Judge Philosophies
Akanksha Kalia - Chabot
As a judge, I evaluate rounds objectively focusing on the arguments presented.While,Ido have a debate background, I prioritize clarity, strong argumentation, and strategic execution over the excessive use of jargon. Below is a summary of things I value/prefer in rounds:
Values:
- Evidence & Logic: Well-supported arguments with clear impacts will always be favored. Simply asserting a claim without evidence or reasoning wont persuade me.
- Comparative Weighing: I appreciate debaters who directly compare impacts and explain why their arguments should matter more than their opponents.
- Clash & Engagement: Engage with your opponents arguments; strong refutation beats generic responses.
- Delivery & Clarity: Speed is fine, but clarity is essential and far more important to me. If I cant understand what you're saying, I cant flow it or weigh it.
- Framework & Voter Issues: A clear framework and explicit voter issues help me decide the round.
Preferences:
- Theory & Ks: I will evaluate these arguments, but I prefer that they are well-developed and contextualized within the round and not just being utilized as some tactic. Explain why they matter in this debate.
- Speaker Points: I reward strong rhetorical skills, confidence, and adaptability. Poor decorum or disrespectful conduct may negatively impact points.
- Dropped Arguments: I wont fill gaps for a dropped argument, but the other team must extend it.
At the end of the day, make my job easybe clear, weigh your arguments, and tell me why you win. And, of course, remember to have fun in the process too!
Alexis Litzky - CCSF
I have spent many years coaching/judging/directing at San Francisco State University, University of San Francisco, and now City College of San Francisco. Notice a theme? 1 - I try to let the debaters control the interpretation and framework of the debate. Try to be clear and focused about what you think the criteria or role of the ballot is/should be, and what that means for me. This is the first question I resolve whenever Iâm making a decision. 2 - You should run and go for arguments that you think are germane to the topic and politically salient for you, not what you think I want to hear. I have literally voted for every "type" or "genre" of argument, and I wish you would spend less time trying to overly adapt to my judging preferences. I take judging seriously, and you should know that I approach every debate with the same sense of importance whether it is a first-time Novice or a 2-year long competition with your favorite rival. I try to provide as much intellectual and professional integrity as one can, and I hope you do the same. This also means that there is no specific bright line that you need to pass on theory for me to vote for it, or any kind of specific component of an argument that will help you win. There are some normative standards that always affect judges, like you need to have some sort of impact to win the debate. But I canât in good faith say that impacts are always more important that links, but link debates can be incredibly salient if the neg is making a good solvency press. 3 - I love the flow. Not in an overly fetishistic sort of way, but I definitely take the practice the seriously. My students think itâs weird, and maybe it is. But I love the satisfaction of tracking arguments throughout the debate. This does not mean that if you drop an argument itâs over for you, but you do have to tell me why you decided to spent 6 minutes on framework rather than answering another major argument the opponent is going for. Itâs also the primary tool that will help me resolve many debates. Unless, of course, you tell me why it shouldnât matter. In which case, I will probably still flow (because Iâm me) but please donât take that as an affront to you. Some thoughts on style: My background in CEDA/NDT debate means that Iâm fine with speed, but there is a limit to how much I actually think thatâs required. People who are trying to sound fast but actually arenât fast will not be rewarded. People who are clear, fast, and engaging with the arguments and the other team will be rewarded. People who actually use the flow and respond to specific arguments will be rewarded. Youâre also more likely to win the debate. I particularly appreciate it when debaters highlight arguments they think will become particularly key or relevant to the debate. New ways of understanding the same old business. Critical interrogation. Thought experiments. Surprises. Debates that inspire and challenge my sense of political engagement. Jokes, smiles, and sassy attitudes. These will get you infinitely farther than rude, brutish, and hurtful debates. You have the rest of your life to be as serious as you want, use this unique space and time to enjoy yourself and learn about the topic and each other. Enjoy yourself, and remember to have fun! Itâs the weekend and we like to be here! :)
My threshold for argumentation is relatively low: I coach and will vote on any argument that is well supported and persuasively presented. Excellent warrants and evidence will take you farther than empty tagline and generalized debating. I like topic specific education, but I also like new interpretations of education and the topic. I love this activity because in many debates I have witnessed I learned something new about the topic and about the debaters involved.
What does this really mean for debaters?
Other than that, I have some general love for:
Ana Petero - Solano CC
n/a
Andrea Brown - St. Mary's
Parli update for outrounds Open only:
In outrounds, I'm not going to call slow unless asked. If you ask, I will only slow you down once for each speaker unless you specifically ask that I call slow as needed.
Parli
LD Philosophy:
Open specific:
I don't do well with speed over the internet. Your tags and cites need to be read at a slow pace. You can go as fast as you want in your cards but everything else needs to be at least three steps below your normal pace.
I've been out of LD for a while now and am not familiar with the current norms. I will try to go with whatever norms you want although that's always debateable.. If you're going to argue I have to vote on the rules, I would prefer that you give a reason why I should care about rules but I'll vote on it unless the other side argues that differently.
If there's something I missed because of my internet or yours, I will try to let you know at the end of that speech. If there's a preferred norm to handle this, let me know before the round starts when both you are your competitor are present.
Only the bottom paragraph of my parli philosophy applies to LD.
Novices: Assuming you're not super-fast, you'll be fine.
Parli Philosophy
Important: If you want me to prioritize truth over tech, please say this in the first speech. I will listen to arguments against truth over tech, but I will analyze them through a truth framework.
Speed and decision making:
Online debate has killed my interest/energy for speed. In person and online, I'll call slow until you get down to a speed that I'm willing to handle. I'm also cool with speed Ks. I will tank your speaks threshold if you don't slow down for a team that calls slow. In the MO/LOR/PMR you need go at least two steps slower than your top speed and pick the arguments that matter. Stop extending everything. I start my round analysis with the team that has the conceptually clearer rebuttal, see if I think they've won the arguments they claim they have, and then go through the other team's rebuttal. If you don't funnel your arguments through the role of the ballot, I might do that for you, and I've voted teams down for losing under their own role of the ballot.
Random stuff:
I don't need proven abuse to vote on theory but in a close framework debate, I tend to lean towards justice over fairness. I'm usually a flow judge (offense over defense warrants over none) but if that's a bad way of evaluating your arguments, I'm happy to switch to something else just walk me through what you want me to do. I will keep flowing because if I don't, I will forget your arguments/performance/whatever. Love Ks with the exception of some authors (I used to list the authors I didn't like but you doing you is more important than my preferences so that's gone). I've never voted for presumption and if you go for presumption, you're probably already losing. If you tell me to gut check my arguments, I will and my gut will tell me I'm hungry. If you tell me to use my intuition, I will but I will not confine my intuition to one argument so be prepared for those consequences. I fundamentally don't believe contradictions are a thing for the K perm so if you're neg, you need DA(s) to the perm not reasons why it won't work. I'm working on protecting in the rebuttals but only for very big things, if you think it's small but key, call the point of order. Frankly, I would prefer if you didn't trust me and just called it. At the end of a debate day, I am usually exhausted so my capacity to put my decision into words goes way down. If that's you, I'm sorry and you can catch me later and ask me to explain better if you want.
IPDA
My version of adapting to this format is to not flow it. In theory, I might remember big stuff but not minute, flow specific stuff. But in reality, just assume I have a terrible memory. Other than that, I'm not familur enough with the norms of this style to have anything specific to say. You do you.
Will vote you down over (all formats):
I saw something in lila lavender's philosophy and really liked it so I'm adding a version of it. I reserve the right to vote you down for being overtly oppressive. This means if you say racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, Islamophobic, etc stuff, I reserve the right to vote you down. If you do any of those things directly to your competition, I definitely reserve the right to vote you down. However, there's a chance if a competitor does this in a way that outsiders might not realize is violent, non-verbally, or during crosstalk, I won't catch/process it happening during the round so if this is happening in-round, I prefer you pointing that out.
Andrew Morgan - DVC
Updated 2/24/24 at 7:46 AM.
I view debate as an educational event. That being said, both sides need to have equal access to debate. If you run 8 off case positions against a novice because the divisions were collapsed, I will drop you. Theres no education in that debate. If you are a junior level debater and you want to run the super cool and fun K that your open teammates are running against the junior level competition, I will drop you for a few reasons:
- You are trying to skip learning the fundamentals of argumentation and debate so that you can do cool stuff
- Its abusive to your opponents
- Neither you nor your opponents are learning anything from that debate. I certainly wont be either.
My position on Ks changes in the open division. While I personally think its incredibly silly to try to explain Marx or Buddhism in 8 minutes or less, I will vote for them as long as you can link the K to the topic. If novice or junior are collapsed into open, please do not run a K against them. Please just debate the topic. If you are an open competitor, you should be totally fine without needing to spread a novice/junior debater/debate team in order to win.
Lastly, I am not a fan of potential abuse when running a topicality. I also think its weird and contradictory to run Disadvantages that clearly link to the plan but then say the plan is untopical.
Overall, I am some fine with speed as long as you are also clear. Articulation is key here. I also appreciate it when debaters are very organized throughout the round. Off time road maps are good; just signpost as you get there. My experience in debate is very limited. I almost exclusively competed in Individual Events.
Angela Ohland - Butte
I'm a fairly new judge to the forensics community. I am primarily an IE judge/coach and have limited experience with debate. As a result, please consider me a lay judge and try to use clear roadmapping and speak clearly and persuasively. I appreciate an impactful opening and a clear preview.
Fairness and respect are paramount for me. My goal is to provide constructive (primarily delivery focused feedback) that helps competitors refine their skills. I look forward to witnessing your talents on display!
Angelica Guzman - UOP
Hello!
I competed in NPDA and LD for the University of the Pacific from 2020-2024. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for the University of the Pacific.
TLDR/Parli
I wasnt that fast when I competed, but I can generally handle speed. A debate is much simpler for me to follow if counter-advocacies are unconditional. I dont like frivolous theory, but Ill evaluate it. I think the Affirmative should be topical, but that doesnt mean I wont evaluate untopical AFFs.
Parli Specific
AFF Cases
I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy and have a lower threshold for voting on theory/framework against an AFF that didnt defend the topic, but I will still evaluate and am willing to vote on AFFs that do not. AFFs that reject the topic need to spend more time explaining and justifying why they are not defending the topic.
Theory/Topicality
Ill evaluate any theory/topicality read in the LOC, and if well explained and warranted will have a low threshold for voting on it. I have a higher threshold for theory read in the MG unless its condo is bad, which I am highly likely to vote on.
CP/Ks:
CP
For the CP, I like them. If you run a pic, delay, or anything related to what may be perceived as an abusive CP I am willing to listen and vote on theory arguments claiming they are. I think if you run a CP, you must be able to solve the AFF otherwise, you have no reason to run a CP. I dont like vague perms, but if I dont understand how your CP solves the aff Im likely to vote on the perm.
K
I probably dont have a deep understanding of the lit your K is based on, but you can still read it. In the instance you decide to run a K, I would prefer a thesis. I need clear explanations of how the alt solves, otherwise I defer to my uncertainty in your alts ability to solve for the in or out of round harms you claim to solve for. For Ks, if I dont understand your alt and its ability to solve, I am likely to vote on the perm if it is well explained.
Condo
I was never conditional in Parli when I competed and now, as a judge, I prefer unconditional advocacies. This doesnt mean I will auto drop the team for being conditional, but I have a low threshold for voting on condo bad. Ill still evaluate condo bad like any theory sheet and if the neg wins that sheet then they can be condo. If you read multiple conditional advocacies, the threshold for condo bad is much lower and I am very likely to vote on condo bad.
Speed
If you were or thought you were faster than me, then you probably were. This means I need you to be a little slower than your top speed if you want to make sure I get your args.
LD
Disclose. Read what you want.
Feel free to reach out if you have any questions at a_guzman15@u.pacific.edu.
Anju Vriksha - FTC
Judging Philosophy: As a judge, I approach debate as both a competitive activity and an intellectual journey. My philosophy blends the principles of the Tabula Rasa and the Game Player, creating a framework that balances flexibility with structure. The ultimate aim is to foster an environment where both the clash between arguments and the educational value of debate are paramount. 1. Tabula Rasa: A Clean Slate for Each Round I start each round with an open mind, adhering to the principle of Tabula Rasa. I allow the debaters to define the terms and framework of the debate, ensuring that their arguments stand on their own merits. This allows for fresh, unbiased evaluation. While the government side carries the burden of proof, both teams share the responsibility of creating meaningful clash. I expect them to engage directly with each other’s arguments in a way that challenges, tests, and refines the positions being debated. Clash is central to my evaluation—without it, debate loses its depth, and the round becomes less dynamic and intellectually stimulating. 2. Game Player: Structure and Strategy Debate is a structured activity with clear rules, and as a judge, I hold both sides to these standards. The government side must justify their case with sufficient evidence and reasoning, thereby meeting their burden of proof. The opposition is not only tasked with critiquing the government’s position but could also present a well-developed counter plan, pushing the debate forward. Both sides must create strategic clash—through argumentation, evidence, and rhetorical skill—while utilizing their time effectively. The manner in which debaters use their time and structure their arguments speaks to their understanding of the game, and I reward those who demonstrate this skill. 3. Debate as an Educational Activity Beyond the competition, I see debate as an opportunity for intellectual growth and learning. I encourage debaters to treat the round as an opportunity to challenge their own ideas and expand their perspectives. Debate should be a space where ideas are not merely defended but also questioned and tested. Clash is a vital part of this process, as it enables participants to confront different viewpoints and, in doing so, foster intellectual development. The most successful rounds are those that lead debaters to reflect on their arguments and ideas in a meaningful way, both during and after the debate. 4. Personal Preferences: Language and Eloquence As an old-school debater, I have a deep appreciation for the flow and beauty of language. Clear, precise, and eloquent arguments not only convey ideas but elevate the discourse. I value the use of language to both persuade and enhance the round, especially when combined with intellectual rigor. Rhetoric should complement logic, and I reward those who skillfully weave both into their arguments. Eloquence, however, must not overshadow substance. I am most impressed when debaters use language to clarify, sharpen, and advance their case while maintaining focus on engaging with the opposing side. 5. Conclusion: A Balance of Flexibility and Structure In conclusion, my judging philosophy combines the flexibility of a Tabula Rasa with the clear structure of a Game Player. I place a strong emphasis on the importance of clash—debates that lack meaningful engagement fail to provide the intellectual rigor necessary for growth. The government holds the burden of proof, and both sides must contribute to the development of the round through strategic clash and clear, structured argumentation. Ultimately, I believe that debate should challenge participants to think critically, inspire personal growth, and serve as both a contest and a chance for deeper understanding. Through the art of strategic clash and intellectual engagement, debaters will not only compete but also grow as thinkers and communicators.
Anthony Baxter - Fresno State
Recently graduated former competitor. Please be kind, ethical, and logical. Please refrain from spreading and using exceedingly technical arguments. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.
Arlette Rodriguez - FCC
I enjoy IPDA as an activity for a public audience. I do value organization and structure. Please summarize and provide clear voting issues in rebuttals.
Axel Amador - UOP
n/a
Brandon Garcia (depreciated) - DVC
n/a
Brandon Garcia - Hired
n/a
Brandon Garcia (depreciated) - Hired
n/a
Breanna Jackson - Hired
n/a
Brett Butler-Camp - CSU Chico
n/a
Cassidy Johnson - Hired
n/a
Charlie Garcia-Spiegel - CCSF
I am mostly a speech/individual events guy. I am one step up from a lay judge, but only one step up. Please have patience with me (and with each other! and with yourselves!). Take the event seriously, but dont take yourself seriously.
I prefer arguments that are concise, but thoroughly explained. Yes. Concise and thorough. Thats your challenge for the round. I want to hear (brief) definitions or explanations of jargon when there's time. This shows me that you know what you're talking about, and helps me better follow your train of thought. Signposting is also important to me: tell me what you're going to say so I can prepare myself to listen for your main points. Please avoid spreading (speaking in an overly rapid way to cram in as many arguments as you can) whenever possible. You may have the best and most correct argument in the world, but I will vote against you if I can't understand what you're trying to tell me.
Thoughts on criteria: I want you to tell me why I should vote for you. Do not make me decide the criteria on my own. I walk into each round with the expectation that you are the experts, both on the topic you are debating and on the structure of the activity itself. In each round, I trust you to explain to me why your approach to the problem is the correct one, and why it matters. Whoever does a better job of that will get my vote, whether or not I agree with that position in the real world.
Please note: I can't flow on paper, but I will be flowing electronically and following along. My use of a laptop does not mean I am not paying attention. Similarly, my facial expressions are not a reliable indicator of my inner thoughts. I don't do subtext, and I'm much friendlier than I look. Please assume that I am listening and paying attention and genuinely interested in what you have to tell me, no matter what my face or hands look like.
Overall: I prioritize thorough explanation over cramming in one more argument. I'm nicer than I look. I trust you to be the expert. I want you to tell me why I should vote for you, and then earn my vote by demonstrating you know a: what you're talking about and b: how to argue.
Chisom Okorafor - USFCA
Ive competed and judged in IPDA and extemp for a few years now. I prefer strong clash, but I do care about speaking style. Debate isnt just about having the better argument, but convincing me you have the better argument.
Christian Rodriguez - UOP
n/a
Cyril Bhooma Goud - SJSU
n/a
Daneli Santillan - UOP
n/a
Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY..DOUG FRALEIGH FRESNO STATE (he/him/his)
Background
Co-Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Co-Director, Fresno State Prison Debate Program. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Also coached and judged NPDA, IPDA, LD, and individual events. For the past three years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.
Overview about debate genres
My judging philosophy originated as a policy debate paradigm. It applies equally well to LD. Based on the NPDA rounds that I have judged post-COVID, it is my belief that NPDA has evolved into NDT/CEDA debate, but with a new topic every round. And every team had evidence, so it seems that the community has performatively overturned the "no evidence" rule.
I think it would be nifty if IPDA remained an alternative for students who are new to debate or would rather debate in a format where there is less emphasis on speed and the arguments are more real world, especially given that there are plenty of policy-like options for students who would prefer that type of debate. In IPDA rounds (especially novice) I will give more weight to delivery and be less flow-centric than in other genres of debate.
What Should You Know About How I Judge?
- I am not opposed to any genre of argument. In IPDA, there is less time for constructive speeches (and only a single constructive in one-on-one debates), so arguments that require extensive development may not be the best choice. I will judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round, rather than my general familiarity with a position.
- I flow debates and the line-by-line arguments are important. However, I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. T is an RVI, fairness), even if it is dropped.
- I am not looking for speed in IPDA. It could benefit you to briefly explain the story of your argument, especially if it is a major position you plan to go for in rebuttals.
- Theory arguments are ok, but I do not look forward to them with the enthusiasm that some of my colleagues do.
What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?
- Clash with your opponents arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.
- Although debaters are not supposed to "read evidence" in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
- Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. For example, instead of just saying you are on the case or the disad and mashing all your arguments together, identify the specific argument you are rebutting or extending. If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.
- Good delivery is a plus. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit and emphasize the most essential arguments in final speeches, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.
- Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner (in some debate formats anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege (this is especially true at nationals); have fun and enjoy the journey.
Procedural Considerations
- Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument in the next speech and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.
- I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.
Policy Resolutions
- For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff a 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.
- On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in your last rebuttal) and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than policy rounds.
- Counterplans can be a very good strategy, but they should be explained in the same detail as an affirmative plan. (Affirmative permutations also need the same detail, don't string together three or four permutations without analysis or explanation.) Your CP needs to be non-topical and competitive.
Fact and Value Resolutions
- The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
- The negative is welcome to dispute the affirmatives classification and/or criteria. My default is that non-policy resolutions which contain a subjective term like "best" or "more important" are value resolutions not fact.
- In neither side clearly wins the resolutional analysis issue, my default method for resolving the conflict is which teams vision for the round promotes a more educational and equitable debate.
Douglas Mungin - Solano CC
I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.
Emma Mink - SFSU
n/a
Eric Fletcher - FCC
Many decades of CEDA/NDT/NPDA/BP and IPDA coaching. I do respect the uniqueness of each activity as well as their requirements and expectations. Feel free to ask me specific questions.
Eric Cardenas - UOP
n/a
Erika Farias - Hired
n/a
Fatima Hernandez - DVC
n/a
Gus LaDue - UOP
I have been in forensics since 2016. I am currently an assistant coach at the University of the Pacific.
TLDR/Parli
I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to have warrants and evidence to be supported by a claim. I believe you are entitled to make any argument you see fit, but I would advise you to know what arguments you are making. This is more so for novice debaters. I like topical advocacies. I am okay with counter plans being conditional even though I prefer unconditional. I view myself as referee, that meaning I try to keep my bias out of it as much as possible and evaluate the evidence. I am okay with speed, just as long as you are understandable, and your opponent has an opportunity to compete. And if I miss something on the flow because of your are not understandable that is on you.
Specific Arguments/Parli
AFF Cases
While I prefer when the AFFs defend topical advocacy. I will vote for AFF that do not, but I will need you to do a lot of work to explain their argument and justification for making the argument. Also do acknowledge because of my preference I am more likely to vote on theory/framework against AFF that do not defend the topic.
K/CP/Condo
You can read whatever you like for K, I would just note that I do have a vast knowledge of the lit base. With that in mind I probably would need a clear explanation in the form of thesis would be ideal to get my ballot. Also, I would like the Alt to have some form of in/out of round. And once again be clear on how the alt solves the best.
I enjoy a well-done CP. But as stated earlier I have a lower threshold for voting on theory so I am receptive to theory arguments that can prove the CP is abusive.
For Condo, I am an assistant coach at the University of Pacific, so keep that in mind. I will say I will evaluate the Condo bad/ Condo good arguments on the sheet. But my preference tends to lean more towards unconditional counter plans.
Theory/Topicality
I have a low threshold for voting on Theory/Topicality. It is clear and strategic in my opinion. With that in mind I have trouble voting for unproven abuse. Potential abuse to me going to be harder to win on then showing me how you are having the rug pulled from under you.
Speed
Like I have stated before, be clear. If you speed me out of the round or I deem it abusive to your opponents, and they make the argument, it is on you.
LD
Speed
You have the cards in front of you. I have a higher threshold to vote one down on speed, when the evidence is open to all.
Argument preferences
I have none, you read what you want, if you can back it up.
General Approach to Evaluating Round
Weigh you Impacts. I have seen too many rounds get me to the link scenario and not value impacts. At the end of the day make arguments how you outweigh your opponent. And as stated in my parli section, I have a low threshold for T.
T
It is a rule, so I will vote on it. Show the ground you have lost though. Potential abuse for me is hard to win the ballot. It will take more explanation.
NFA LD rules
I have read the rule, and I do my best to enforce them.
Neg path to victory
You do not need to win a disadvantage, but offense is a good thing to have. If Aff is reasonable in solving I will vote for it.
Dropped arguments
If you drop an argument on you. Like you need to respond strategically with in the parameter of the game.
Ks
It is a valid strat, not my preference but do what you want and explain why you are doing it.
Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying.
Haley Woods - CSU Chico
n/a
Jackie Blair - Sacramento
Experience. I have competed for four years at California State University of Sacramento in the following events: National Forensics Association Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, Public Forum, and Impromptu.Additionally, I have participated in the Communications 111 class rookie tournament for four years as a coach and a judge.As a rookie coach, I have worked on debate evidence in the following areas: as a writing coach, case writer, rookie tournament judge, research student, and on-case and off-case writing for constructive and rebuttal speeches.Lastly, I have competed in the affirmative/negative debates at the local city council's online reading practices.
Debate Judging Philosophy.My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate round based on policy maker paradigm, critical paradigm, and/or rule-based theory.I believe that both the affirmative and negative must meet their burdens with well-developed arguments.This means that the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language and evidence.Next, I believe debates should be followed in a recognizable format and should provide greater knowledge with the use of analysis and refutation.I will evaluate the round based on advantages, disadvantages, and weighing of impacts.Speed is Okay.
Individual Events.The mechanics of speech must be observed faithfully –poise, quality, use of voice, effectiveness, ease of gesture, emphasis, variety, and enunciation. In addition, the participant must be able to interpret the full meaning of the oration and be able to carry the interpretation over to the audience.
Janene Whitesell - Solano CC
I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:
1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.
2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.
3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.
4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.
5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.
6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.
7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.
8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?
9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.
Jared Anderson - Sacramento
Logistics:
1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.
2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com
3) If there is no email chain, Im going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.
4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points. My timer is the official timer for the round. You should time yourselves, but check your time against mine. Also, when you are ready to begin speaking, just start speaking. I don't need any "on my first word" or countdowns.
5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I dont want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.
** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and dont argue about it. **
I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I started out coaching CEDA/NDT debate but I have now been coaching LD for a long time. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly and are within the rules. You can win my ballot with whatever. I dont have to agree with your argument, I dont have to be moved by your argument, I dont even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I do need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, Im familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments?other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. Its up to you. I will tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand - I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that is on you.
The rules are the rules and I will follow them. I will not intervene; you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it.Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I dont need abuse? proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this. On the current topic (2019-2020) I will probably have a pretty low threshold on Vagueness/Spec arguments. You need a clear plan. Neg arguments about why the aff needs to clearly outline how and what amount they propose investing will be met with a sympathetic ear.
Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you cant find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. Im pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so youll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVIs are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.
Jasmine Avila - Hired
n/a
Jason Ames (he/him) - Chabot
Hello! Glad you are here! Forensics is awesome and I hope you are having fun and learning a lot. Those should always be the focus.
I have been in Forensics for multiple decades and have competed in, judged, and coached every event. First, I tend to vote on arguments that are well explained and impacted over arguments that are undercovered. If there's a drop on the flow, it doesn't guarantee my ballot until you tell me why it does: impact and weigh arguments, compare/contrast, and give me a reason to vote for you/your side. Second, I'm open to multiple types of arguments and will vote on multiple types of arguments if you tell me why they matter and why they outweigh the other side.
I do appreciate the distinction between different types of debate events: I hope debaters use their skills to create and debate arguments made in prep time and I prefer debates on the resolution, especially in tournaments where debaters have the option to strike topics. However, I am open to listening why that might not be the best use of the prompt/round and respect your need to define the round in the way that you see fit. If you run K's, I tend to prefer alternatives and being told what the world looks like post-K.
I'm getting older and my ability to keep up with speed is diminishing by the year, so feel free to go fast but you might find me asking you to slow down for me more than I used to. These things happen, I suppose! This probalby doesn't apply in IPDA, however. FYI, I'm fine with some debate jargon in IPDA and organization is ALWAYS valuable, but my hope is that IPDA debaters continue to keep it accessible to all.
I prefer debates where folks are kind and respectful to each other. Advocate for your position with energy and vigor, but remember that the other side isn't your enemy. Please make sure you are inclusive and respect all folks.
If you have specific questions feel free to ask me. Thanks!
Joey Barrows - Dark Horse
I competed for three years in LD and one semester in Parliamentary debate. I was primarily a case debater and did not run many critical arguments. I try my best to vote strictly on the flow and have voted for K's even though I don't particularly like a lot of them. I have a tendency to lean towards the K not having an ability to solve whatever the harms are (if that's what is being claimed). Aside from that, I think I am pretty straightforward in most positions. I am not incredibly fast and I flow on paper, so if I say "slow" or "speed" and you do not adjust then you risk the chance of losing me. Please ask me any necessary questions before the round to clarify something you don't understand here or to address any of the things I did not mention. Thanks!
Jolene Moore - CSU Chico
n/a
Jonathan Reyes - UOP
What's up!
I competed in NPDA and LD for University of the Pacific from 2019 - 2023. Before that I competed for 6 years in middle school and high school, in PF, LD, and Policy. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for University of the Pacific.
TLDR/Parli
I like topical advocacies. I like when counter-advocacies are unconditional. I like clever and strategic theory. I can handle speed but I wasn't the fastest debater so keep that in mind.
Specific Arguments/Parli
AFF Cases
While I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy, I am still willing to vote on AFFs that do not. Those AFFs will just have to spend more time explaining their argument and their justification for not defending the topic. With that in mind, I do have a lower threshold to vote on theory/framework against AFFs that don't defend the topic.
K/CP/Condo
For the K, you can read whatever you want but I probably don't have a great understanding of the lit its based off of. A thesis would be great. I also tend to think that most alternatives don't actually solve the in-round/out-of-round harms they claim that they do so clear explanations of how the alt solves is best.
For the CP, I love them. If they are abusive or could be seen as abusive (like delay), be careful because I will be receptive to theory arguments claiming that they are.
For condo, while I prefer unconditional advocacies and probably have a lower threshold than most to vote on condo bad, I won't auto drop the team for being conditional. I will still evaluate the condo bad sheet and if the neg wins this sheet than they're good to be as conditional as they please. With that being said, the threshold is much lower when the neg reads multiple conditional advocacies.
Theory/Topicality
I have a pretty low threshold for voting on any LOC theory/topicality, even frivolous ones, if it is clear and strategic. I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger but it definitely makes it a lot easier to vote for you. I have a higher threshold to vote on MG theory except for Condo Bad, which I am much more likely to vote on.
Speed
If you were faster than me or think that you were faster than me, then you probably were so a little bit slower than your top speed will ensure I get 99% of your arguments.
LD
Read what you want. Disclose.
If you have any questions feel free to email me at j_reyes21@u.pacific.edu.
Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa
I am open to whatever you present.
Josh Harzman - Hired
n/a
Joshua Turnbull - DVC
n/a
Josue De Leon - Santa Rosa
I am open to whatever you present.
Karen Cornwell - Santa Rosa
I am open to whatever you present.
Kathleen Bruce - Dark Horse
n/a
Kelly Lootz - Hired
n/a
Kelly Vera Williams - Sacramento
As a judge, I prioritize clear and logical argumentation over rhetorical flourish. I value evidence-based arguments and appreciate when debaters provide solid support for their claims. Clarity and organization are critical; I should be able to follow your line of reasoning without confusion. I am open to various debate styles but prefer a balanced approach that includes both technical and creative. Effective use of cross-examination can significantly influence my decision. I am impartial and do not bring personal biases into the round. I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented, not on my own opinions. I appreciate when debaters respect each other and maintain a professional demeanor throughout the round. Ultimately, my decision will be based on the use of your time, skills, argumentation and knowledge.
Kim Yee - Ohlone College
I like my debates like how I enjoy my toast in the morning, no spread and all buttery.(t-shirts coming soon!)
What this means is that I don't like having to be Robert Langdon (professor of symbology and art history at Harvard) and have to try and decipher what you're saying. But in all seriousness, I am an IE judge and I much prefer the quality of argument over quantity. I also appreciate it when delivery is engaging and tangible. In the real world, there's no point in rushing through your case if no one can understand you. Accessibility is important to me and I value it when students are able to educate and connect their arguments to me as an audience member and judge.
Other than that you know what you need to do.
May the Force be with you!
Kristina Sanville - Hired
n/a
Kyle Wohlgemuth - Hired
n/a
Lee Kaj - Hired
n/a
Lindsay Walsh - SJSU
I am a speech coach and fairly new to forensics, so delivery and thoughtful analysis leading back to your main idea is important to me. Bring in evidence and show impact. I value quality over quantity so spreading is something I do not prefer.
Signposts and a clear preview of points is helpful. I find it best to define terms so we are all on the same page. I judge primarily on the strength of your arguments, but delivery and conduct with your opponent is something I consider as well. Keep things professional, courtesous, respectful, and energetic.
Manahil Syeda - DVC
n/a
Manveer Singh - Hired
n/a
Marin Spalding - Solano CC
n/a
Marisa Williams - Fresno State
n/a
Mark Espinosa - Sacramento
Mark is a Graduate Assistant at Sac State and is in his 3rd semester working with the team. Mark competed for 2 semesters in 2021-2022, but only ever at online tournaments. Make clear arguments, explain your evidence, and try to slow down a bit.
Mark Nelson - Santa Rosa
I am open to whatever you present. I am a vintage judge.
Mason Leon - USFCA
n/a
Mecedes Lindsay - USFCA
I am an adaptable judge who lets debaters determine the direction of the round. My role is to evaluate arguments as they are presented, meaning I wont impose a strict framework unless one is given to me. My evaluation will be based on the arguments and frameworks presented, with an emphasis on solvency, interpretation of the topic, and substantive engagement with the resolution, especially in policy-heavy debates. I enjoy both pragmatic and moral arguments, but relying solely on moralityespecially in an extreme or rigid waywont win me over. Debate is about substance, and strong debaters should be able to defend their position from multiple angles rather than depending on a single argument.
Clash is essential; your opponent is your first audience, not me. If youre not engaging with their points, youre not truly debating. While I wont automatically drop you for weak clash, I need to see some attempt to directly address arguments. If theres little to no clash, it becomes difficult to fairly evaluate the round. Additionally, if you explain your argument well, youll knowit should be fully thought-out and self-evident. If it isnt developed enough, Ill let you know in my comments. I also believe arguments should be weighed; if you dont do so yourself, I will evaluate both sides at face value.
I am not a fan of spreading. You should be able to communicate your arguments in a clear, concise, and coherent way. While I wont drop you solely for speed, poor delivery will affect speaker points because clarity is part of effective speaking. Spreading is a real strategy, so I wont penalize it outright, but if I cant understand you, I wont flow it. Presentation also mattersconfidence can work in your favor, not in the sense of aggression or theatrics, but in the way you carry your argument. Looking up from your screen or paper is key; debate is about engagement, and eye contact plays a role in that.
At the end of the day, be respectful, be fun, and put yourself out there. Debate is as much about persuasion as it is about logic. Go in with the confidence that you know what you're talking aboutor at least that you can winand you just might persuade me.
Michael Andreas - Butte
I come into every debate with a curiosity and desire to see what I can learn from you, it is your job to convince me well reasoned analysis and evidence, which means I cannot and will not ignore a patently false claim, so support your arguments accordingly. While spreading may be somewhat unavoidable, replacing bulk info with well reasoned analysis would be my preference. Running topicality for topicality-sake is a sham. If you are going to make that claim, make sure there is something behind it, otherwise you waste all of our time. Show me some clash, debate hard and don’t give up, get creative, and most of all, show me you are having fun!
Michael Thiagasingh - SJSU
This is not my preferred type of debate to judge - as such, I request that everyone participate in the DEBATE aspect of it. Besides speaking clearly and intelligibly, be sure to rebut arguments / signpost / give roadmaps prior to beginning your speech. EXTEND arguments from your first speech.
I flow pretty well and will record almost everything stated. That said, don't give long-worded contention names. Keep them short.
I vote heavily based on the last few speeches - be sure to give me strong voters / reasons to vote.
For all that is holy, DON'T SPREAD.
Molly Floberg - St. Mary's
Hi! Here's my paradigm :)
GENERAL INFO:
I am a student with two years of debate experience who specializes in speech events.
SPEED:
I am good with medium speaking speed but I expect debaters to slow when asked.
STYLES OF DEBATE:
I believe that debate should include all forms of arguments and will vote on K's, T's, IVI's etc. I love to see new creative arguments. I will vote on presumption. I also appreciate it when debaters tell me which arguments I should vote for on the ballot.
Point of orders must only be used when necessary, debaters should not use the point of order continuously to fluster the opponent. Doing so will result in loss of speaker points.
FLOWING:
I am always able to flow the main ideas of your arguments but I may miss some of the smaller details. I will ask for text for all arguments.
CONTENT POLICIES:
Any arguments that will be going into any more detail than statistics about issues of suicide or sexual assault need to begin with a content warning and consent from the opponents.
Any debater who in any way advocates for anyone to commit suicide you will automatically lose and I will stop the round.
Any debater who in any way engages in hateful arguments that promote racism, ableism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia etc. will automatically lose and I will stop the round.
I am okay with swearing in the round but I am not okay with debaters swearing at their opponents or using swears to insult an opponent's argument.
SPEAKER POINTS:
My normal speaker point range is between 28 and 30.
Good luck everybody and thank you for reading my paradigm. I believe that the most important part of debate is that everyone learns while having fun so I hope that happens for you today :)
Natalie Cavallero - Fresno State
IPDA judge looking for strong organization, solid delivery & kind participation. I will judge with an open mind on a blank slate, so bring your arguments and support them well! Please don't spread. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.
Natalie Kellner - LPC
I am an Individual Event judge. I value clarity of structure, specificity of examples & illustrations, preciseness of voting criteria, and (above all else) a delivery that enables ease of understanding for the listener. Avoid "debate speak" at all costs....I will not understand you, and if I do not understand you then you can not win the ballot. Civility is also of key importance. I will look at an IPDA debate as if it were an interactive Persuasive Speaking round: be clear, be organized, be understandable, be engaging. I can't be any more clear than that I think.
Explain very specifically in your closing speech why you think you won the debate. And, please for the love of all that is good and holy, do not use debate language, jargon or terminology.
IPDA was created for and meant to be evaluated by NON-Forensic people. If we (the audience) need to be trained to simply understand what youre talking about, then, sadly, youre doing it wrong.
Looking forward to seeing/hearing what you have to say..even more looking forward to being able to understand it.
Nathan Steele - CCSF
Have fun and claim the space-time of the debate round as belonging to you. Aspire to present clearly organized and supported arguments in your constructive speeches. Your general approach should be to invite dialogue over controversy and offer clear reasoning why your position is preferable. Provide criteria by which I might evaluate the arguments in the round. When inspired, embrace your creativity and wit. Share the time with your opponent during cross-examination. Use rebuttal speeches to extend arguments as you see fit. It is good practice to provide some key voting issues or summary of the competing narratives within the debate to illuminate my decision-making process (i.e., my pathway to voting for you). Delivery doesn't factor heavily into decision-making. Be yourself. Focus on conveying the arguments so your opponent and judge understand. I may comment on features of your nonverbal communication on a ballot, but you'll win the debate with the argument(s).
The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Focus on the arguments during the round. Be good to yourself too. Debate can be difficult at times. Keep bringing your best and youll get better.
Navin Sethi - SFSU
n/a
Nicholas Adair - Dark Horse
Parli/LD
I am an old school flow judge (pen and paper) so if you spread me out of the round I will drop arguments because I cannot keep up.
I am also not a tabula rosa judge. I will believe most arguments that are based in fact, but if you tell me untruths (ie. Turkey should become a part of NATO—it's been a member since 1952) I will not flow them. Make sure that your arguments are rooted in fact, because that is the only way to achieve both education and fairness in round.
I am not a big fan of topicality/counterplans/Kritiks. I feel that most rounds should be fought straight up with ADD’s, and DA’s, as most topics are debatable by design. Using theory /CP’s feels like an underhanded way to skew the Aff out of its ground. However, that does not mean I will not vote on theory. If Aff brings an inaccessible plan/definition to the round, I find myself voting on T/CP’s/K’s more often than not, even though I would rather not do so. One last note for T in particular, if you say Topicality is “a-priori” and then kick it in the MO/LO, it will flow against you as the neg. Either it excluded you from the round, or it didn't. Both cannot be true in the same world. If you don’t say “a-priori”, I will simply treat it as an additional DA, which I do not mind voting for.
Limited prep
Speeches with less filler words creatine shine above the rest. While most speakers don’t use “ums” or “likes”, most extempers do use “now” and “well”. These are still filler words, and they become noticeable quite quickly. Also, bring your own personality and fun to the event. Too many limited prep speakers are too robotic in their delivery. Humor is always a plus.
Speech events
What I look for in speech events is a well-polished piece with excellent blocking and a good story/theme. Some of the best speeches I have watched, hit all of these points as well as engaging with the audience/judge if applicable. I am not a fan of superfluous blocking for the sake of blocking, but I will appreciate the effort. Overall well-polished pieces are what I look for first, blocking second, and well-articulated story theme third.
Nicole Sandoval - Dark Horse
n/a
Nikki Morrison-Fountain - SFSU
n/a
Noah Gordon - Hired
n/a
Orion Steele - SFSU
Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele
Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.
General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.
I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:
Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.
Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.
Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.
Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.
Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.
Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.
Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.
Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.
Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.
FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.
Ornaldo Gonzalez - Fresno State
Recently graduated former competitor. Please be kind, ethical, and logical. Please refrain from spreading and using exceedingly technical arguments. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.
Paul Villa - DVC
Updated: August 2024
In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isnt what I mean. I dont think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.
In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical completely fair to an equally mythical completely unfair. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to completely unfair. Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:
- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)
- Untopical Affirmatives
- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)
- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)
- Obfuscating
In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:
- Refusing to slow down when asked to
- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters
- Being bigoted in any way
I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didnt especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.
Background: I am the Co-Director of Forensics at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school, and I coached the most successful NPDA team of all time. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.
Philip Sharp - Nevada
Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno
Primavera Leal Martinez - Chabot
Yes, I want to be on the email chain:prima1014@gmail.com
I will not be following along on the speech doc, but I will be checking periodically to make sure extensions of cards are consistent with the actual evidence.
I debated for Fresno State for three years. I started off in traditional policy debate, but then made my way into K debate. I do not have a preference; I am just as likely to vote for T as I am to vote for a performance K. It all comes down to how persuasive your arguments are, and I evaluate that based on three criteria:
1) Your ability to explain the thesis of your argument. Even if I am familiar with the literature, it is still your responsibility to thoroughly explain your methodology. Relying on buzz words is bad for education and hurts your growth as a debater. I will never make extrapolations of arguments for you. If Im left wondering what your policy/advocacy/alternative does by the end of the round, then you are at a severe disadvantage.
2) Your explanation of why the argument you are making matters, and why it should be presented in this space. Having a good idea/theory is awesome, but why do it here? Why should I care about the discussion of policies, identity, power structures etc. that you decided to forefront?
3) Your overall ethos and presentation. This last point is supplemental to the two more substantive points listed above, but it is still extremely important. Whether you speak quickly or at a conversational pace, you should make sure that your speeches are engaging.
Respect:
1. Respect is mutual. I expect you to respect each other by not engaging in unnecessarily rude behavior. I understand that cross ex can get heated, but make sure you do not let this interfere with the fact that debate is an educational activity.
2. I will respect you by listening to you and devoting my attention to making a carefully thought out decision. When I am giving my RFD, it is your turn to reciprocate that respect by actively listening. I will not tolerate excessive post rounding and being rudely interrupted. Questions are highly encouraged but arguing with me will not change the outcome of the debate. If you are angry with my RFD, I recommend that you write down your concerns with the decision, talk with your coach, and if there is still an issue, take time to cool down before approaching me again to talk about the round.
Technicalities:
1. Prep ends when you send the doc. If you send the wrong doc or it is missing cards, you are responsible for taking prep to send it to the other team.
2. Stealing prep will lead to a deduction in speaker points.
3. Clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence are very serious issues and threaten the integrity of the activity. I take these two issues very seriously.
Specifics:
Framing:
1. I expect both teams to provide me with a way to frame the round. You do not get access to your arguments unless you win the framing question, or you prove that you are still ahead through the other teams method of framing the round.
Topicality:
1. I think topicality arguments are very interesting. Make sure you give specific contextual examples of what ground was lost, as well as why that ground is uniquely valuable.
2. That being said, I think there are very valid justifications for not being topical. Do not assume that my preference for Ks as a debater will mean that you have a low threshold for proving that you do not need to be topical.
Framework:
1. I enjoy current and relevant example of why engaging in the state is essential or unproductive.
2. If you are arguing policy making/political engagement good, you must prove that it is net better for everyone, regardless of their identity.
3. Saying, The USFG is racist or policy making is rooted in patriarchy is not a sufficient response to framework. It is not that I dont agree with you, but you need to elaborate more on these phrases that get tossed around. Your arguments will be much more persuasive if you go beyond reading cards and pre-made answers and contextualize and elaborate on these claims.
Performance:
1. Performance debate is great and very creative. However, you still need to explain what your method is and what you have accomplished at some point in the debate. It needs to be purposeful.
Theory:
1. You need to clearly highlight the abuse in the round and make a convincing argument about why this creates a bad model for debate beyond this round.
Rhiannon Genilla - Fresno State
I am a forensics coach and a graduate student at Fresno State and I competed in IPDA debate.
I value critical thought, respectful competition, and logical creativity. I find value in debaters being reflexive and thinking quickly on their feet. I am more likely to be persuaded when debaters are enthusiastic about their arguments. It is important to clash with your opponent and to develop strong arguments.
Rob Boller - USFCA
What is your experience with Speech and Debate?
20+ yrs coaching and judging; mostly BP, Civic, and Parli. 25+ yrs teaching argumentation. Former high school debater a loooong time ago. Extensive experience with coaching and judging IEs + lots of performance stuff in my background.
What does your ideal debate round look like?
Well organized. Accessible to an average educated person. If my Dad couldn't follow you, or you'd make little sense in a courtroom or city council meeting, I'm not interested. Debate for debaters only is a silly game. My ideal round avoids spreading and speed at all costs and instead focuses on well fleshed out arguments with solid evidence/examples and warrants. I love good rebuttal and good manners. Finally remind me what your big picture ethical angle is and why you won the round.
Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?
Avoid debate jargon. Be nice to judges and fellow competitors. Don't be angry when you "lose"...its just the opinion of one person. Think about how you want civil discourse to be in the world and model it in your debates.
Robert Hawkins - DVC
I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in high school LD and sometimes judge Parli & IPDA. I am not a technical judge in NFA-LD. I am not big on complicated language. I am more impressed if a student understands the argument and can make adjustments to different judging pools. I would classify myself as LAY judge for debate, but I can hang if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.
Ryan Guy - MJC
Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!
Video Recording & Online Tournaments
- In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
- Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.
I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!
A Little About Me
- I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
- Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
- I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.
I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.
How I See Debate
1. Sharing Material
- If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
- Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
- If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.
2. Speed
- Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
- If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.
3. Procedurals & Theory
- Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
- If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
- I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.
4. Kritiques
- I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
- Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
- Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
- Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.
5. Organization & Engagement
- Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
- If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
- Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
- Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.
6. Oral Critiques
- If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.
7. Safety & Well-being
- Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
- If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.
IPDA Notes
- Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
- Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
- Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
- Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
- Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
- Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.
How I Decide Rounds
- Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
- Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
- Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
- Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.
Specifics for NFA-LD
-
File Sharing
- SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
- If not possible, email me at
ryanguy@gmail.comor use a flash drive. - Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.
-
Disclosure
- I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
- If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
- Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.
-
Cardless LD
- I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.
Speaker Points
- Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
- Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.
Topicality
- Please make an honest effort to be topical.
- T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
- Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.
In Closing
I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.
Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!
Sean Thai - Dark Horse
I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE:clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.Theory/Framework/Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.
Policy:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold.
K's:
I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.
I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.
In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.
General
Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.
Im willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.
It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.
Tech = truth
Flex time answers are binding.
Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte
I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.
I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:
-Using clear roadmapping
-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)
- Be respectful of your opponent and judges
-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff
- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me
Sokha Som - Santa Rosa
I am open to whatever you present. However, I am a newer judge, so make sure I can keep up.
Steven Farias - UOP
(Reviewed Jan. 2024) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):
TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.
Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.
I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.
I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defensable changes to the status quo. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in teh topic. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.
I think that parli debate is a unique format that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY
TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.
Section 1: General Information-
While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.
I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.
Section 2: Specific Arguments
The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.
In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.
For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.
I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.
Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.
In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.
Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.
With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.
Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.
LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY
Section 1 General Information
Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)
General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.
As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.
In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.
Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"
Section 2 Specific Inquiries
1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?
I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.
2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?
I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.
3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:
Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.
4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue
Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.
5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?
Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.
6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months
Yes
7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?
I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.
8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?
No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.
9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?
You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.
10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?
My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.
Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!
Sue Peterson - CSU Chico
Updated 9/8/18
I am now primarily judging NFA-LD.
PARLI: If you have me as a parli critic, know that it is not my strength nor my favorite style of debate. I just think that referencing evidence with no ability to check the accuracy of your reference makes it difficult to evaluate conflicting arguments, but I will do my best. Having well-warranted arguments beyond just a source (so explaining the warrant, not just naming the source and claim) will help your efforts. I can flow pretty fast debate, but without evidence, the arguments sometimes come fast and furious and I can't write or type that fast, so slow down a bit if you want everything on my flowsheet at the end of the speech.
BOTH PARLI AND LD:
As far as argumentative preference, performance debates are not really my cup of tea. I like critical arguments and I'm relatively familiar with the literature, but if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. But, I think claiming some methodological advantage to a certain plan is fine and the negative is free to critique it up if they so choose, as long as they in some way specifically engage the affirmative's arguments (usually better if it is the affirmative's arguments and not just the resolution or the status quo, but that is debatable).
I do not enjoy nasty debates where people ad-hom each other, yell at each other, or otherwise argue instead of debate. I think debate should be enjoyable for both the debaters and me -- so be nice and have fun. And if your opponents are not nice, don't get sucked into the evil...maintain your composure.
Rebuttals are key. Make sure you take the time to explain your arguments, how they should be impacted in the debate, how they compare to the other team's.
LD:
I am no longer inclined to read much evidence, but if you want me to read evidence because of it being a focus of controversy in the round, identify the evidence by author AND warrant - not just author. I want to know WHAT to read and WHY I'm reading it. I prefer to hear the evidence and hear the explanations and vote on that because debate is about oral argumentation. So, I won't read anything unless I feel like I have to in order to be fair to both sides in the debate.
I am not prone to vote on "this is a rule" unless it is well-warranted. I get that LD has rules and I believe there are reasons for those rules, but I also believe that debaters should be able to articulate those reasons in a round in order to win on those arguments. So, if you are going to make arguments about what should be excluded in a round, be sure to provide warrants other than "its a rule". I am open to debaters asking others to speak more conversational in rounds as that is part of this activity's unique appeal, but I do think that you should be reciprocal - so don't ask for someone to slow down (or yell slow/clear during their speech) and then speak fast in your own speech.
I love a good T debate. Most pre-round questions seem to focus on in-round abuse and competing interps, so I will say here that I think both those arguments are things that can be debated out in the round. I don't HAVE to have in-round abuse, but I'm open as to why I shouldn't evaluate Ts that don't prove it. My default is competing interpretations, BUT if the affirmative is obviously topical under the negative's interpretation and explains such, I don't think they HAVE to have a counterinterp.
If you have any other questions, let me know before the round begins!
Sydney Alexander - DVC
My specialty is in individual events, and that is most of my background when it comes to forensics. But, I enjoy watching, and judging debate events. When it comes to speed, I can keep up, so that's no problem. But if I slow you then please slow. I think organization in debate events is really important. Clear signposting throughout the round is a must for me. All things considered, please respect each other and have fun.
Ta'Niyia Smith - Hired
n/a
Taure Shimp - MJC
ALL DEBATE EVENTS
Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.
IPDA
I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.
PARLI
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.
LD
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.
Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!
Tehreem Khan - Dark Horse
I competed in debate at Delta college.
Timothy Heisler - LPC
I am an IE judge who specialized in platform speeches, specifically Informative and Persuasive speaking. As such, clarity of message and organization is paramount in receiving my vote. So.speak slowly and clearly. Be organized and offer signposts. Explain very specifically in your closing speech why you think you won the debate. And, please for the love of all that is good and holy, do not use debate language, jargon or terminology.
IPDA was created for and meant to be evaluated by NON-Forensic people. If we (the audience) need to be trained to simply understand what youre talking about, then, sadly, youre doing it wrong.
Looking forward to seeing/hearing what you have to say..even more looking forward to being able to understand it.
Tony Escalante - Hired
n/a
Tristan Ceja - MJC
I competed in IPDA and NPDA for MJC for two years. I am up for whatever, but feel free to ask me questions before the round.
UNR-Jay Villanueva - Nevada
n/a
Zachary Waters - SFSU
n/a