Judge Philosophies
Alexandria Matlock - Deb@Davis
n/a
Alexis Gonsalves - SJSU
n/a
Anabelle Thacher - Santa Rosa
n/a
Angela Gaba - SFSU
n/a
Angelina Nguyen - Dark Horse
n/a
Anju Vriksha - FTC
Judging Philosophy: As a judge, I approach debate as both a competitive activity and an intellectual journey. My philosophy blends the principles of the Tabula Rasa and the Game Player, creating a framework that balances flexibility with structure. The ultimate aim is to foster an environment where both the clash between arguments and the educational value of debate are paramount. 1. Tabula Rasa: A Clean Slate for Each Round I start each round with an open mind, adhering to the principle of Tabula Rasa. I allow the debaters to define the terms and framework of the debate, ensuring that their arguments stand on their own merits. This allows for fresh, unbiased evaluation. While the government side carries the burden of proof, both teams share the responsibility of creating meaningful clash. I expect them to engage directly with each other’s arguments in a way that challenges, tests, and refines the positions being debated. Clash is central to my evaluation—without it, debate loses its depth, and the round becomes less dynamic and intellectually stimulating. 2. Game Player: Structure and Strategy Debate is a structured activity with clear rules, and as a judge, I hold both sides to these standards. The government side must justify their case with sufficient evidence and reasoning, thereby meeting their burden of proof. The opposition is not only tasked with critiquing the government’s position but could also present a well-developed counter plan, pushing the debate forward. Both sides must create strategic clash—through argumentation, evidence, and rhetorical skill—while utilizing their time effectively. The manner in which debaters use their time and structure their arguments speaks to their understanding of the game, and I reward those who demonstrate this skill. 3. Debate as an Educational Activity Beyond the competition, I see debate as an opportunity for intellectual growth and learning. I encourage debaters to treat the round as an opportunity to challenge their own ideas and expand their perspectives. Debate should be a space where ideas are not merely defended but also questioned and tested. Clash is a vital part of this process, as it enables participants to confront different viewpoints and, in doing so, foster intellectual development. The most successful rounds are those that lead debaters to reflect on their arguments and ideas in a meaningful way, both during and after the debate. 4. Personal Preferences: Language and Eloquence As an old-school debater, I have a deep appreciation for the flow and beauty of language. Clear, precise, and eloquent arguments not only convey ideas but elevate the discourse. I value the use of language to both persuade and enhance the round, especially when combined with intellectual rigor. Rhetoric should complement logic, and I reward those who skillfully weave both into their arguments. Eloquence, however, must not overshadow substance. I am most impressed when debaters use language to clarify, sharpen, and advance their case while maintaining focus on engaging with the opposing side. 5. Conclusion: A Balance of Flexibility and Structure In conclusion, my judging philosophy combines the flexibility of a Tabula Rasa with the clear structure of a Game Player. I place a strong emphasis on the importance of clash—debates that lack meaningful engagement fail to provide the intellectual rigor necessary for growth. The government holds the burden of proof, and both sides must contribute to the development of the round through strategic clash and clear, structured argumentation. Ultimately, I believe that debate should challenge participants to think critically, inspire personal growth, and serve as both a contest and a chance for deeper understanding. Through the art of strategic clash and intellectual engagement, debaters will not only compete but also grow as thinkers and communicators.
Annie Koruga - UC Berkeley
n/a
Annum Khan - Dark Horse
n/a
Aria Kumar - SJSU
n/a
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.
Asher Runckel - Butte
n/a
Averie Higlesias - MJC
n/a
Belle Beglinger - MJC
n/a
Cecily Mundo - MJC
n/a
Charles 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.
Chris Pimentel - Santa Rosa
n/a
Christian Villanueva - Solano CC
n/a
Christina Sun - DVC
n/a
David Thorwaldson - Butte
n/a
Dennis Revelo - SFSU
n/a
Destiny Riley - Chabot
n/a
Dominic De Los Reyes - SFSU
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.
Emma Chigbu - DVC
n/a
Emma Tran - MJC
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.
Ethan Stern - Deb@Davis
I believe that theory, of all types, is the aPriori issue. I will be voting next on the core argument of the round as it is based on the voters. I believe that it is not necessarily the team that speaks better that should win the round, but the team that has more merit on the issues they are trying for that will win. As a person, I prefer to see debates without huge amounts of theory, that said I will still vote on it as the aPirori issue.
Ethan Jennings - MJC
n/a
Evan Lingo - UC Berkeley
n/a
Francesca Franco - Solano CC
n/a
Insiya Neemuchwala - SJSU
n/a
Isha Roy - LPC
n/a
Jackie Ojeda Herrera - Dark Horse
n/a
Jackson Huston - Deb@Davis
n/a
Jane Wilson - DVC
n/a
Jason Sabbadini - Sacramento
n/a
Josue De Leon - Santa Rosa
I am open to whatever you present.
Juan Mares - Solano CC
n/a
Kanan Prashar - SJSU
n/a
Karen Cornwell - Santa Rosa
I am open to whatever you present.
Kendrick Lacerda - USFCA
n/a
Kirsten Lofgren - SFSU
Hi I’m Kirsten, I’m a graduate student and assistant coach at SFSU.
Parli:
Any arguments go: case, theory, critique. I want to hear what you have to say; I don’t want you to tell me what you think I want to hear.
affirmative must meet burden of Harms/Uniqueness, Inherently, Plan, Solvency. Make sure to number your impacts for me, especially in novice.
I will protect the flow. I don’t flow new arguments in the rebuttals even if a point of order wasn’t called.
Spreading:
Feel free to spread if that makes you the most comfortable, but I will evaluate slower, common sense arguments above a fast but confusing argument, especially when it comes to Ks. Making yourself clear should be your number one priority.
Critiques:
I love a critique, but you must be organized and the thesis / alternative must be clearly stated and make sense. At least some links or impacts should be contextual to the resolution.
Novices:
If you’re in novice and you don’t use all your speech time, wait 15 seconds or so, don’t be afraid to think quietly about your arguments, make sure you’re not missing anything before giving up the rest of your time. There is no standard in novice parli to be able to think of every little thing off the top of your head. I’d rather hear a round with pauses than a round that the student didn’t get the time they need to carefully think through their argument.
Counter plan in novice:
Please, please take two seconds to make sure your counterplan in actually mutually exclusive.
Topicality in novice:
I have very low expectations for topicality / other theory in novice. This is because some novices are at their first tournament and have never heard it before. Topicality must have all four parts Interpretations, Violation, Standards, Voters. Novices, if you skip standards don’t expect me to vote if your T. Affirmative, pretty much any basic response: “counter interpretation” or “we meet” will fly for me.
Topicality in Open:
I typically prefer Ts that can prove in round abuse, rather than Ts for pure strategy.
I will vote on reverse voting issues or any other offensive on T, feel free to make these arguments.
Lilly Brown - Butte
n/a
Lindsey Lobue - LPC
n/a
Madeline Miller - Santa Rosa
n/a
Mahari Wright - Solano CC
n/a
Malika Amin Mirador - Solano CC
n/a
Mariah Moore - USFCA
n/a
Mason Crump - MJC
n/a
Mia Go - Chabot
n/a
Mikey Dodds - SJSU
n/a
Millie Dong - Dark Horse
n/a
Monique Fuentes - MJC
n/a
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.
Nick Dibble - Fresno State
n/a
Nikil Gowda - SJSU
n/a
Nikolette Tafoya - SFSU
n/a
Oliver Ye - FTC
n/a
Olivia Fife - CCSF
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.
Rei Tey - SJSU
n/a
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.
Sabrina Clendenin - MJC
n/a
Salvatore Barone - Santa Rosa
n/a
Samantha Toledo - FCC
n/a
Samantha Perez - DVC
n/a
Scott Lankford - FTC
-
Clear argument structure with plenty of framing and signposting
-
Evidence-based arguments with source citations
-
Polished speech presentation in terms of vocal variety, pacing, effective use of body language and gestures, and eye contact.
Shane Upshaw - SJSU
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! :)
Tristan Espana - DVC
n/a
Tyler Sasabuchi - Solano CC
n/a
Victoria Acevedo - Fresno State
n/a
Will Yates - CCSF
This Judge Philosophy is written ONLY for the 2025 Spring Fling Tournament
- I am a student. My first real tournament was Spring Fling Last year. I have been to many tournaments since then. My favorite formats are NFALD and Parli. This judging philosophy is not what I believe to be the correct way to debate. It is ONLY a disclosure of my biases.
- You dont need to be fancy in Cross examination.
- Youre wasting everyones time asking questions that your opponent is smart enough not to answer.
- Please dont ask questions that are clearly statements.
All Debate
- Clarity of both individual words and your overall points is very important. Style is not.
- Please don't cede time. If you need to stop and think, that's okay. You are probably here for class credit, and that's okay.
IPDA
- Try not to use jargon
- Specific definitions are okay, but if you want me to flow the definition, you have to say slowly.
- I have a low threshold for topicality violations in IPDA. Be topical and this won't be a problem.
Parli
- Please don't introduce new arguments in the last speech for your side. I won't count these.
- Treat your partner with respect.