2024 NCFA Spring Fling

Skyline College - May 4 | Status: Completed | 10:10 PM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 10:10 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Abel Chavez - Butte

n/a

Abel Urena - SJSU

n/a

Adam Mitchell - Solano CC

n/a

Adilene Banuelos - SJSU

n/a

Alex Balingit - SFSU

n/a

Alia Khan - MJC

n/a

Alondra Martinez - SJSU

n/a

Ameya Puranik - DVC

n/a

Anna Wolde - LPC

n/a

Annie Koruga - UC Berkeley

n/a

Ben Brogger - MJC

n/a

Bobby Rentfro - DVC

n/a

Branden Sandner - LPC

n/a

Brian Singer - Chabot

n/a

Casey Snell - SFSU

n/a

Christian Villanueva - Solano CC

n/a

Claire Willard - LPC

n/a

Daisy Guerreo - Solano CC

n/a

Destiny Riley - Chabot

n/a

Ethan Jennings - MJC

n/a

Frida Torres - Solano CC

n/a

Jason Sabbadini - DVC

n/a

Jasper Pacheco - St. Mary's

n/a

Josh Turnbull - MJC

n/a

Josue De Leon - Sacramento

n/a

Julia Irvine - Butte

n/a

Kaci Thornton - Santa Rosa

n/a

Keala Sexton - SJSU

n/a

Kyle Landrum - Butte

n/a

Kylie Duncan - SFSU

n/a

Luis Mora - St. Mary's

n/a

Maag Domingo - MJC

n/a

Madisen Wieland - Butte

n/a

Malika Amin Mirador - Solano CC

n/a

Mari Garcia - Sacramento

n/a

Marnie Singer - Chabot

n/a

Mason Crump - MJC

n/a

Matt Wood - CCSF

n/a

Michelle Yanez - Ohlone College

n/a

Mikaela Silva - Clovis

n/a

Neena Grewal - DVC

n/a

Rachel Oh - SJSU

n/a

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.

Ryan Guy - MJC

Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!

Video Recording & Online Tournaments

  • In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
  • Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.

I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!

A Little About Me

  • I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
  • Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
  • I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.

I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.

How I See Debate

1. Sharing Material

  • If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
  • Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
  • If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.

2. Speed

  • Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
  • If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.

3. Procedurals & Theory

  • Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
  • If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
  • I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.

4. Kritiques

  • I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
    • Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
    • Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
    • Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.

5. Organization & Engagement

  • Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
  • If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
  • Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
  • Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.

6. Oral Critiques

  • If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.

7. Safety & Well-being

  • Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
  • If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.

IPDA Notes

  • Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
  • Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
  • Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
  • Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
  • Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
  • Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.

How I Decide Rounds

  • Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
  • Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
  • Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
  • Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.

Specifics for NFA-LD

  1. File Sharing

    • SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
    • If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
    • Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.

  2. Disclosure

    • I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
    • If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
    • Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.

  3. Cardless LD

    • I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.

Speaker Points

  • Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
  • Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.

Topicality

  • Please make an honest effort to be topical.
  • T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
  • Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.

In Closing

I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.

Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!

Salvatore Barone - Santa Rosa

n/a

Sam Goodman - St. Mary's

n/a

Sequoia Sanchini - Santa Rosa

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

Shavon Odom - Solano CC

n/a

Sokha Som - Santa Rosa

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

Sophia Obbagy - Santa Rosa

n/a

Steve Robertson - Contra Costa

Steve Robertson

Contra Costa College, Director of Forensics

Years competed:1 yr LD (high school), 4.5 years NDT/CEDA (college)

Years coaching: 25+ years (middle school, high school, college - LD, parli, NDT/CEDA, IPDA)

Philosophy - The round is for you to convince me why your side should win the debate. try to be as non-interventionist as I can be. I work off the flow, focusing on your claims, warrants, and evidence. Believability is also a factor. I find it very difficult to vote for arguments that I don't understand how they work or function. So be sure to explain why things are the way they are. Compare impacts, and explain why your impacts/argument outweigh or should be viewed as more important than theirs. The main point is that you need to justify your position to me: what is your argument, why is it legitimate, and why does that matter in light of the other side's arguments. If you can adequately answer those three questions better than the other side, you should win the argument.

I punish non-responsiveness - meaning that if you drop or undercover arguments, they suddenly get much more weight in the round (especially if exploited by the other team). However, if you under-develop your arguments (such as blipping out theory pre-empts without justifying them), it doesn't take much to respond to these arguments.

I also communicate through nonverbals. If you see me nodding, then that means I understand your position (not necessarily agree with it, but I get what you're saying). If you see me cocking my head to the side or scrunching up my face, it means I don't get what you're saying or I don't understand your argument or I don't see why it's relevant. If you see that face, you should either give more explanation (until you see a head nod) or cut your losses and move onto another argument. If you see my hands in the air, that means I don't know where you are on the flow. You should give me a signpost, because I'm currently not flowing you.

Here are some event-specific concerns:

Parli- Debate starts at the highest point of conflict. I will listen to arguments of trichot/type of resolution, though if the tournament identifies it as a particular type of resolution this becomes a bit more difficult.

I don't care about partner to partner communication. However, if it's done during the other team's speech, then mute yourselves from this 8x8 (e.g., chat privately, mute yourselves and talk in another venue, etc.). Don't disrupt the other speaker.

If you want to give your partner advice or arguments, that's fine as well. There are 2 things to be aware of: First, I only listen to what the speaker says. So if you tell your partner something, it doesn't reach my flow until the current speaker says it. Saying "yeah, what she said" will get onto my flow as "yeah, what she said" - not the actual argument. Second, the more you parrot or puppet your partner, the lower your speaker points will become. This is purely subjective on my part, so use at your own peril.

Finally, parli has the Point of Order. I will not protect against new arguments or other rules violations (unless specified to do so in the tournament rules). Use this if applicable. Frivolous use of it, however, will desensitize me to it.

LD- You have the obligation to provide evidence in this debate. Please do so. Referencing evidence that has not been read in the debate will carry the same weight as an assertion for me.

For me, reading the source (publication title and/or authors' last names) and date is sufficient for citations, provided that all additional information is provided on the card's citation itself. If you want to run an official rules violation on this in front of me, I will entertain it, but realize I am disinclined to vote evidence or a debater down if that information is available on the card. Doesn't mean you can't win it, just that it'll be an uphill battle.

Realize that while underlining and highlighting are acceptable ways of modifying evidence for a round, ellipses, unreadable font size, or gaps in text are unacceptable.

IPDA- IPDA is more of a communication event than a debate for me. It is NOT treated the same as parli. I do not flow, but take a very limited amount of notes. Eloquence factors into the decision for me. I think of this as a townhall meeting, closer to interactive persuasion than debate. Avoid debate jargon, extensive line by line analysis, and other more traditional debate tactics. This is about persuasion, not strict argumentation. Think of debating in front of your grandmother, not a debate judge.

Bottom line - make good arguments, offer clash, give impact calculus/comparison, and be civil to one another. Oh...and have fun! :)

Sylvia Ho - Chabot

I do parli!

add me to the chain smhpoppy@gmail.com, tech>truth, i'm down for anything, ask me in round if you have questions. so:

respect your opponents, pronouns, preferred labels/lack of them, all that jazz. That said, be as aggressive as you want! I lean towards letting ethics debates and stuff play out in round, but if you're getting uncomfortable or if there's just something you don't feel like having to justify, just let me know!

if you ask me to gut check nothing will happen. Dont rely on reasonability; spell out your competing interps and impacts. I'm tabula rasa the rest of this paradigm is just my defaults

Spreading: cool, but if you can't do it well, like. please don't. speed is good, spreading not so much. If you do spread, have a case drop ready for me to access.

K/Theory: Love! I default theory>kritik=case, but obviously subject to change if you say so. I will consider anything and everything and will likewise happily drop arguments if the other team points out frivolity/bigotry. go for the fun alts! solvency arguments against "reject res" will convince me pretty easily. i will not disclose what lit base i'm most familiar with because if you're not able to eli5 it, i assume your opponents won't be able to understand either. If and only if you check in with your opponents before round and confirm they're familiar with what you're running will I vote for not clearly explained Ks.

Signpost.

i dont care what your strat is, give me a clear path to the ballot. Ngl idc about case i'm probably voting on this. I do really mean this because I think debate is what competitors make of it, whether that means a substantive case debate, a tricks game, or a round of mariokart. i will judge however competitors tell me to and i will and have judged IErs who just ran their speeches during round instead of debating the res. it is genuinely up to you how you want the round to go.

I also take tabula rasa very literally! if someone says something like "vote aff because aff is the coolest team in round," i need some sort of response on the flow, even if it's just "neg cooler than aff" bc otherwise i will buy whatever i hear, though obv IPDA is mostly exempt from this.

more about ipda: i will kind of let deliberate misinformation (e.g. moon is made of cheese) slide but i will be a little more interventionist about things that seem to just be common misunderstandings in round (e.g. vaccines cause autism). it will not affect my decision directly unless it comes down to tiebreaker evidence v evidence clash, where, all other things equal, i will lean towards truth in IPDA and IPDA only (this is highly subjective so dont do it unless youre very, very sure ill agree with you!).

i wont accept new arguments if i notice, but its on you to call the other team out and to tell me what to kick etc.

speaks start 26, but go ahead with speaks theory! Swearing won't drop your speaks, jokes will raise em, if you make jokes at the expense of a minority i will in good faith assume you're part of it. if ur reading this far add a mention of tax fraud, cats (2019), or baguettes in your speech and i'll raise. I don't care about clothes, but if you wear a halloween costume or smth i'll add a couple points

IE: sorry i think yall can tell ur getting side shafted but! Be entertaining however you choose. I sort of value content over delivery and i kind of dislike slow speeds to be honest but it wont affect my judging!! This is to say ill be more lenient towards fast speeches than a typical speech judge probably. If you want the rubric ill be judging off of here you go!

tldr: do literally anything as long as you do it well, you don't have to be polite but be kind, and whatever i say in this paradigm doesnt matter as long as you can justify it.

Victor Ramos - Solano CC

n/a

Xander Struckmann - LPC

n/a