Judge Philosophies

Alessa Syed -- College of the Canyons

n/a

Alex Wilson -- CSU Chico

Pronouns: they/them


There is no "real" world "out there." The world of the classroom, and of this debate, is as real as outside of these (currently virtual) walls. Debate is an opportunity for you to advocate a position. While we should all recognize this isn't necessarily your own, that's the nature of the game.

I view debate as a special kind of communication event where we have the opportunity to collaboratively construct meaning and visions of a better world. I'm open to the arguments you offer about what that better world should look like. I'm comfortable with the theory and critical debate, though don't assume I know your author(s) or theoretical perspective.

How I evaluate (post-fiat) impacts:

  1. Probability
  2. Magnitude
  3. Timeframe
  4. Reversibility

How I evaluate the round:

  1. A priori issues (theory, topicality, pre-fiat critiques)
  2. Top of case, solvency, counterplan solvency (if necessary)
  3. Impacts of advantages/disadvantages

I will not tolerate blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. arguments.


Angelica Grigsby -- Maricopa Speech and Debate


Bailey Coleman -- Modesto Junior College

 
�?�¢?�?�¢ I consider myself both a flow judge and Comm-centric judge, because I would like to be able to follow along easily on the flow but also like speakers to sound persuasive.�?� 
 
 
I am not the biggest of fan of speed. Since I am partly a flow judge, if a speaker is too fast for me to get everything on the flow then it's hard to visualize the debate on paper and see where arguments may have been dropped or pulled across. I would much rather listen to a solid, slower speech that is easy to understand and sounds persuasive and logical. Taking time with two organized, in-depth arguments is better than spreading through a bunch of arguments.�?� 
 
I don't mind procedural arguments as long as they aren't used just to be squirrelly. If an affirmative team is blantantly not topical, then a topicality is fine and makes sense. If a negative team runs a T just for the fun of running one, then I feel it takes focus from the actual issue in the round.�?� 
 
An ideal round for me is a competitive but friendly debate. I would like the AFF to be topical and focus on some solid solvency and advantages. I like the negative team to bring some good disadvantages to the round and only use topicality if totally needed. I do like counterplans and think they're a good test of the speakers' abilities to think on the spot and argue their best. I like structure and to be able to easily follow along on the flow, with debaters clearly signposting where they're at. Finally, overall I want to hear as much persuasion as possible and the debaters to clearly tell me why I should be voting for them.�?� 

Banafshae Khan -- Sacramento State University

n/a

Brianna Morales -- San Francisco State University

Hi all! My name is Brianna and I'm excited to be able to judge despite the tough circumstances. My view on debate is pretty simple. I believe that basic respect should be prioritized and a fair assumption of common decency should be given. In rounds, feel free to practice spreading/spread to a medium degree if that's how you roll but I do have hearing issues that can make spreading difficult if you are not enunciating clearly (or, now considering tech issues and static) so do so with a sizable amount of caution.

Content should be stated clearly, meaning explain uniqueness directly, elaborate on why dropped arguments are substantial, etc. I tend to go off the information that is addressed and presented, so don't assume too much. Take the time to be explicit in your reasonings. I'm pretty open in terms of realistic/philosophical/theoretical arguments as long as they are argued with a respect to the real lives of people impacted by the debate/topic.

Overall, debate should be about practice and learning, so try your best and continue to evolve from your experiences!

Charles Lally -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

n/a

Christian Green -- Hired Judge

n/a

Clayton Lynch -- Butte Community College

n/a

Destinee Sior -- Maricopa Speech and Debate

Hello! My name is Destinee Sior and I am a debate coach for Maricopa Community College. I just have a few things to say about how I view the wonderful world of debate, and my method on judging. For starters- no matter the type of debate- I will always want you to do what you do best, what you feel comfortable with, and debate in whichever way makes you happy. 

I do not mind if you do critical or policy oriented debate. I enjoy listening to Ks and I really enjoy just straight policy cases. Whichever one you choose, all I ask is that you give me a solid structure and you stick to it. Sloppy debate is one of my biggest pet peeves. Please make it easy for me to follow you so I can get everything you say down on paper. I donâ??t care for the double-clutching speed debate, but I can typically flow well if you want to spread. However-- just because, I can flow it does not mean your opponent can. If you are asked to â??clearâ?? you need to SLOW DOWN. I do not care for Kâ??s ran out of the affirmative, but if you want to party please have a solid link story. Negative strats should include an interrogation of the affirmative, as well as their own case. I will not gut check your arguments for you, please do not ask me to do that. Tell me why dropped arguments are important. I love impact calc ❤ Weigh your impacts on timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Give me voters / reasons to prefer. I think it is the job of the debater to make my job easy, but also have fun. I loved debate and you should debate the way you love. 

IPDA-- For the IPDA debaters, please understand I have a Parli and LD background. With that being said, I understand that IPDA is not Parli nor LD. Therefore, please do not debate as such. My judging philosophy for this though is roughly the same-- structure, structure, structure. Give me a solid impact story. Do not just say â??lives savesâ? â??improves ecosystemâ? -- what does that MEAN? Why does it matter? How are you weighing it against your opponent? Do not just rely on me to do the work for you. Give me lots and lots of warrants, I love evidence. Most importantly, letâ??s have some fun.

Jared Anderson -- Sacramento State University

n/a

Jeffrey Russel -- Hired Judge

n/a

Jim Dobson -- Las Positas College

n/a

Joel Brown -- Chabot College


Joey Barrows -- University of the Pacific

n/a

Juan Igararzabal -- Hired Judge

n/a

Justin Perkins -- Sacramento State University

n/a

Keegan Bosch -- Hired Judge

n/a

Kelly Hutchison -- University of the Pacific

Read what ever you want, I am willing to listen to any argument, critical or topical affs. I like framework arguments, but make sure that they have impacts and flush them out. I won�¢??t do extra work for you, that means you need to make extensions. Please make sure that you have evidence to back up your claims, and then give analysis. Debates without evidence are boring and not as educational.

Kelsey Paiz -- Chabot College

I debated for Chabot College, coached for Long Beach State and am now coaching at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in NFA-LD, but I have also participated in/judged/coached some parli. Although I do have debate experience, I have been living in the world of IEs, so it's wise to treat me more like an IE critic than a debate one. I definitely prefer to hear discussion about the topic at hand over a critical case, but will vote on any argument (Tâ??s, CPâ??s, Kâ??s, etc.) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive. Especially if you run a critical argument, as this was not my forte, make sure you clearly explain everything about it and why it is more important for us to accept your kritik and reject discussion of the resolution. It is up to you as the debater to impact everything out for me and tell me why I should be voting for you over the other team.

Iâ??m not a huge fan of speed in either LD or parli. While you donâ??t have to speak at a â??conversationalâ? pace, if I canâ??t keep up with you, your arguments wonâ??t end up on my flow. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can determine a winner. Tags and impact calculus are going to be the most important things to hit, and you can speed up a bit during evidence.

I donâ??t mind if you communicate with your partner during a round, but the current speaker must say the argument in order for it to end up on my flow. The current speaker should be the one doing most of the speaking during their turn. No ventriloquism.

Any transferring of files in LD (via Speechdrop, email, flash drive, etc.) should happen during prep time.

Above all, keep things civil and have fun!


Kelsey Schott -- Hired Judge

n/a

Lea Mulan Clark -- Hired Judge

n/a

Mary Talamantez -- Lewis & Clark College

n/a

Mike Davis -- Hired Judge

n/a

Nadia Steck -- Lewis & Clark College

Nadia here, I am currently the Coach for Lewis and Clarkâ??s debate team I graduated from Concordia University Irvine where I debated for 2 years, before that I debated for Moorpark College for 3 years. Iâ??m gonna give you a TL:DR for the sake of prep time/pre-round strategizing, I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible in the debate round. I want the debate to be about what the debaters tell me it should be about, be it the topic or something totally unrelated. I am fairly familiar with theory, policy, and critical debate. I donâ??t have a strong preference for any one of the three, all I want you to do is not be lazy and expect me to backfill warrants from my personal knowledge of arguments for you. If you donâ??t say it, it doesnâ??t end up on my flow, and thus it doesnâ??t get evaluated. There arenâ??t really any arguments I wonâ??t listen to, and I will give the best feedback I have the ability to give after each round.

For out of round thinking or pre tournament pref sheets here are a few of the major things I think are important about my judging philosophy and history as a debater

â?¢I hate lazy debate; I spent a lot of time doing research and learning specific contextualized warrants for most of the arguments I read. It will benefit you and your speaks to be as specific as possible when it comes to your warrants.

â?¢I did read the K a lot during my time as a debater but that doesnâ??t mean I donâ??t also deeply enjoy a good topical debate

â?¢I did read arguments tethered to my identity occasionally; if you want to read these sorts of arguments I am sympathetic to them, but I believe you should be ready to answer the framework debate well.

â?¢As far as framework and theory arguments go, I am open to listening to any theory argument in round with the exception of Spec args, I honestly feel like a POI is enough of a check back for a spec arg. I have yet to meet a spec arg that was justified much beyond a time suck. If youâ??re In front of me, I give these arguments little credence so you should respond accordingly.

â?¢As far as the actual voting issue of theory, I by default assume they are all Apriori, as theory is a meta discussion about debate and therefore comes as a prior question to whatever K/CP/DA is being read. When it comes to evaluating the impacts of theory, please please please do not be lazy and just say that fairness and/or education is the voter without justification. These are nebulous terms that could mean a thousand things, if you want to make me really happy as a judge please read more specific voters with a solid justification for them. This way I have a more concrete idea of what you mean instead of me having to insert my own ideas about fairness or education into the debate space.

â?¢As far as policy debates go, I default net bens, and will tend to prefer probable impacts over big impacts. That being said, I am a sucker for a good nuke war or resource wars scenario. My favorite policy debates were always econ debates because of the technical nuance.

â?¢Go as fast as you want, just make sure if your opponent calls clear or slow you listen because if they read theory or a K because you didnâ??t slow down or speak more clearly I will most likely vote you down.


Natalie Kellner -- Las Positas College

n/a

Nathan Steele -- City College San Francisco

n/a

Nicholas Goymerac -- Hired Judge

n/a

Olivea Flickinger-Renzi -- San Francisco State University


Oliver Tripp -- San Francisco State University

I was a critical policy debater in college and currently coach policy, parli, and LD at SFSU.

I'm drawn to critical and unconventional arguments. That said, I care more about seeing you debate what you believe in and are passionate about than seeing you craft a case you think will please me. I love critiques, but you need to establish clear, strong links. I love performance, but you need to establish what your in-round performance is.

I vote on the flow unless an argument is made about why I should evaluate the round differently. In other words, I default to being a technical judge but am happy to judge differently if you tell me why I should. Speed is not a problem, just make sure you're enunciating well. I don't protect the flow, please call out any new arguments in the rebuttals.

Please do not ever collapse to theory in front of me - you are capable of running other arguments regardless of the aff, I assure you. For topicality against critical affs: not a compelling voter. I generally believe K affs are good for education, and I like listening to them, so watching a good critique collapse to having to answer topicality for the majority of their speech disappoints me. If the aff isn't topical beyond just not being a fiated policy action, go for it. To summarize: I will vote on dropped theory arguments, but if the neg collapses to theory and/or relies solely on T against a K aff, I will vote on other arguments.

I dock speaker points for being snotty in flex/cross-ex or straight up interrupting your opponent's speech instead of letting them decide if they'll take your question. I don't wanna watch that shit. As long as you're respectful, my speak ranges are generally 27-29.5.

I'm trans so please keep that in mind if trans issues become part of the debate. :^)

My email is oli.tripp@icloud.com if you have any extra questions after round.


Orion Steele -- University of San Francisco

n/a

Orion Steele -- San Francisco State University


Pablo Ramirez -- San Francisco State University



Paul Villa -- Diablo Valley College

n/a

Raman Deol -- San Joaquin Delta College

n/a

Sage Russo -- City College San Francisco

n/a

Sara Moghadam -- Hired Judge

n/a

Sasan Kasravi -- Diablo Valley College

n/a

Shabista Batliwala -- Hired Judge

n/a

Steve Robertson -- Contra Costa College

n/a

Taure Shimp -- Modesto Junior College



Victoria Meuter-Montijo -- San Francisco State University