If you are running a K, please state the Roll of the Ballot and Alternative twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. For the times when it is K v.s. K debates, (I will question my life choices) I will try to vote on the most articulated position that is flushed out in the rebuttals. I am not a fan of spread. If competitors ask how I feel about spread, I will say Its hurts my head.

Topicality Theory Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. Do not expect me to fill in the blips of your standards and impacts. Im not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Ive been persuaded by a compelling RVI against that tactic in the past. (They made pretty smart argument which had no response.)

Some other comments:

Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to win a ballot. If you dont care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POIs are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals.

P.S. Flex-Time is NOT a designated CX period. There are still POI allowed in speech time, I am not a fan of this social norm where questions are only allowed in-between speeches! Also if you have time before your speeches, you should be pretty close to speaking by the time FLEX ends!

Alicia Batice - PCC

Allison Doig - PLNU

Alonzo Eldridge - SCC

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - CUI

Hello,

I am the Director of Forensics at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 4th year coaching and judging.?

I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.?

Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.?

Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.?

Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.?

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).?

Andrew Wilson - UCSD

n/a

Angelica Grigsby - CUI

Please talk to me, not at me. Call points of order in the rebuttal; I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner, please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive, I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments; please be sure that they are fully explained and fleshed out. Structure is great, use some form of it. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you dont want to leave it up to me. I competed in debate for 3 years, but have spent the last few years mostly coaching individual events so while I am down with a modicum of speed I know my flowing isnt as quick as it used to be, do with that what you will. Make strong arguments and have fun!

Anthony Anderson - CBU

n/a

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

THEORY/THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE - This is my bread and butter. If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and therefore debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well.

When reading fresh new and exciting theory I expect a concise interpretation, a clean violation and a distinct link to the ballot through things that should be prioritized in debate/life. If those 'things' are not fairness and education I'll likely need an explanation as to why I should care about this third priority as well.

Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you're buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just do it because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

Theory positions have differing layers of severity that adjust how I get to prioritize them when writing the ballot. This means that I want to hear arguments that suggest plan plus counterplans are justified when the AFF isn't topical or that MG theory is a bigger offense than topicality etc. Many of my ballots have been decided simple arguments that change the priority of certain theory over others.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

To newer debaters who have stumbled into a paradigm, during the other team's speech you are free to use the words "slow" and "clear" if you feel as though you cannot keep up in the round. If the other team does not acknowledge your request, you should make it an argument that you should win the round because the other team has not accommodated basic requests for an efficient debate.

If you are an older debater with lots of experience and debating a team with less experience, I expect you to know that speed doesn't win rounds. The teams that your speed drills will give you an edge over are teams that you could have beat going at their pace. Additionally, speed good arguments being weaponized as reasons to make a grab at the ballot are not compelling to me and I'll write on your ballot that you're a bully.

For the most part, I can handle your speed. Since my time debating at Long Beach I've not had an issue in any round over speed but I have CLEARed people. I will verbally notify debaters if I can't keep up.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. An older It could just be a difference in meta between when I debated and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

As a debater I read a fair amount of Derrida and Marx. As a student I spent much of my time writing on Derrida, Marx, Foucault, Baudrillard and most of the writers in the existentialism grab bag of philosophers. If you aren't reading direct copy pastes out of the Long Beach files that Fletcher sent around, it would probably be to your benefit to assume that you know more than I about the inspiration for the position you're reading.

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Free Stuff - If you don't have access to files from the old Long Beach Dropbox and would like them, tell me after round and I'll send them to you. Many teams have read positions from this collection of files in front of me, which I don't suggest doing (as they're old and other teams have access to them) however, they're great learning tools.

Bill Neesen - IVC

I love debate and think it is an amazing teaching game.

I think that debaters should make it what they want and defend that with sound arguments.

Policy making, DA, K, T and other theory are all good.

I am addicted to my flow and try to decide off of it.

I am also called a speaker point meanie (K. Calderwood)

Some things you should know (not that I will not vote for them but I am sure my opinions have some effect even if I do not want them to)

I hate conditional arguments

RVI's are just dumb and when I am forced to vote on them I will take speaker points

Affs should relate at some level to the topic

IPDA

This is not the same as parli and I do not really fllow it. I do take notes but totally different. I expect less complex debate and more public style.

Brandon West - CUI

Breanne Kubacki - OU

Communication skills judge. Persuade me.

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.

BG:

I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round.

Impacts:

You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate.

Case Debate:

I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well.

Disadvantages:

Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability.

Counterplans:

Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea.

Conditionality:

I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it.

Kritiks:

I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than they used the state.¢? I am not saying this cant be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I dont like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should.

Identity Arguments:

With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual.

Theory:

I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Dont just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win.

Speed

Speed is fine but please be clear. I dont see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments.

Defending the Topic:

Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument.

Speaker Points:

If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.

Miscellaneous:

Be organized and sign post. Dont assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time.

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory.

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.

BG:

Impacts:

Case Debate:

Disadvantages:

Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability.

Counterplans:

Conditionality:

Kritiks:

Identity Arguments:

Theory:

Speed

Defending the Topic:

Speaker Points:

Miscellaneous:

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory.

Caleb Moore - PLNU

Ten things:

1. I did policy in high school and 4 years NPTE/NPDA style parli in college.

2. Speed is good but not everybody is fast. Don't exclude your opponent though because I WILL vote on a well-articulated speed position if there is genuine abuse.

3. I ran the K half of the time in my own rounds but I preferred reading the K over policy arguments all of the time.

4. If you read a K on the aff make sure you justify your framework, explain why there isn't a TVA, or read a criticism that is in the same direction of the resolution.

5. I love uniqueness debates. Your link is way less compelling if you don't have control of the direction of uniqueness.

6. Being overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise violent is a voting issue.

7. Read interps/counter-interps, plan texts, counterplan texts, AND/OR alternatives slowly and twice.

8. I value creativity. If you have a strategy you have always wanted to try but never knew if the judge was down¢?¦ I am down.

9. I have almost no hard opinions on what is legitimate in debate. That means that I am down to listen to most theory arguments. You do still need to actually win them though. I default to competing interps. I also take the wording of interpretations pretty seriously so make sure that the interp actually says what you want it to.

10. Terminal defense wins, but terminal solvency defense does not. A we meet makes theory go away, a no link makes a disad/K go away (assuming you win it). "The plan doesn't solve" needs to be coupled with some offense reason to reject the position.

Caleb Klubben - PLNU

ÃÃ?Ã

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chris Bickel - El Camino

Damon Lawson - El Camino

TLDR: Been doing this for quite a while. 7 years total in forensics. 7 years doing Interp/Platforms/Limited Prep. 3 years doing collegiate Debate, specifically all of the areas listed prior as well as Parli Debate and IPDA Debate. Do what you want. At the end of the day, I'm judging on the flow.

Debate: My views on debate are very straight forward. I believe that debate is both academic and a game. It is first a basis of argumentation and speech, and secondly an avenue for competition. What this means is, I fully understand the ways how debate has evolved over time to become this great source of competition, however I find it necessary to to respect its academic roots, so please try your best to make well educated arguments and analysis in round, rather than running a bunch of asinine arguments because you think you can win on them. With all that being said, lets go into some specifics.

Speed: I am okay with speed most of the time. As a collegiate parliamentary debater, I as well as many of the individuals I compete with go rather fast. With that being said, I do believe that speed has a huge trade off. Sure, you can get out more arguments when you speak fast, however the quality and depth of those arguments can suffer. Furthermore, speaking fast often times has an adverse affect on your speaking ability and clarity. To put it simply, Clarity> Speed, everyday. Next, I am a Hard of Hearing individual, so if you are speaking fast and mumbling, I probably cannot understand you, and will call you to clear. If that happens its probably a key sign to either slow down or enunciate.
T: Yes, do it, love it. *okay hand sign emoji*
Kritik: Kirtiks can be awesome... if done right. Please make sure you understand the arguments you are trying to run. I will be the first person to call you out if you try to read some neolib argument you don't actually understand.
Timing: Please time yourselves.
Partner Communication: Sure, don't puppet your partner, and don't be loud and distracting while your opponent is speaking

Damon Lawson - El Camino

Debate: My views on debate are very straight forward. I believe that debate is both academic and a game. It is first a basis of argumentation and speech, and secondly an avenue for competition. What this means is, I fully understand the ways how debate has evolved over time to become this great source of competition, however I find it necessary to to respect its academic roots, so please try your best to make well educated arguments and analysis in round, rather than running a bunch of asinine arguments because you think you can win on them. With all that being said, lets go into some specifics.

Speed: I am okay with speed most of the time. As a collegiate parliamentary debater, I as well as many of the individuals I compete with go rather fast. With that being said, I do believe that speed has a huge trade off. Sure, you can get out more arguments when you speak fast, however the quality and depth of those arguments can suffer. Furthermore, speaking fast often times has an adverse affect on your speaking ability and clarity. To put it simply, Clarity> Speed, everyday. Next, I am a Hard of Hearing individual, so if you are speaking fast and mumbling, I probably cannot understand you, and will call you to clear. If that happens its probably a key sign to either slow down or enunciate.
T: Yes, do it, love it. *okay hand sign emoji*
Kritik: Kirtiks can be awesome... if done right. Please make sure you understand the arguments you are trying to run. I will be the first person to call you out if you try to read some neolib argument you don't actually understand.
Timing: Please time yourselves.
Partner Communication: Sure, don't puppet your partner, and don't be loud and distracting while your opponent is speaking

Daniel Zaragoza - PLNU

David Worth - RIce

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.

I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.

I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.

Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.

Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.

You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.

Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.

Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.

Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.

If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.

You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.

Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.

My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.

Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.

David Hale - ELAC

n/a

David Rehm - SCC

n/a

Dawson Khoury - Mt. SAC

Judge Philosophy

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Though I am known as a dreaded "communication judge" which is code for "she has no idea about debate and wouldn't know a kritik if it dropped on her head".....I actually love debate, and have judged it over the years. I appreciate well-read teams: meaning I am up on current events. Speed doesn't win my ballot, unless it is executed in such a fashion that the speaker isn't stumbling over themselves to spread their opponent out of the room with ten off case positions. I appreciate clarity, labeling, and solid argumentation. I am judging only IPDA now, which means, this debate should be run before a lay judge without the demonstration of debate jargon, technical prowess, or extreme speed necessary/popular to win a parli debate. I appreciate competitors that are professional both in round towards their opponent, and out of round post debate. You will win my ballot on both content and presentational style. I am a firm believer that the competitor not only represents themselves, but their entire team and coaches that put heavy instructional time into them. In essence, make this round count. I will be most appreciative of your efforts.

Erick Roebuck - OU

I coached Parli at Biola University for 12 years from 1997-2009. We had success at NPDA and NPTE during my time there. I returned to NPDA Nats last year as the DOF for the University of Oklahoma in 2018.

I am not a fan of critical, non-topical AFFs. If you want to run one of these for me, you are probably going to have to slow down and teach me to embrace your position as I might not be familiar with the literature you are referencing to build your claims.
K's need to have some link to either the case or the AFF/NEG advocacy.
I believe the role of the ballot is to assess the arguments and debaters, not solve some systemic problem within or outside the round. I am currently very skeptical of critical debate as it often excludes debaters trying to play by the rules. If your advocacy necessarily excludes the other team access to the ballot, I think you may be guilty of the same exclusion that you are fighting against.
I am okay with speed if you are clear, especially with the tags. Arguments are more important than delivery, but confident, engaging delivery helps earn those 30 pt ratings. Give me time to switch tabs on my laptop when you switch sheets.
I prefer that the neg block goes this way: 2NC covers the flow. 1NR crystallizes and shares voting issues (while obviously referring back to the flow when necessary). If the 1NR addresses issues that that the 2NC did not cover, then I will give the 1AR a lot of leeway to collapse and focus on key issues.
Not a fan of lazy cross applications. Explain why they matter and impact the arguments.

If the neg offers a counter definition, criteria, weighing mechanism, framework, or role of the ballot, it is imperative that they give me a reason to prefer NEG over AFF in the INC. It really is too late, in my opinion, to do this in the Neg block. I will default to AFF interpretations if no reason to prefer is given by the NEG in the 1NC, especially if the 2AC gives me reasons to prefer the AFF.
I think new arguments in the 2NC are dumb strategy. The aff can turn those in the 1AR without you having a chance to respond. Use at your own peril.
Have fun. Be nice. Build one another up through the clash of ideas in our awesome activity of debate!

Concordia Notes...

I am just judging elim rounds in Parli, so take that into consideration as you strike judges.

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10.

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn.There arelots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, butI try notto bring them into the round.Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you can lose a round if you drop one little argument, though it's unlikely unless your opponents blow it up, but if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework argument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool, or ask me to vote on real world impacts, I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have been "won." A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up or lie. In LD, I will read evidence, including that which the debaters don't read and will not give the ballot to debaters who misrepresent authors.

Because I try to base my decision based solely on argumentsthat are madein the round,I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad.Likewise, you don't have to run only conventionally believed positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or if they are "true."In general, know that I don't believe that debate is a search for the truth; I believe it is a game. As when you play all games, you should have fun!!!

BUT . . . if you are excessively rude or bullying, I will probably drop you.

2023 Update: after 3 yrs of competing and 23 years of judging, I have decided that I am over the k. My mindet has not changed; society has not changed. College students, who went through the application process, which by its nature excludes some, speaking for others has become old. I'm not saying I will never vote for a k again, but it will prob have to be different from the versions on a theme that I have heard for the last 30 years. Plus it's really killing parli which makes me sad. :/

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10.

BUT . . . if you are excessively rude or bullying, I will probably drop you.

Gary Rybold - IVC

Gary Rybold, PhD

Department of Communication Studies

Irvine Valley College

I donât coach anymore. I judge only when they run out of judges. I may show up if I have debate class students in a tournament.

Iâm old.

I did my first debate in 1965. I found it fun. I did four years of high school and four years of college debate. After a side trip to the corporate world, I returned to academia in 1989. Over the last three decades I coached policy, NPDA, WUDC, LD, and all IEs.

Now, I mostly teach public speaking, write, and consult.

If I am your judge, please slow down and make sense. I would rather hear three well-developed arguments than a dozen blippy ones. Iâm fairly traditional on theory. Most Ks donât make sense to me. I will vote on T or tricot if it makes sense. Just be clear and explain your arguments.

Be courteous.

Be clear.

Be accurate.

Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners

I debated NPDA and NFA-LD. In IE's, focused on Limited Prep and Platforms, minimal personal experience in Interps. Been coaching forensics speech and debate for the last 15 plus years.

You matter, your opponent matters, your speech matters, truth matters, rules matter, I matter. I refrain from interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also, hurting, kicking, and just violence in general, I frown upon)

In all forms of debates my guiding principle aside from fairneness, consideration and humility will be the official rules of the event. Although I might disagree with some of the rules, untill they are changed, I will abide by the existing sets.

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any students. Do not isolate, offend, or make your opponent feel less than wonderful human beings and students that they are. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attacks and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments and not a bully pulpit to bash fellow students.

I prefer good On Case/Off Case. Be aware that procedurals force judge intervention. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. If you are running a CP, you give up presumption. You take upon yourself same burdens as the Aff. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete.

I firmly believe that speed kills, "DO NOT SPREAD" as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything.

I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.

Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

On IPDA. It is a stand-alone debate. It is not Parli Light, it needs logic, anlaysis and persuasivness, which means for the duration of IPDA round I do not speak Parli. Make your arguments conversational, logical and devoid of lingo that has no place in this event.

On NFA-LD. Its stock issues and spread delivery is antithetical to this event.

Greg Gorham - GCU

Hannah Wald - PLNU

Holland Smith - Cal State LA

Jackie Stabenau - UCSD

n/a

James Shotwell - PCC

Jared Morrison - Mt. SAC

Jasmine McLeod - Mt. SAC

Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means

clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow.
no spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you!
you are courteous to your opponent.
you make it clear why I should vote for you.

Excited to see you all debate!

Jay Arntson - PCC

This judging philosophy only pertains to parliamentary debate. I perceive my role as adapting myself to the sort of round the debaters would like to have more so than debaters adapting to me. I will pretty much entertain any argument a debater wishes to advance. I typically see debate as a game rather than a requirement to relec the so-called real world.
I don't mind debaters being assertive but needs to be balanced with empathy and compassion. I believe language has power and ebaters should own the implications of their rhetoric.
The argument I vote for will only be the one the debaters in the round assert an not one of my own. My RFD will always be specific to an argument the debaters made in the round. I am fine with debaters kicking arguments. In-round abuse is easier to vote for than potential abuse. I am willing to vote on any procedural or kritik/project. I am comfortable with debate theory.
I will adapt to whatever speed the debaters choose to have. Please adjust to debaters with disability concerns. I am familiar with flowing speed and understanding technical jargon. I have judged debate for 10+ years in a variety of formats (policy, parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, etc.). I graduated from UC Berkeley as a double major in Philosophy and Rhetoric. My Masters is in Communication Studies from Cal State Long Beach. I have been a debate coach for 12 years.

Jaz Buckley - MU BEARS

Jonathan Veal - PLNU

Hello friends,

I have been coaching college parli since 2016 and competed in the activity previously.

Case debate/Policy: I really enjoy case debate. I am particularly persuaded by positions that interact with the uniqueness of the topic. DAs that are bottom heavy or generic can work but are vulnerable to MG non-unique and link arguments.

Theory: I default to competing interpretations. I tend to hold MG theory to a relatively high threshold due to lack of backside rebuttals, but see it as a check against particularly abusive neg strategies. I will go either way on condo depending on the argumentation in the round, but I tend to vote aff on delay/consult theory and when the neg reads multiple advocacies.

Critical Debate: Love it. Aff Ks need to either interact with the topic or present strong reasons for not doing so. I really like to see topic oriented-debate if possible. Accessibility is key, so I will not fill in the blanks on K authors even if I am familiar with them. Explain your Thesis/Solvency in a way that can be understood by the other team. Links of omission/generic links tend to be iffy for me. Show clear links.

Speed: I will listen to speed procedurals if the other team does not respond to clears and the team reading the position is clearly losing access to participating in the round. Speed is both strategic and lacks a bright line, but that is not an excuse to push people out of debate.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Some side notes

- Be cool to your opponents. Seriously, I consider this important enough to influence my decision in extreme instances.

- Provide a plan/CP/interp/perm text if asked. Perms with clear texts are preferred.

- Read trigger warnings if you are in doubt.

Joseph Laughon - CUI

Debated for five years, 2 for Moorpark College and 3 for CUI. I did ok. I am now the assistant director of debate at Concordia University.

I am a fairly straight up critic. A few points though;

- The K Despite my reputation while competing as being one of the most boring white men alive, I do not discourage it and towards the end, Will and I ran it fairly often. I am familiar with most generic kritiks (cap, whiteness, militarism, Virilio, borders, coercion, the gift, etc...) and have no problem voting on it. However my threshhold for defense on the k is likely lower than most judges, though not extremely so. You can't win on defense as much as I might sympathize with your struggle to do so. For me the vast majority of frameworks are poorly written and debates exclusively about poorly written frameworks are fairly boring. Debates on the alt solvency/alt offense/perm solvency/perm NBs are far more interesting and will help you win more often. That being said I've become more of a fan of well done framework debate. Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad." Also understand I do not spend even 1/25th the time you have spent reading the literature for your K (unless its cap or coercion). Be gentle with it. Name dropping a bunch of authors/authoresses isn't going to be persuasive because I will not have read them as deeply as you have. On a side note I see debate largely as a game we do largely for fun with the side benefits of being smarter/well rounded. I do not see it primarily as a catalyst for revolutionary social change or really any kind of "community. I'll vote on whatever wins you the game but please don't assume I am "down" because unless it's the restoration of monarchy, then odds are no. -Theory Hated as a competitor, like it a lot as a judge. Down with T but your counter interp probably needs to actually respond to the interp. Counter interps like "We must only be held to the resolution" isn't counter to anything much less their interp.

-DAs. Obviously I'm a fan. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with. Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. Please do that. The amount of times good team just spot the other side the notion that a nuclear bomb will cause extinction is so high it's absurd.

- Counter plans/perm debate.
Competition is good. Personally I prefer NB competition as I think its the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not. Do better than the same 3 generic perm blocks. How many times must we hear "Butler says..." in the perm debate? Impact Calc: If no one tells me how to judge straight up impact debates then I revert to magnitude and probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. some one feels bad about themselves). Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa. I do enjoy good defense debate on the probability level. Time frame isn't brought up enough. I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc. Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.

-House keeping

>Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. If your advocacy is long as hell please repeat it.

>POOs: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a fit, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to POO this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

>I'm not a point fairy.

Josh Vannoy - GCU

Joshua Vannoy - Grand Canyon University

Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. 4 years of coaching at GCU, one as ADOD and three as DOD. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood, Bear Saulet, and Amanda Ozaki-Laughon have all been large influences in my debate career.

General:

Debate is a game. There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make.

- One question should be answered during each constructive. (Flex can make this semi-optional)

- Partner to partner communication is cool, but if you (the speaker) don't say the words I won't flow it.

- Be friendly

Theory:

Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All interps should be read slowly twice, or I won't be able to flow it. I do not need articulated abuse. Competing interps is my go unless you have something else. I most likely will not vote for you must disclose arguments.

Case:

If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg. If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say "poverty" without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you.

Performance:

So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not "perform" anywhere else then there may be an issue. I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. In your performance never do harm to yourself or another competitor.

The K:

All K's should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces is missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better). The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates. I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K. I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is; name-dropping means nothing to me unless you explain the idea.

Non-topical Affirmatives:

After four years of seeing many non-topical debates as a judge, I have become more open to hearing them without much justification needed to reject the topic. With that being said I am still compelled and convinced by FW if ran effectively on the negative.

CP Theory:

Is condo bad? Probably? Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this one of the arguments that stuck with me. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate).

Never run delay.

50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so.

Pics are awesome if done well (Does not mean PICS bad is also not a good argument), and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice. If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down then what I wrote will be what I work with.

Permutations:

I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1-2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 3-8 perms. If your perm does not solve links to the DA's/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition.

Speaker Points:

I have found that I have a pretty routine pattern of speaker points; I generally give out 26 -29.5 depending on how well the debaters perform. With the 26-27 range being debates that usually are more learning experiences for the debaters, while the 28-29 range is usually for the debaters who do not have as much technical work and have very competitive performances. Jokes and making debate fun is always a safe way to get higher speaks in general. I also have found that the more hyper-masculine an individuals performance is, especially directed towards the other team, the lower my speaker points go for that individual.

Judith Teruya - CUI

Background:

Competed in parli for 4 years at Concordia University Irvine. My BA is in Sociology and I am currently earning my Master's in Public Policy.

Debate is a game and participants have the creative choice in how they choose to engage in that game. I prefer topical debates that ideally involve a discussion of policy making, however I understand debaters desire to use more creative approaches to engaging with the topic. I will protect against new arguments in the rebuttal but it is the prerogative of the debaters to call points of order anyway to hold teams and critics accountable for new arguments. Please utilize impact calculus to explain how the ballot is warranted for your side.

Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for theory or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.

Kritiks should explain why they turn the aff and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the aff, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the aff's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer advocacies be read unconditionally and I am very compelled by arguments about why conditionality is bad for parliamentary debate. The aff is entitled to a permutation in all instances so please do not read no perms theory in front of me.

If you are going to read a kritical aff, I would prefer be topical or at least be germane to the topic and if you are going to reject the resolution entirely I would like a robust defense of why that is justified. If you are utilizing performance in your argument please have a clear advocacy statement, whatever that might be.

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the aff. I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s). I will NOT vote on delay and CP theory is cool.

Julia Leslie - IVC

Kat Pimpanit - CBU

n/a

Kelsey Abele - ASU

n/a

Kristy McManus - WWCC

I am an IE coach from a CC. My terminal degree is in theatre. With that being said, I enjoy debate but am not going to be the debate critic you are probably looking for. I have been coaching for 9 years. This is my last year in this community.

I try to come into each debate as tab as possible. This is your debate. I will not do any "work" for you. You must fully explain what you are doing and how you are doing it. Explain well, and I am right there with you.

I do not like abusive arguments. Be smart with your strategy and focus on good debate that uses clear and well developed claims and warrants.

I am fine with speed as long as it is not used as a tactic. I have no problem calling it either. I will always defer to the other team - if they don't want speed, you should adjust accordingly.

Procedurals are a good and strategic aspect of debate. Again, refer to above statements regarding your use and running of them. Be clear, be specific, explain. Tell me what to do, look at, and vote on.

K's are fine...please, please, please take the time to repeat important phrases as well as completely explain. Remember that you might be asking me to engage in YOUR round with K debate. Are you ready to do that?

Enjoy the round, be critically engaged, listen to your opponents, explain in detail, tell me what to do and why.

Kyle Bligen - MU BEARS

Overall Philosophy:

Let's debate. Whatever style, whatever case. Let's hear it. If you deem it worthy of your time and competition, let's hear it. I want to hear ethics, morality, history, proposition, all in the name of competition.

Perms:

Make sure before the term "perm" comes out of your mouth, you know it's denotative and connotative power.

Topicality:

If they talk about the resolution, with breadth and depth, regardless of your performative preference, save your time. If you like topicality, and want to flex your muscles, run it.

Plans:

Listen, I've worked in Congress (shameless plug). If your policy actually is bad policy, get ready to be exposed. If it's good, let's hear it. The time for good policy making is NOW.

Performance Debate is Bad:

Congratulations, you played yourself (DJ Khaled voice).

Performance Debate is Good:

Congratulations, as I'm sure you're quickly finding out. Debate is real life to some and a game to others. If you're running a performance, come with that fire.

***My actual paradigm***

Start by bringing water to a boil in a large pot. Add salt to the water to season the pasta. Once it is boiling, add pasta and cook according to package instructions.
Saute the garlic and butter together until softened about 1 to 2 minutes.
Add heavy cream and let simmer over medium-high heat for about 5 minutes to thicken. Add salt and pepper to taste. Add half of the parmesan cheese to the mixture and whisk well until smooth.
Save some pasta water. The pasta water is full of flavor and can be used to thin out the sauce.
Toss alfredo sauce with fettuccine pasta and add half of the parmesan cheese. Once it is tossed, garnish with the remaining parmesan cheese. Add a little pasta water if it needs to be thinned out.
Garnish with Italian parsley, if so desired.

Matt Grisat - RioRunners

Matthew Grisat - CBU

n/a

Michael Dvorak - GCU

Michelle Little - Cerritos

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the Director of Forensics at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching in PSCFA since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:

I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed that is faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will probably result in me understanding maybe 20% of what you are saying, which is not conducive to your chances of winning.
My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.
I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative (!) impact calculus, and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.
I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.
I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them.
My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
- Whining: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
- Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...
The affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.
I don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

Oli Loeffler - IVC

I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.

I think neg teams have ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.

Speed shouldn't be a problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down.

Olivia Neidhart - PLNU

I have a background in NPDA and consider myself open to a variety of arguments and thoughts. As long as you can give logical reasons supported by evidence, I will listen to and entertain your points without bias. With that being said, debate is based in the communicative discipline, so that should be the main focus of the round. Although I am open to speed and other strategies, you should not out spread your opponents or me. Please feel free to have fun in round, I welcome creativity and humor, as long as it is communicated well. Be respectful of each other, think critically and strategically, try your best, and have fun!

Paris Swett - PLNU

Patricia Hughes - RioRunners

When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.

When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters.

I am not a fan of K s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.

I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.

While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Ralph Castellanos - SCC

IPDA: every argument should be digestible to a non-debater. Speak with eloquence and linguistic style. Cases should be organized in a manner in such a way that flowing comes with ease. Make it substantive but keep it simple. Cite your sources. Analyze the round. Winning my ballot means you gave an articulate analysis of the round in your rebuttal speech. In regard to evidence, a strong metaphor or narrative moves me more than a statistic.

NPDA: Be respectful. Be assertive but not aggressive. Be organized. Be easy to flow. I don't really vote for hypothetical examples and futuristic technology that doesn't exist. CP's should be non-topical. Res is the AFF's ground. Plan text matters. Cross-applying everything isn't enough. Link to your impacts. Articulate your impacts. Give impact analysis in rebuttal speeches. Explain how you outweigh. Give me explicit voters. Be engaging. I am not good with speed, you will lose me. I am happy to answer pre-round questions about how I jude.

Ralph Castellanos - SCC

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

Robert Campbell - UCSD

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

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt. SAC

n /a

Sam Sheeder - UA Debates

Most things are fine with me except speed. Just try your best to have a civil and fun debate. I'll do my best to keep up with flow. If there is anything specific you want me to know, make it obvious to me. I have roughly a year of experience, so take that for as you think

Sara Moghadam - IVC

Please time yourselves.
Partner communication is absolutely welcome but I only flow whatever the speaker says.
Iâm not a big fan of speed though I can follow along fairly well. I would much rather hear a few very well-thought-out arguments as opposed to a bunch of flimsier ones.
Make sure to provide a framework as that is what I will follow.
I try to make my decision solely based on my flow and what is said within round. I wonât make any assumptions or link/impact out arguments for you.
I will vote on T or tricot as long as it makes sense.
I enjoy T arguments very much, but make sure to provide an interp, standards, and voters.
Kâs should only be run when the other side believes itâs more important than whatever is currently being debated and directly connects to the resolution. There should be clear links, impacts, and solvency/alternatives. The alt should solve at least some of the aff. Please donât assume I am familiar with the foundational literature.
I absolutely love counterplans, but make sure you explain why itâs both competitive and net beneficial. Make sure to still provide DAs.
I really really like to see clash within a debate.
Extend arguments!
Impacts and impact analysis are important! Make sure to impact everything out, I donât want to do the work for you. Tell me what I should consider most important and why. Also explain how competing arguments should be evaluated.
I like clear links, impacts, and warrants. Warrants strengthen arguments and are something I definitely look for.
Make sure to summarize in the rebuttal why I should be voting for the aff/neg. Voters and impact calculus are your (and my!) best friends.

Selene Aguirre - Cerritos

As an educator, the core of my teaching and judging philosophy is empowerment and inclusion. My experiences are primarily focused on platform speaking. However, Iâ??ve taught Argumentation and Debate for the past four years and have developed a few preferences when judging IPDA, Parli, and LD.

As a debater, I expect you to speak with clarity, a bit faster than a conversation speaking rate (but avoid speeding if the speech will be affected), and loud enough for me to hear you. I prefer off-time roadmaps for clarity, appreciate signposts throughout speeches, and praise respectfulness and good sports[person]ship. Also, I am a tabula rasa judge (consider myself a clean slate). I will allow you to guide the round and not let my preconceived ideas cloud my judgment. Therefore, I look for clear and well-supported arguments, evidence, and analysis, and lastly, let me know how you weigh your impacts and why your voters are more critical than your opponent. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm if thereâ??s no way to assess it another way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your time!

Inclusion is not a matter of political correctness. It is the key to growth. -Jesse Jackson

Shannon Prier - CUI

Some of your coaches know me. Please read what you can anyway. I have been out of debate longer than I was in it. (Updated 1/18/2019).

TL;DR:

It has been nearly 3 years since I judged a debate round. If you see me in the first half of the tournament (CUI Free) keep in mind my flowing hand is out of practice. Yes, you can go fast. Policy arguments are more in my comfort zone than critical arguments. I cant hear well so talk loud. Read all plan texts, counterplan texts, alternative texts, advocacy texts, interps, or role of the ballot arguments twice and clear. I flow on paper.

Background:

I debated for 2 years at El Camino College, a little over 1 year at Concordia. I stopped competing after Jewell my senior year and moved to a minor coaching role on CUIs team (really just helping new folks write files and judge a tournament here or there). I was a part time coach for Concordia from 2015-2016 and judged all national circuit tournaments that CUI attended that year. I am currently in my last semester of grad school getting my Master of Public Policy from USC and I work at the DHS Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. As you may gather, my comfort zone is policy, economics, and security (specifically terrorism).

Most of my philosophy will be telling you to do what you want, but attempting to be transparent about my biases and short comings.

General:

I have issues hearing so please read plan texts, counterplan texts, alternative texts, advocacy texts, interps, or role of the ballot arguments twice and clear. I flow on paper (plain white paper with one argument per page). I protect against new arguments in the rebuttal, but you should flag them just in case I miss something new.

Conditionality:

I dont mind if youre conditional, but I am also open to condo bad. I generally prefer unconditional strategies, but not for any moral reasons or opinions about the nature of the activity. It is in my experience that strategies that rely on multiple conditional advocacies are typically shallow with backfilled warrants.

The K:

When I debated, I primarily ran Cap bad and Fem IR. Im not in the literature base for most things postmodern so keep that in mind. Feel free to run a critical affirmative, but Im definitely open to the argument that you should defend the topic. My primary issue following Ks is terminology, so dont assume I know your lit base or jargon. Consider simplifying terminology if you are running a critical argument.

Rejecting the resolution and recurring criticisms (sometimes called projects): I approach debate as a game you are trying to win. If you tell me that debate is a platform for you to spread your message, I will do my best to assume genuine intent, but realize I will usually assume you are trying to win a ballot. I interpret threats of suicide or violence as GENUINE and will handle them accordingly. I understand that advocacies get incredibly personal, especially when you spend a year researching it.

For criticisms that utilize personal experience, please keep in mind that your critics are also humans in the round. As competitors, you have a platform to discuss your ideas, beliefs, and opinions and should utilize that platform however you wish. Your judges are unable to self-filter from personal experiences that may make it more difficult to be objective in round. I would prefer to not evaluate arguments that utilize personal experiences about mental health issues, domestic violence, or sexual violence. If you need clarification, contact me prior to the round.

For the aff: I have no issue with you not debating the topic. I would rather watch you debate what you are passionate about rather than attempt to talk about the economy or state security if its not your thing. Just make the argument clear and easy to evaluate (i.e., have at minimum a role of the ballot argument).

Alternatives/Advocacies: Make sure you have a written text and repeat it twice and clear. I would prefer that you offer the opposing team a copy of your text or at least repeat if requested. If you have a critical affirmative that doesnt have an advocacy text (narrative, entire PMC is the advocacy, etc.), please have a role of the ballot argument somewhere.

Counterplans:

I prefer that you give the opposing team a copy of your text. Please have a written text. I like advantage counterplans, PICs, and actor counterplans. Consult less so, but Im open to it. However, Im open to any framework argument that says these types of counterplans arent legitimate. Im particularly sympathetic to PICs bad arguments when there is only one possible affirmative and at tournaments with disclosed topics (in my day this included Mile High and NPTE).

Permutations:

Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies. I will not reject a permutation outright unless you give me a reason of why it shouldnt be evaluated. Theory against perms are typically evaluated as reasons to not evaluate the permutation, not why the team should lose the round.

Theory:

All theory positions should have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voting issues. Please read your interpretations more than once. I am willing to vote on theory arguments, however I do not believe that new theory in the PMR is legitimate, even if it is in response to something that happened in the block (e.g., you must take a question¢?).

Topicality:

I have yet to see a round with a legitimate reason why topicality is a reverse voting issue. This is probably one of the few areas that my preconceived notion of debate will affect your round. If you go all in on a Topicality RVI during the PMR, youre going to have a bad time.

Speaker Points:

Be smart and concise and your speaker points will range between 26-30. Ill typically start form 29 and move down between speakers to about 27 with half points in between. I think speaker points are fairly arbitrary, so I have never found a good justification for changing that range. Be nice.

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

Skyler Meador - IVC

I competed in community for two years in Parli and I can comprehend most arguments. I love debates centered around the resolution, but if you want to run something and feel confident, go for it. I will call clear if I can't understand you. I will flow kritiks, but make sure the link is strong and its topical. Don't run something just to run something. Respect for your opponents is something I take seriously. I flow what the speaker is saying, not their teammate. Sign post, especially in rebuttals. If you don't tell me where to put it you can guarantee it isn't going where you want it to. The winner of the round weighs heavily on overall clarity of arguments, well thought out impact scenarios, and overall respect for fellow competitors. Have fun, be organized, and show me good communication skills.

Stephanie Mu - PCC

Steve Doubledee - WU

ADOF for Washburn University

Please treat your opponent with kindness and respect. I get it sometimes this is hard to docx can get heated at times. Just know that keeping your cool in those situations goes a long way with me. Guaranteed if youre rude speaks will suffer. If youre really rude you will get the Loss!

Quality of evidence matters. Credential comparisons are important example- Your opponents evidence is from a blog vs your evidence is from a specialist in the field of the debate---you should point that out! Currency comparisons are important example- Your opponents impact card from 2014 is based off a very different world than what we exist in now---you should point that out. Last thing hereOver-tagged / under highlighted cards do not impress me. Good rule of thumbif your card tag is longer than what you have highlighted I will consider that pretty shady.

Speed vs Delivery- What impresses medebaters that can deliver their evidence efficiently & persuasively. Some can do this a little quicker than others and that is okay. On the flip side for you slower debaters the great balancer is I prefer quality evidence / arguments and will always privilege 1 solid argument over 5 kind-of-argumentsyou just have to point that out. Cross-applications / impact filter cards are your friend.

I prefer you embrace the resolution- What does this mean exactly? No plan text Affirmatives = 90% chance you will lose to T. If you could write an advocacy statement you probably could have written/found a TVA. What about the other 10%? Well, if your opponent does not run or collapse to T-USFG / does not put any offense on your performative method then you will probably get my ballot.

Theory/procedurals- Aff & Neg if youre not making theory args offensive then dont bother reading them. Negs that like to run 4 theory/procedural args in the 1NC and collapse to the one least coveredI will vote on RVIsThis means when kicking out, if an RVI is on that theory sheet you better take the time to answer it. I view RVIs as the great strategic balancer to this approach.

Case debate-Case debate is important. Key areas of case that should be addressed: Plan text (plan flaw), circumvention, direct solvency turns / defense, impact filters / framing, rolb claims.

Counterplan/disad combo - If I had to choose what debate island I would have to live on for the rest of my life-- I would choose this one. I like generic process cp/da combos just as much as hyper specific PICs/with a small net-benefit. CP text is important. Your CP text should be textually & functionally competitive. CP theory debates can be interesting. I will give all cp theory arguments consideration if framed as an offensive reason to do so. The only CP theory I will not listen to is PICs bad (never). Both aff/neg should be framing the rebuttal as Judge we have the world of the cp vs the plan here is why my world (the cp or plan) is better.

K debates - I am a great believer in topic specific critical lit The more specific your link cards the better. If your only link is "you function through the state" dont run it or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency that isolates the method being used 3. Tell me what the post alt world looks like. If your K happens to be a floating PIC that is fine with me but I will consider theoretical argument in opposition as wellYes, I will listen to a Floating PIC good/bad debate.

Last thought: Doing your own research + Cutting your own evidence = more knowledge gained by you.

Chance favors a prepared mind Louis Pasteur

Taylor Alandzes - GCU

Taylor Alandzes â Grand Canyon University

TLDR: Run what you want, Ks are fine, speed is fine, be an awful person and I will drop you.

Experience: I debated with GCU for four years. I am a first year out judge but Iâve been coaching in some capacity for a year and half. I was fairly successfully as a debater and made it to quarters last year at NPDA so I can handle whatever you want to run.

General: I ran a lot of traditional arguments and a lot of Ks but Iâd leave it all for a good straight case debate or theory debate. I spent a majority of my Junior and Senior year running Debate-space criticisms, so I am very open to any of those arguments as well.

Theory: Love it. Run it. Run it well. Theory, especially creative theory, is my favorite kind of debate. I can be persuaded that RVIs are legit, convince me.

The K: I enjoy a good K. By good I mean well-read and with round-specific links. Specific Kâs I enjoy are fem, cap, and debate-space related Ks but Iâm open to whatever your wheelhouse is just explain your lit. Real world alternatives are my preference but if you can tell me why your meta-reality is worth the ballot Iâm willing to hear you out.

Non-topical Affirmatives: Have good answers to T. Give me topic specific links or a good framework that tells me why I should ignore the topic.

Speaker Points: I will almost always give 30s because speaker points are inherently exclusionary HOWEVER I will break this rule if you are a horrible human being. Debate is a hard enough space to exist in, letâs be kind and decent to each other.

Trevor Greenan - Parli at Berkeley

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 3 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years, and now exclusively coach/run the program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but Ive had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. Im generally open to just about any argument, as long as theres good clash.

General Issues

I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that Ill try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and Ill pick up the worse argument if its won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that theres a certain degree of intervention thats inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments, arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.
In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if theyre won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they werent sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.
The LORs a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I dont need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I prefer to not flow it on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer that format Id rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.
I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if its read well.
Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.
I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but its always better to call the POO just to be safe.
Im open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way.
I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. That being said, absent substantial argumentation either way, Ill usually defer to each side being able to leverage their advocacy/offence against the other.
I have a pretty high threshold for voting on presumption. I find it difficult to buy that either side has actually won terminal defense, absent a good amount of work in the round. That being said, I default to presumption flowing negative.
Prior question arguments in framework are fine/good, just make sure that theres sufficient explanation of these arguments and application to the rest of the round. Im not very likely to vote on a dropped prior question/independent voter argument if there isnt interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory/Procedurals

I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. Im perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.
I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I dont think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation, although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.
I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I dont know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline Ill usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.
I have a very high threshold on RVIs. If extremely well-developed and extremely mishandled by the other team I could imagine myself voting on one, but I would hope to never have to.

Advantage/DA

Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure youre reading uniqueness in the right direction.
I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume theres at least some risk of offense, so dont rely on just reading defensive arguments.
Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and Im generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, the more you can contextualize your argument to the round the greater weight that I will give it. Specific and substantial case debates are great.
I default to fiat being durable.

Please give me specific texts.
Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.
I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.
I generally wont buy textual competition absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, and I have a decent understanding of postmodern theory (particularly Foucauldian/Deleuzian/Derridean). That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I will do my best to not just vote for an argument I understand absent explanation in-round, and theres definitely a good amount of literature I wont know of.
Im perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework. On that note, Im also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation.
Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. Im also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.
I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.
I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.
Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and theyve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. Ill usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible.

Vasile Stanescu - MU BEARS

Victor Akioyame - CBU

n/a

Will Prier - CUI

TLDR

- I strongly prefer listening to disad/cp debates about the topic and believe switch sides debate is very good.

- I'll evaluate any argument as best I can, but do have reasonably strong preferences which are described below.

- The best debates are ones where the block collapses hard and the PMR collapses harder, and the LOR/PMR are mostly impact framing/story-telling/"even-if"ing/writing my ballot.

Background

I debated for 2 years in high school and 4 years in college at Concordia University. I debated with Joe Laughon for the last 3 of those years. We defended the topic in 100% of our rounds, pretended to be policymakers in 95% of those rounds, and (speaking for myself here) had the most fun when we were in our comfort zone reading disads and debating the case. The last debate round I judged was in 2018. Since graduation I have very much checked out of the debate scene. I'm literally going to have to re-read the rules on flex time and stuff before this tournament. I'm going to be a slower flower - I listen to podcasts at 2x but don't take notes on them.

Requests

- Be nice and inclusive to each other. Judging hostile debates isn't fun.

- All advocacies (plan, cp, alt, whatever) should have a text that is read twice with a written copy provided to your opponent.

- Embrace nuance and clash on issues/warrants/impacts. Your speaks will be rewarded and we all might learn something.

- If you scrolled to this section first, feel free to strike me or at least appreciate that I am not the best critic for you. My MG strat tended to be impact turns, framework, and perms. I know.

- I absolutely have not read your authors and I'm not familiar with what people are reading. If it wasn't in a camp file from before 2010 (and even then...) I'm unfamiliar.

- My bias is that I think the role of the ballot is to designate the winner of the game.

- All advocacies must be competitive and have a text.

Other observations

- I recognize most arguments in debate are wrong/untrue at some level and that we'll never fully unpack those things in-round.

- I think a lot of personal growth comes from overcoming adversity and doing hard things.

- T and theory get evaluated via competing interps and require standards/voters (do I need to say this?).

- I prefer advocacies to be unconditional in the glorious tradition of Kevin Calderwood, but will hear and vote for advocacies with any status you want.

- I am happy to listen to theory debates on status/PICs/consult/whatever. I like clever PICs and dislike consult/delay/etc.

- I really enjoy deep case debates, PMC pre-empts, and DA+CP+case LOCs.

- I try to be expressive. If I don't understand, I'll make an effort to show you on my face. If I can't understand you, I'll "clear" or "slow" you.

- Speaks range 26-30.

Zachary Johnson - El Camino

Zihad Amin - IVC

Judging Philosophy

2 year community college debater. Competed at state and nationals. Open to everything. Prefer to see debate centered around the resolution. Will flow critiques, but need to make sure the link is clear and strong. Be respectful to your opponents. Partner to partner communication is acceptable, but do not speak for your partner. Will only flow what the primary speaker is saying, nothing that the partner says will be flowed. I have a hearing disability so try not to speak too fast and be clear. Extremely important to be clear so I can get as much of the argument as possible. Will default to judging rounds based on net benefits unless am told otherwise. Really enjoy impact calculus and the round will heavily be weighed on which side provides the clearest and most powerful impacts. I am willing to answer any specific questions debaters may have prior to the round

2019 Jannese Davidson Memorial Tournament

Judge Philosophies

Akshay Nathan - UA Debates

Akshay Nathan - UA Debates

Alexander Cadena - RioRunners

Alicia Batice - PCC

Allison Doig - PLNU

Alonzo Eldridge - SCC

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - CUI

Andrew Wilson - UCSD

Angelica Grigsby - CUI

Anthony Anderson - CBU

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

Bill Neesen - IVC

Brandon West - CUI

Breanne Kubacki - OU

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG:

Impacts:

Case Debate:

Disadvantages:

Counterplans:

Conditionality:

Kritiks:

Identity Arguments:

Theory:

Speed

Defending the Topic:

Speaker Points:

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG:

Impacts:

Case Debate:

Disadvantages:

Counterplans:

Conditionality:

Kritiks:

Identity Arguments:

Theory:

Speed

Defending the Topic:

Speaker Points:

Caleb Moore - PLNU

Caleb Klubben - PLNU

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chris Bickel - El Camino

Chris Bickel - El Camino

Damon Lawson - El Camino

Damon Lawson - El Camino

Daniel Zaragoza - PLNU

David Worth - RIce

David Hale - ELAC

David Rehm - SCC

Dawson Khoury - Mt. SAC

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Erick Roebuck - OU

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

Gary Rybold - IVC

Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners

Greg Gorham - GCU

Hannah Wald - PLNU

Holland Smith - Cal State LA

Jackie Stabenau - UCSD

James Shotwell - PCC

Jared Morrison - Mt. SAC

Jasmine McLeod - Mt. SAC

Jay Arntson - PCC

Jaz Buckley - MU BEARS

Jonathan Veal - PLNU

Joseph Laughon - CUI

Josh Vannoy - GCU

Judith Teruya - CUI

Julia Leslie - IVC

Kat Pimpanit - CBU

Kelsey Abele - ASU

Kristy McManus - WWCC

Kyle Bligen - MU BEARS

Matt Grisat - RioRunners

Matthew Grisat - CBU