Judge Philosophies
Akshay Agarwal - GSA
n/a
Alex Martin - Regent Legacy
n/a
Alex Night - NOF
n/a
Alice Chen - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Amanda Hsieh - Uni HS
n/a
Amanda Nobra - NOF
n/a
Andrew Yllescas - NOF
n/a
Aniket Nighojkar - NOF
n/a
Anindita Bhattacharya - GSA
n/a
Annamalai Lakshmanan - GSA
n/a
Annie Lim - ModernBrain
n/a
Benjamin Cantrell - NOF
n/a
Brett Boelkens - Cog Deb
n/a
Cecily Zhao - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Charlene Au - Able2Shine
n/a
Chitra Pannirselvam - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Chris Flowers - Alter Ethos
update: toc 22'
Email chain:chris@alterethosdebate.com
TLDR
Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.
I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.
Debaters should not do any of the following:
Clip cards
Steal prep
Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.
Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you dont wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.
Misgender folks
Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.
Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.
Argumentative Preferences
WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.
Education > Fairness
Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.
Ks dont need to win an alt to win.
Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.
Analytic > Low quality evidence
Specific Stuff
Theory
Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I give aff the benefit of the doubt on a lot of other theory, and come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD.
To adjust for this bias neg teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote AFF at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.
t/framework
Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.
Topicality
I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.
Perf Con.
I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.
Counter Plans
If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.
PICs are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.
Conditionality
Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.
DA's
I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.
Presumption
Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.
*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.
Chris Josi - Mt. Hood CC
I have coached for about 3 years after competing and becoming nationally recogonized. My goal now is to always be available to help debaters improve their technique.
I try to be as impartial as I can, and limit the scope to what is happening in the round. However, please do not inflate the truth. I default to qualitative on balance.
You need to impact your points and explain why it is imperative I need to vote for your case. Structure is also very important; I won't connect arguments for you.
Speaking quickly is up to you and your opponent, not me. Please respect each other's pacing. However, as long as I can understand what you're saying I will flow it.
I believe Topicality and Kritik arguments are import, but they should be resevered for when your opponent has stepped out of the bounds of the debate.
Cianna Yao - NAL
n/a
Curtis Jefferson - ModernBrain
n/a
Danny Cantrell - NOF
n/a
Dara Adebanjo - NOF
n/a
Deanna Ableser - NOF
n/a
Derious Braswell - NOF
n/a
Eddy You - EDUBUS
n/a
Edward Correa - UCSD
n/a
Eltho John - Young Voices
n/a
Emi Kim - Wilshire
n/a
Frank Sowell - Wilshire
n/a
Gahl Liberzon - Cog Deb
n/a
Gavin Zhu - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Gayathri Donepudi - UCSD
n/a
Glen Castillo - UCSD
n/a
Haiping Wang - Alter Ethos
n/a
Happy Hai - Able2Shine
n/a
Hobart Wang - EDUBUS
n/a
Huina Gao - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
JC Mudda - Advantage
n/a
Jagan Mangalampalli - GSA
n/a
Jaimie Nguyen - NOF
n/a
Janiel Victorino - QDLearning
Events I Judge: LD, PF, US Parlimentary, Congress, Speech
Judge since: 2019
Debate Style: Tech-pref w/ narrative override.
Ideal Round: Clash-focused, pedagogically intentional, with impact clarity.
How I Judge:
Truth > vibes | Action > potential | Pedagogy > punishment
As a speech native, Performance is my native language. Ive spent years competing in Platform and Interp before learning the technical side of debate starting in 2019. That means I see debate through a speech artists eyes, but Ive also trained to follow complex flows and evaluate technical debates with care.
Youll get strong post-round feedback, My ballot isnt just about winning; its about growing.
What I Prioritize:
Whether speech or debate, I care most about:
Strategic storytelling (Why does your argument/performance matter?)
Delivery with purpose (Are you performing or presenting, or just reciting?)
Intentional structure (Are you guiding me through your ideas clearly?)
Clash and comparison (Are you answering what your opponent said, or just repeating yourself?)
Debate Specifics
Speed: Moderate tolerance. I can follow fast rounds & will resort to verbatim flow if I dont understand something, but clarity > rate.
Theory & T: Yes, Ill vote on it, but its not an auto win. I need a full shell (Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters) clearly outlined and signposted. I dont vote on potential abuse, show me it mattered in this round.
Framework:
If its LD or PF, help me understand how you want me to evaluate. Weighing the world is essential. ROBs and ROJs are fine but you have to teach me your framing inside the round.
Kritiks:
Love hearing them. But you must explain how the alt solves, what the link is (specific, not just vibes), and how you win under your framing. If I dont get a clear why that matters for the ballot, Ill flow back to the other team.
Speech as Performance:
In all events I judge~ I notice if your voice, pacing, or body posture reinforce (or undermine) your message. Debate is also a performance, you just might not realize youre acting.
Feedback Style
Ballots will be timestamped (line by line in speech, key moments in debate), feedback-rich, and tied to both NSDA skills and real-world habits.
I do not always rank according to personal opinionI have voted down arguments I deeply disagreed with, because technical mastery won.
I will explain myself. If you dont see the logic behind my RFD, email me if you see it in your ballot, I archive ballots and flows for follow-up learning.
Lets grow together.
(Coach Note: I respect all coaching philosophies and am glad to calibrate feedback style if specific priorities or league norms are communicated pre-tournament.)
Jared Koch - NOF
n/a
Jay Villanueva - NOF
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Jenny Jung - Regent Legacy
n/a
Julia Cheng - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Justin Wiley - Mt. Hood CC
n/a
Kaimun Wong - Able2Shine
n/a
Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Karon Petty - NOF
n/a
Karthik Sundararaman - GSA
n/a
Kate Hong - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Kevin Gong - UCSD
n/a
Kristina Rietveld - Cog Deb
EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, I prefer mandates that are in the news, have be done before or have at least been proposed; No random plans that you think are good. Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, No aff K's ever (kritikal advantages are fine, but not an all out K). Rule 2, make sure your K somehow links to the resolution for the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 3, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 4, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
Speech
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (for the rest of my paradigm that is not specific to CPFL but still relevant to all debate styles, reference the remainder of the paradigm):
Do:
-Include a value/criteria
-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)
-Communicate when you are using prep time
DO NOT:
-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)
-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other teams case substantively)
I will vote for the team that best upholds their sides burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.
Lauren Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Lee Thach - CL
n/a
Lina Kwak - NOF
n/a
Lisa Henry - Helios
n/a
Lisa Podos - ModernBrain
n/a
Lucy Giusto - Contra Costa
I have over 30 years of experience in speech and debate. It is important to sign-post in all events so that I know where to apply arguments. Debate events such as IPDA and Parlimentary debate require explanation of the debaters arguments using analogies and examples and some evidence. Debate events like policy debate require evidence and a rationale for the evidence. Please provide a rationale along with a tag.
Mackenzie Mattila - NAU
Manoj Goyal - GSA
n/a
Mat Marr - Able2Shine
n/a
Matt Getty - Regent Legacy
n/a
Micheal Brown - NOF
n/a
Minyang Jiang - UCSD
n/a
Mishaal Said - NOF
n/a
Molly Bruins - BruInd
n/a
NAU-Sarah Walker - NAU
Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University
Altogether,
I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a
competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary
Debate.
I have a strong
background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I
can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed,
technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however,
I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my
paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been
centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can
clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a
long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier
judge.
Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c)
Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like
specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the
aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about
judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a
workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate
constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less
experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge
this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need
warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make
your arguments clear.
2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items
(a)
I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be
acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I
understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography
or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there
should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am
concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or
hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy,
not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b)
When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of
making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I
am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a
roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more
impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly
technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in
favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those
dropped args.
(d) Evidence is
evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good
debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard
for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are
rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat.
Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to
do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better
debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan,
rather than simply insisting that it can be done.
3) Clipping
Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a
decision after the review. While I understand why other people
proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of
it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a
few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an
automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.
4)
Topicality debates: If
you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly
cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I
am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will
get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the
interpretations of the T.
5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should
time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing
when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.
Nathan Chong - UCSD
n/a
Nathan Hong - UCSD
n/a
Ne'Jahra Soriano - Able2Shine
n/a
Neetika Kaura - GSA
n/a
Nic Lim - ModernBrain
n/a
Olivia Carter - Uni HS
n/a
Ping Luo - Able2Shine
n/a
Rachel Li - GSA
n/a
Rajat Sobti - Advantage
n/a
Ritika Muthukumar - UCSD
n/a
Rob Zehner - Helios
n/a
Rongxin Hua - UCSD
n/a
Rosa Wu - Wilshire
n/a
Rose Thompson - ModernBrain
n/a
Ryan Hadaya - UCSD
n/a
Ryan Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Samantha Togno - Regent Legacy
n/a
Saumya Mohan - Helios
n/a
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
Shishir Jain - Brooks Debate
n/a
Shiv Ramanna - GSA
n/a
Siva Pavan - Advantage
n/a
Srividya Jayaram - GSA
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! :)
Steven Lombardi - UCSD
n/a
Sumit Gabada - GSA
n/a
Taylor Stickle - Saddleback
n/a
Terry Park - NOF
n/a
Tom Grothe - Butte
n/a
Tori Hoge - Regent Legacy
n/a
Travis Cochran - CSUF
n/a
Travis Cornett - NOF
n/a
Tyler Jang - UCSD
n/a
Varsha Murali - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Wesley Loofbourrow - ModernBrain
n/a
Xochitl Norton - UCSD
n/a
Yegor Zenkov - ModernBrain
n/a
Yimeng Yuan - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Yolanda Lan - EDUBUS
n/a
Yongjin Lee - GSA
n/a