FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Li - Parli at Berkeley

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school, NPDA at the University of Oregon, and my partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

Debate is a game
Hard debate is good debate
Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
I default to magnitude first sans weighing
Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
For the love of god extend the aff
For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
Links of omission are weak
Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
Decolonization is not a metaphor
Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
Science is a very useful ideology
Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

Alexa Grechishkin - Whitman

n/a

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:

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.

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.

Disclose. Read what you want.

Email

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions at a_guzman15@u.pacific.edu.

Dalton Richardson - Jewell

(copied from Tabroom)

I'm Dalton, he/him, competed and coached since 2011.

I will vote for the debater(s) that do the better debating, e.g. convincing me that they have won the debate, and make this decision based off my flow. While I will not fundamentally reject any particular argument/style of argumentation (sans safety concerns or ones that promote harmful ideologies/practices), I also believe that adaptation is an important portable skill so perhaps we can meet somewhere in the middle.

For the sake of transparency here are my argument preferences: topical affs, disads with specific links to the aff, advantage counterplans, and one off Ks are my favorite strategies to see deployed.

Likewise, here's my confidence in my ability to accurately evaluate types of rounds:

1. Most confident - T aff vs DA/CP/case; T aff vs K; non-T K aff vs K

2. Moderately confident - clash of civilizations; postmodern Ks

3. Least confident - frivolous theory; LD tricks; rebuttal restarts

Perhaps most useful to you is a list of things I will not do: I will not backfill warrants you don't read, make sense of your own arguments based on information not on my flow, or flow your speech doc. If I don't understand your argument I will not vote for you and I will not feel bad about it. I will not vote on out of round behavior because I am unable to verify it.

I care about my role as an educator and take my job very seriously - I respect the time and effort you have devoted to participating in this activity, so please respect mine as well.

David Worth - RIce

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.

I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.

I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.

Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.

Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.

You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.

Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.

Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.

Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.

If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.

You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.

Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.

My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.

Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.

Gabe Graville - Whitman

n/a

Grace Fashanu - Whitman

n/a

Grace Canny - Whitman

n/a

Haidyn Christoffel - CUI

Hi there! I am the Assistant Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. My partner and I were 3rd at NPDA my senior year.

NPDA:

Kriticisms: I read a lot of Kriticisms as a competitor, but just because I might understand some of your lit base, does not mean I will do the work for you when it comes to evaluating the flow. Also, I might not understand your specific K, so please explain it and what it does in the alt and solvency clearly. I am not voting on arguments I do not understand. I also really like specific links on neg K's, as I think they can function as independent offense on the aff if done correctly. In regards to non-topical affirmatives, I would like to see some justification for rejecting the topic to show that your aff actually does something or sets a norm in the debate space.

Theory: I am not so sure how I feel about frivolous theory, as I feel that it literally defeats the entire point of theory in the first place, which is to preserve fairness and education in debate. Examples of frivolous theory I would most likely not vote on are (but not limited to): must pass texts in the speech (just do it after your speech or in flex) and disclosure (I don't know how that even works in parli). Otherwise, I enjoy a good theory debate! MG theory is cool, again, don't make it frivolous.I default to competing interps over reasonability if no voters tell me otherwise. Please be specific and give me a bright line if you would like me to evaluate a theory sheet using reasonability.

Case: Case debate is always fun. If this is what you are the most comfortable defending, go for it!

Speed: I am personally okay with speed. Please be clear. Please read important tags like all advocacies, ROB's, and interps twice or slow down so I make sure I have them flowed correctly. I will audibly slow or clear you if I cannot keep up. I would encourage you to do the same if you cannot keep up with your opponents and vise versa.

Impact calculus: Without impact calc, I feel that the round is infinitely harder for me to weigh. Please do this in the rebuttals, even if you collapse to theory. I will most likely default to valuing the highest magnitude impact if not told to weigh the round otherwise.

Lastly, please do not make morally reprehensible arguments.

LD:

I have no preferences other than I really would like to not have to evaluate disclosure theory (on the aff or neg). Otherwise, most of my parli paradigm can be applied here.

IPDA only:

My ballot will mainly be decided on the way arguments interact with each other rather than how well of a speaker the competitors are.I will not flow cross-ex, so if you want me to flow an argument, please make it in your speech.I think the definitions debate is the highest layer in the round, and I will evaluate that before I look to the other arguments. I enjoy strong impact calculus. So if the round permits, please tell me why your impacts matter the most and why I should care. I think sometimes burdens in IPDA become unclear. I think the aff should defend the topic, even if it is in some fun and creative way that I was not expecting.I think the neg's burden is to disprove the aff or offer reasons as to why the aff causes something bad to happen, don't just negate the topic alone.

Lastly, I think debate is a game and we can all gain something from every round. I want to encourage you all to be kind to one another and have fun with the event. Feel free to ask me any other questions in person! Good luck and have fun! :)

Ilan Boguslavsky - Parli at Berkeley

From Tabroom.

Ilan Boguslavsky(he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com

Top Level:

I have almost no opinions about arguments as long as they are technically won. I did primarily K stuff in high school and now policy stuff in college. That doesnt mean you can forgo crucial explanation and expect me to fill in the blanks for you, it just means I am open to evaluating pretty much any argument. Teams that are able to effectively summarize the round and write my ballot at the top of the rebuttals will generally receive higher speaker scores.

I flow straight down on excel. I will probably not have the speech docs open at any point during the debate. I usually don't read cards after the debate is over unless explicitly instructed to. Good cards don't make up for shallow explanations, but can improve the credibility of your arguments in a close debate.

Defaults absent contestation:

Yes judge kick.

Reject the argument not the team on theory besides condo.

Insert rehighlightings (as long as you explain the implication) and read recuttings.

Debaters should identify "new" arguments that shouldn't be evaluated besides the 2AR.

Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation, and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out.

LD:

I will vote for you if I think you technically won an argument and I can explain that argument back to the other team in the RFD. I am not very deep on LD-specific phil and tricks debates, so you need to have clear judge instruction and explanation if this is your thing.

I won't say that I will not evaluate RVI's and frivolous theory objections, but for me, the threshold for the other team to answer them seems so low that it does not seem strategic. The caveat is that I will not award 30 speaks as a result of any theory interp made in the debate. Your arguments can win my ballot, but I will determine your speaker points.

Ilse Spiropoulos - Whitman

I'll try my best to keep this short.

First of all, please be considerate of speed. I think rounds that are at tip-top speeds often make debate inaccessible. Additionally, if I miss something or it doesn't end up on my flow that could hurt your case.

I'll vote for pretty much anything if it's run well. I don't mind voting on weird technical arguments or Ks if they are argued well and extended into final speeches. I like Ks and have run my fair share of them but I also understand philosophy and expect the impacts and solvency of Ks to be explained. I think Ks with Alts that don't do anything are frustrating but I also regularly ran the Alt "Smash the symbols of the empire in the name of nothing but the hearts longing for grace" as a competitor so do with that what you will. I do think presumption flips aff in the case of a non conditional Neg advocacy so keep that in mind.

On the other hand, I also have a lot of respect for strait up policy cases and enjoy watching them. Framework matters in most debates, if I'm not given a clear framework I default to magnitude and time frame. If you want me to weigh for example small scale impacts before low probability massive impacts (or the other way) tell me why that's important.

T is fair game, I am bias against really frivolous or silly T but if you crush them with it I wont keep a win from you on the basis of a silly or frivolous interp, I just wont like it.

Ill vote on an IVI pretty easily if something egregious happens in round but otherwise there needs to be really clear voters explained for me to vote on it.

TLDR: if you give me a good solid reason to vote for something, I will. I value framework heavier than some judges and think it tells me how to weigh the round. I can vote on truth or tech, just give me a reason. If things get muddy I always default to the flow and where I think pieces clash.

I'm biased against any advocacy or theory that advocates for mass violence or death.
If you use a slur violently in round I will vote you down and tank your speaks.
(using a slur as an act of intentional reclamation within reason with justification is obviously a different situation and fine)

If you have any questions before the round please ask them. Best of luck!
If you have questions feel free to email me at Spiropij@whitman.edu

Isabel Mathy - Whitman

n/a

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!

June Dense - Parli at Berkeley

she/her

Experience: I've been involved in debate for 10 years. Four years of National Circuit and Local Circuit High School LD at Chatfield Senior; four years of College NPDA/NPTE Open Parli for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley; three years of coaching experience for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley and Campolindo High School.

TL;DR: The short version is that I strive to evaluate the round as technically and objectively as possible. Read whatever arguments you want (provided they are not rhetorically violent), win them on the flow, and don't be oppressive/violent. Ks and k affs are great, theory is great, CPs are great, disads are great, case affs are great.Never worry about me auto-rejecting an argument because it's 'blippy' or 'frivolous', just make sure it's sufficiently weighed.

______________________________________________________________

Long version: The following details apply to both parli and LD, and if there's a paradigmatic difference between the two events, I will make note of it.

Philosophy: The principle that guides my judge philosophy is that judge intervention, while inevitable to some degree, is generally bad and should be minimized whenever possible. Paradigms that welcome judge intervention open the door for judges to make decisions (sometimes subconsciously; sometimes explicitly) on arbitrary criteria like presentation and rhetorical appeal. Evaluation of these criteria frequently comes down to race and gender, as well as being unfair and uneducational to the debaters in the round, so it should be avoided as much as possible. I do believe there can be instances of judges intervening in rounds for good, but on whole, as a general model for how debate ought to operate, I think judge intervention does more harm than good.

Three immediate implications of this:

[1] I default to strength of link to determine the truth value of arguments, warrants, empirics, etc. That means I don't care how "blippy" an argument seems, only whether it is contested; if an argument is conceded, then it has 100% strength of link and therefore is true. I will not intervene on the truth value of arguments, warrants, and empirics, for the reasons explained above (intervening on whether arguments are "true" sets a bad precedent about what the role of the judge is in debate rounds), and because I don't trust myself to know enough about the world to be able to verify the minutia of your arguments.

[2] I generally use paradigms that prioritize 'tech' over 'truth.' To this day, I am still confused about what 'truth' means as the opposite of 'tech.' How does the judge evaluate a round "truthfully"? Does that just mean the judge intervenes on the truth value of arguments (see point 1)? How does the competitive nature of debate factor in to 'truth' paradigms? If there are some arguments that are not open to debate ('true' arguments), wouldn't the more 'true' side have a massive advantage over the other? As a result, I think tech debate paradigms are more fair and educational, so I default to them.

[3] I use speaker points to reward good strategic calls and execution, rather than performance or rhetorical appeal. I don't like evaluating elements of debaters' in-round performances, such as persuasion, affect, rhetoric, speaking style, etc (again for the reasons above). However, if you are rhetorically violent in round, your speaks will be far lower.

All of the other details of my paradigm stem from these three points.

General:

- I have no preferences about the following: rejecting the resolution, conditionality/multicondo, 'cheater' CPs, PICs, Ks, 'frivolous' theory, etc. I am more than happy to evaluate these strats, but I think your opponents get to at least try to read theory in response.

- Personally, in order of most to least enjoyed, I prefer Ks, then theory, then case/advantages/disadvantages debates. However, my preferences will never factor into my decision, and I am more than comfortable evaluating any of these types of arguments.

Delivery/Speaks:

- I'm very comfortable with speed, but I know it can be a barrier to teams as well. I will default to evaluating speed but if your opponent asks your to slow or clear, please listen to them. I also don't think tech debate is intrinsically tied to speed; it's possible to have a technical debate that is not fast if speed is a barrier to teams. This means a) tech is not a reason why speed is good, and b) speed is not a reason why tech is bad or inaccessible.

- Don't worry about "performing well" in front of me. As previously mentioned, I will not give speaks based on performance.

- I will say clear as much as I need and I won't penalize speaks for clarity.

- I will not lower your speaks for calling points of order/information, so call away!

Policy/Case stuff:

- I default to believing in durable fiat.

- I default to evaluating your advantages through net benefits and util/some other form of consequentialism unless you specify otherwise.

- Specificity is good! I would much rather vote on your super specific investment bubble disad than your generic government spending disad.

Counterplans:

- I like CPs, especially well-constructed/creative advantage CPs.

- From the general section: I have no disposition for or against condo of 'cheater' CPs. Feel free to read them, but assume your opponents get to try reading theory about them.

- I default to evaluating perms as tests of competitions, but I will evaluate them as advocacies if you give me a reason why.

- I prefer arguments about functional competition and competition through net benefits to arguments about textual competition.

- I default to no judge kick, but I will evaluate it if you make the arguments.

Theory:

- I love theory :)

- I default to potential abuse over proven abuse, but feel free to do weighing between the two in round.

- I have a relatively low threshold for what counts as abuse on theory. Since I default to potential abuse, I vote for the better norm for debate between the interp and the counter interp. This means I am very comfortable voting on 'frivolous' theory and potential abuse.

- I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I think it's hard to evaluate reasonability without a brightline for what is considered to be 'reasonable.' I also don't know how to decide what is reasonable without being interventionist (see the judge intervention section).

- I default to dropping the team on theory, but I have no disposition between dropping the team or the argument.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate.

- I default to fairness and education not being voters. This means you have to explicitly read fairness and education as voters in order for me to vote on theory; I will not "assume" they are there.

- I have an extremely high threshold for 2AR/PMR theory.

- I have an extremely high threshold for reasons why case impacts (advantages or disadvantages) should come before theory.

- I default to no RVIs. That means you have to make the argument that theory is a reverse voting issue, I won't just assume that it is. However, I love RVIs and think they're underutilized right now in parli.

Kritiks:

- I love Ks and K affs. I see myself as primarily a K debater, judge, and coach.

- I have a good understanding of most foundational critical theory, so don't be afraid of reading your arguments in front of me. Read your pomo nonsense; read your more structuralist positions.

- As a debater, I tended to reject the resolution more than I defend it, but I am perfectly happy evaluating rounds either way. From above: I think you're probably able to reject the resolution, but your opponents probably get to try reading theory against it. For what it's worth, all else held equal, I think I probably err towards the kritik on the question of weighing k impacts vs fairness and education (55-45), but I think the reason why is because teams frequently fail to explain why concepts like 'fairness' and 'education' matter in the context of the framework/impacts of the K, thus losing if the aff frames out the interp. If you can read framework and with this debate, you will probably win my ballot.

- I default to epistemic modesty over confidence. This means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case.

- I evaluate the alt like a CP in reference to competition and the perm; if I should evaluate the alt as more of a performance instead, please let me know and explain what this means in the context of the round.

- I don't love reject alts. I'd prefer your alt to be specific, concrete, and actionable.

- I default to theory being a priori to the K, but I'm extremely sympathetic to arguments that the K should come first for a litany of reasons.

Other:

-Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- I default to presumption flowing neg unless the neg reads (and goes for) an advocacy other than the status quo, but I want this to be debated out in the round.

- I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as "contradictory" arguments; or at least, I think conditionality probably resolves a large degree of contradictions. So, I'm sympathetic to the argument that contradictions don't matter if you kick out of one half of the contradiction. However, if you're uncondo, you do need to be careful not to double turn yourself (for example, by reading an uncondo cap K and an econ DA).

- I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it's always better to call points of order just to be safe. There's always a chance I misevaluate whether an argument is new or not, so play it safe and point it out to me. I won't lower speaks or anything for calling points of order, so there's no perceptual risk.

- I will vote on IVIs, but to be transparent I'm not the biggest fan if they're read frivolously. Specificity is necessary here. If you do go for an IVI, you need to do the technical work of explaining why this piece of offense functions independently of the rest of the flow. Absent some justification, I will evaluate IVIs as a piece of offense on the layer it was read. If you want me to evaluate it as an a priori voting issue, I need framing that justifies this. This isn't to say that I won't evaluate IVIs, but it means that you need to do the work of explaining why it's a priori.

- (Parli) The LOR doesn't have to extend every word of the MO. I think the LOR can largely do whatever it wants to, as long as it's not new. The LOR can never really lose the round, but it definitely can win it.

- (LD) Please include me in the speech doc or email chain if there is one.

- If you have other questions I haven't answered, please ask me before the round!

Kiefer Storrer - Whitman

Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new ~~Queen~~ King, Marciano, Liberace, Santayana, goodbye. We didn't start the fire.

He/Him/His

Experience: Competed in 4 years 3A Kansas High School Policy and 4 years Midwest-regional and PKD/NCCFI College Parli. I have a background of coaching LD, Parli, IPDA, the occasional very rare Worlds tournament; but IEs are the real undercurrent of my coaching career. I've coached a Parliamentary Debate National Championship* at Phi Rho Pi and PKD, but only rarely have been involved with NPDA-circuit competition. Current ADOD/F at Whitman. *I was the 5th most important coach in the room for Bella and Alexa's 2025 NPDA championship, and I'm really good at coin flips.

Because metaphors are the cool thing to do these days, I view debate like Professional Wrestling; theatrical spectacle with ambiguous rulesets that are sometimes "broken" to up the entertainment and education factor. National-level rounds are hopefully grandiose back-and-forth engagements where either side, made up of larger-than-life personalities, is winning speech to speech. Please don't have me evaluate a Dusty Finish, I'd like a clear winner, so clash like champions and give your best Impact Calc promo.

TL:DR: Cool with anything, don't advocate for genocide or advocates of genocide. Might be a step behind on my flowing ability ("he's still got it *clapclap clapclapclap*"...hopefully). Again, with the wrestling metaphor; please be kind through the round, but especially before and after. We are a reviving community, and our future is in our hands.

PS: I don't need to see proven abuse, a summation of arguments you weren't able to run is good enough for me. For the love of god, regardless of what format you are in, please weigh your impacts against your opponents. Also please collapse in your rebuttals.

Kyle Smith - McK

n/a

Kyle Bligen - Whitman

2018 NPDA National Champion

I can judge pretty much anything. Just be clear and have fun.

For additional speaker points, consult the below recipe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Before you strike me, ask your DoF how many times I beat the teams they coached. Now, rethink your strike and pref me higher.***

IngredientsNutrition

1?2 cupbutter
2 tablespoonscream cheese
1 pintheavy cream
1 teaspoongarlic powder
salt
black pepper
2?3 cup gratedparmesan cheese(preferably fresh)
1 lbfettuccine, prepared as directed

Directions

In a medium saucepan, melt butter.
When butter is melted, add cream cheese.
When the cream cheese is softened, add heavy cream.
Season with garlic powder, salt, and pepper.
Simmer for 15-20 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly.
Remove from heat and stir in parmesan.
Serve over hot fettucine noodles.

Mary Talamantez - Hired Judges

n/a

Michael Shurance - CUI

TLDR: Run whatever you want. Dont be afraid to run heterodox arguments in front of me. I welcome diverse perspectives and unique clash. Generally tech over true (as tech is the best method to prove/disprove something as true and I honestly don't know how or why they're portrayed as in competition with each other, but I digress).

Framework: Debate is a game (but games are important). I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently discriminatory in a way that makes debate inaccessible. ACCESSIBILITY: I believe access to the debate space is the clearest bright line for whether an argument warrants judge intervention. Examples of unacceptable arguments include white supremacy, Nazism/racial superiority, or ad hominem attacks on individual identity. I will drop anyone advocating for these positions or using these tactics. We all deserve respect and fairness, and this may be the only place we can truly get it. I aim to be the least interventionist judge you'll ever have. That said, I believe debate has become too ideologically limited. Most debaters have critical, leftist, or neoliberal frameworks in real life, which is fine, but this can create ideological bubbles that limit potential clash against ideas we might all agree on. For example, I hear debaters collapse to fascism bad arguments, but in all my years of debating, I've never heard a clear explanation of what fascism is or why its bad (I personally believe its a horrible political framework, but thats not the point). I don't want to grant framework concessions because I agree or disagree with them. I want clash about the various frameworks humanity uses in the real world (e.g., socialism good/bad, Marxism good/bad, capitalism good/bad, state good/bad) that are inherent to the status quo, as this generates the best education. This is especially true for survival strategies in an increasingly strange and chaotic world. Without this education, we cant properly define or differentiate ideologies in the real world, which allows dog-whistling or mischaracterization of ideologies due to surface similarities. This limits our ability to clash with harmful ideologies. I want fleshed-out rhetorical or philosophical impacts and analysis for political theory (K-level or case) and frameworks in general. For example, tell me WHAT fascism IS (historically or in the context of the status quo) and why its bad! (It should be easy, but do the work!) I dont want to intervene with my belief system, as I believe its largely irrelevant to the technicality of the debate and is the fairest approach. If you dont impact or explain your arguments and they're conceded, then cest la vie. TLDR Terminalize all impacts, not just material impacts.

Theory: Theory is cool. I ran it often as a debater because its a smart strategy for protecting against abusive affirmatives and spreading out your opponents outs in their speeches. I will vote on good theory. Use your standards as links to your voters. Explain why ground is lost, for example, and how that impacts fairness or education. I generally dont think theory operates a priori in the meta sense unless it addresses specific, "proven" abuse (which btw there's no such thing as proven abuse, that's why the theory needs to be run in order for YOU to prove abuse). My point here being you should have to defend all parts of your theory. However, if you claim it's a priori and its undisputed, then its a priori. Im open to hearing why this particular theory should be a priori or why theory ought to operate a priori, but I need more than rules of the game come before the game (the games already started, so too late?), i.e explain how your standards prove this must operate a priori. The a priori status is up for debate, and I need particularized reasons why your specific theory operates a priori in the context of the round (e.g., it was impossible to generate clash due to the cases format). If a priori is not defended or won, then its a normal off-case position arguing for different rules and standards that my vote would promote for better education/fairness, weighed against the affirmatives fiat education for running the case as they did. I default to competing interpretations, as I believe its the most reasonable judging method. Reasonability works if the theory isnt well-run or impacted out. More than three theories are probably excessive, but I won't police this, the other team should just point this out. If there's abuse, run a theory; if you want to enforce an interpretation, run a theory. If you want to throw your opponents off their game, or beat them to death with legal speak, run a theory. Do what you want!

Ks (In General):

I like Ks. I like well-warranted and explained Ks much better. The K must operate in a way that makes the judges background and knowledge of the literature base irrelevant. Im familiar with many critical arguments, but that doesnt mean I'll do the work for you on framework or solvency. Contextualize the K within the broader context of the debate or the resolution. Explain your criticism! I especially like Ks with historical analysis and an education focus. To win my ballot, the K should link to the affirmatives solvency, plan text, or the squo itself in a fundamental way. I want strong, warranted framework arguments, link arguments, and solvency arguments. The alternative/advocacy must exist, and you need to explain why I shouldnt buy a permutation. A K without an alternative is just a harsh judgment of the status quo, which the affirmative likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that voting for the affirmative prevents, its just a try-or-die for the affirmative I feel (again do what you want I won't police). Advocacies aren't conditional in an ideal world, but kicking an advocacy is fine for strategic reasons. I'm more skeptical of affirmatives breaking procedural fairness, and I think T is a decent check back against this, but that just means that both teams have access to ground, and i'm agnostic on which comes first (y'all need to tell me which comes first and WHY). Again do what you want, just be strategic.

Performance Ks:

Im fine with performance Ks, but I need clear solvency and education impact analysis. Clash is the internal link to education in debate, and the personal nature of performance Ks can make sometimes make clash inaccessible or too personal for me to judge objectively. I also don't really like how some performance K's try to bait the other team into saying something offensive and bascially make a bet that they won't want to clash with the K due to its personal nature. I will just say that due to the nature of debate, being offended is likely inevitable, but you should all do your best ALWAYS to be respectful and treat each other with dignity.

Aff Ks:

Aff Ks: The same rules apply for winning my ballot with an affirmative K. However, to run a K on the affirmative, you must prove a justified reason to reject the topic and show that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by your solvency or by avoiding defending the resolution. Im fine with rejections but need warrants for why its permissible. Im biased toward fairness-good/outweighs arguments from theory, so youll need to resolve some of this offense to win my ballot.

Speed:

Im comfortable with speed and will keep up. However, if youre slowed or asked to be clearer, please comply. I think access is very important.

Ballot:

The flow is critical to how I judge. How well your opponent attacks your position or argument weighs heavily. Key arguments are more important than quantity, but I'll weigh all arguments. I love clash, so seek it out, and you'll be rewarded.

Impact Calc:

For case I want you to do impact calc anyways and weighing. Be specific and clear in sequencing, magnitude, probability, and timeframe. It's a personal preference, but I like well warranted analysis about how impacts are more likely to actually occur. I'm semi skeptical of weak links between for high magnitude impacts. I will vote on them, and again if its dropped it's always true for the sake of the round, but if you're going for magnitude, or any of these impacts, warrant them out.

Nadya Steck - Hired Judges

n/a

Nathan Estrick - CUI

Hey friends, not gonna make you read a treatise to understand my judging criteria. I debated six years in high school and then all four years doing primarily Parli (but also IPDA and LD). Overall, I do my best to be as tabula rasa as I can -- absent needing to intervene with a team being really racist/homophobic or verbally abusive to their opponents, I try to tie my ballot to only the arguments made in the round. On speed, I’m going to be able to keep up with you, but make sure you slow if your opponents ask you to.

That being said, here’s a little bit on how I evaluate some of the major arguments;

Policy: Though I have plenty of experience running different kinds of arguments, I do have a soft spot for a good old policy round. In evaluating policy, Impacts really are king; though generating good uniqueness and winning your link chains are important, I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to try or die arguments, and so I find good Impact framing is usually what wins over my ballot.

Counterplans: As far as counterplans go, I like them, but make sure they are at least competitive on net benefits. I tend to default to counterplans not having fiat, so the neg would need to argue to me that they do. I’m also somewhat sympathetic to PICS bad theory, so keep that in mind when writing your counterplans.

Theory: I tend to have a pretty high bar for voting on theory: if you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to collapse to it. I’m not going to vote on a theory shell that the MO extends for two minutes and then spends the rest of the block doing other things. I also will generally be unsympathetic to weird or goofy theories; they can win my ballot, but unless the connection to fairness and education are made pretty strongly, they’re gonna have trouble picking up.

The K: I like the K, and like to see different varieties run. Ultimately, I believe debate is a game and I think the K is a really strategic and interesting part of playing that game. That being said, if your K has really weak links to either the topic/the aff, I’m not going to be very interested in it, since you’re just pulling it out of a can as opposed to doing the work to contextualize it. I love K’s with good historical theory analysis and good solvency, so the more abstract the K becomes, the harder it becomes to win my ballot with it.

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.

Reeve Boyer - Whitman

[UPDATE FOR 2025] Time has passed me by and I am now several years removed from competing in parliamentary debate. Inevitably, I am not as sharp as I used to be, and in the interest of fairly judging a round, I will clear if I can't parse your words. Other than that, I suppose that everything else in this paradigm still stands. Uncle status has been achieved.

I love debate in all its forms as an intellectual activity and I want to participate in an educational and transformative debate culture. As a judge, I consider it my job to walk into the room, adjudicate a discussion regarding the resolution, and render a decision at the end of the round. That just means I default to being a lay judge, but if one or both teams makes an argument to the contrary, I am happy to adapt to whatever is going on. Debate what you want, and I will listen. However, I evaluate arguments as claims with warrants you must have evidence to support your assertions.

That laissez-faire attitude naturally has its limits. No demeaning or derogatory language should be used and we should be kind to one another. I will tank speaks for such behavior and will escalate my response to the nature of whatever bad things may happen.

[WEIGHING] On impact weighing, I tend to follow standard Timeframe/Exponentiality/Magnitude/Probability framing and I weigh arguments on strength of
warrant. That means that every argument should have a claim and evidence supporting it.

[CASE DEBATE] Absolutely a big fan. Please have clear impacts and weigh them, as well as a plan text, which should be repeated in-speech and passed as a text if requested. I am accustomed to the plan/solvency/advantage (with UQ/Links/Internal Links/Impacts) format but please do as you wish in that regard.

[KRITIKS] I think that critical debate is central to the unique education of Parli debate, however our format permits the proliferation of a lot of nonsense. I should know, I ran it myself. Please think self-reflexively about your words. You must patiently explain what symbolic reversal of the Subjects will-to-power means just as a policy debater must patiently explain Bakus petroleum reserves check back against European interference in Nagorno-Karabakh means. I have a high threshold for entirely excluding a teams impacts from the round on account of your FW, and impacts should be well contextualized to the link scenario, which should also generate competition.

[THEORY] I am just as happy to flow theory as anything else. Please have a clear interpretation (and repeat it!) as well as a violation of the interp, standards for why it matters, and voters for why I should care. MG theory can be a good part of a debate, but I tend to think that one condo advocacy is reasonable, but happy to hear otherwise. It must be collapsed to in the PMR.

[IVIs] I believe that the concept of an IVI (Independent Voting Issue) is critical to check back for
wrongdoing in the round, and that the IVI has been weaponized as a way to access the ballot more easily in a round. This is harmful to the competitive environment and more importantly, to those seeking redress for serious events. Do not tag an argument an IVI without a clear articulation of what the problem is, its impact, and why it must be independent of my evaluation of the rest of the flow (it should not be implicated in your framework). I have a high burden for voting on an IVI that is not collapsed to in the PMR/LOR.

[SPEED] I lay no claim to being the best interpreter of speedy debate, but I can flow effectively at 250-300 wpm. I will clear debaters when their speech becomes uninterpretable or unclear. If you do not slow yourself when competitors, or myself for that matter, request it, then I may cast my ballot on that issue because it signifies disrespect and the prioritization of exclusion as a competitive method over education and community.

[MISC] I competed for four years in NPDA parliamentary debate at Whitman College, placing 5 th at the NPTE in my senior year. If you would like to know, I debated everything from strict policy debate to running several theory shells to running high-theory Ks. I am a snob about running Baudrillard correctly, my favorite policy area is Southwest Asian and African defense policy, and I feel somewhat knowledgeable in anarchist theory, ecological critique, and Black critical literature (Wilderson, Moten, Hartman, Sexton, Butler). Bonus points for running something fun and innovative, because I think that innovation and novelty are two incredibly important things in debate.

Sadie Weiss - App State

About me:

I was the captain of the Appalachian State University Speech and Debate Team for the 2024-25 year, and a graduate of Appalachian State Class of 2025. I've debated in the collegiate circuit and competed in NPDA and NFA LD. Before college, I was a captain of the Myers Park High School Speech and Debate Team, where I competed in both LD, PF, and World Schools Debate. Essentially, I have eight years under my belt as a competitive debater.

I prefer speechdrop over email chains but will leave my email at the bottom of the paradigm in case it is needed (LD spec).

Cases/Round:

I DO flow, however I do NOT flow cross. I will be flowing your speeches on my laptop. If you spread, emphasize what is important to the flow. I don't want to scroll through cut cards for ten pages if I'm not the one debating lol

I have an auditory processing issue, but I'm comfortable with speed and spreading. Please make sure to emphasize your tags so I can keep a tight and coherent flow (this is so I can give you the best rfd possible on my ballot). If you plan to spread, you need to make sure everyone in the room is also okay with you doing that. If anyone gives you a "clear" during your speech and you do not slow down, I will give you low speaks. Debate should be accessible to everyone, and you don't inherently need to spread to win a round. You will also receive a huge hit to your speaker points if you speechdrop a 30-page case and spread through it without anyone understanding unless they rapidly read along - that is not what this activity is for (LD spec on casedrops).

I will NOTTTT vote on disclosure. I think it's dumb. Sorry :(

I'm also comfortable with Ks or non-trad arguments and encourage that kind of debating as well as trad debate rounds. I think creative interpretation and expression is one of the most beautiful facets of this activity, and when done well can be very powerful and educational. I don't care if the round is traditional or progressive, as long as it is done well. Run what you feel best fits you, and make sure your theories or arguments are well developed and terminally impacted.

T- this can sometimes be completely irrelevant to a round, or it could be the most important voting issue. Heads up, I am very hesitant and have been coached to be very hesitant to vote on potential "abuse" in the round. If I am going to vote on T, I'm going to vote on it because you thoroughly warrant as to why your theory is important. If the entire round ends up being about T, the arguments better be extremely well flushed out and flowed through each speech.

I'm not a judge who will do the thinking or the weighing for you. PLEASE give me a framework. If there is FW clash, tell me why I am preferring your framework and how you are fulfilling that framework best (or even how you fulfill both :0). Also please signpost, as a flow judge this is supppper important to me.

Please always be timing yourself. Off-time road maps are fine.

Debate jargon is fine, and I understand it but be accommodating if your opponent does not. I will NEVER vote you down if you don't know specific debate terms during the round, but I WILL vote you down if you use jargon to create a round that is not accessible to someone less versed in said jargon.

Have fun, create good clash, and be kind to one another. Above all else, we should all want to walk out of each round as better and more educated people.

If you have any questions or want to chat about collegiate debate, feel free to email me after rounds: sadie.am.weiss@gmail.com

Sean Thai - Hired Judges

n/a

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!

Tessa Rabideau - App State

Hey yall! My name is Tessa, I did speech and debate before my graduation in 2025. I primarily debated in NPDA, and dipped a single toe into LD (wasnt for me). I'm currently one of the assistant debate coaches at App State. While I do have debate experience, I will be transparent in saying I am not the most versed in all aspects of terminology and hence would not call myself a technical judge, but do judge on my flow.

I think of debate as an area to hone advocacy skills within parameters of strategy. Content is important of course, so explain your ideas and terminology while maintaining critical analysis throughout your argumentation.

I really value explicit signposting. Im partially deaf in one ear, and while I do my best to catch everything it really helps when debaters are explicit and clear.

In round:

I dont flow questions in flex. Everything learned in flex thats applicable to the round needs to be expressed during your speech. I do pay attention though, and if you're being disrespectful to your opponent I will drop speaker points.

Ts are fine, Ks are fine, just make sure theyre relevant to the actual round. I really dislike Ts and Ks that are just intended to waste time but do as ya please. Particularly for Ks- critically engage and cross apply if you're using them. Also, explain to me why they're important! I'm familiar with them but I wouldn't call myself a leading expert.

Generally speaking, I tend to lean PICs bad and condo bad. If it's happening in round, I need arguments made to vote on it though.

Speeding is fine relative to signposting, re: being partially deaf. If an opponent asks you to slow down and you dont, I'll vote you down. Lets not be rude.

Any arguments that are misogynistic, homophobic, racist, etc will immediately mean Im not listening and youre not winning. I view debate as a space to practice advocacy, not a space to be a bigot.

I loveee creative plans and counterplans! Feel free to run just about anything you can think of as long as its defendable and you can adequately explain your solvency. I once heard a neg argue for giving every civilian a personal nuke and voted for it. And if you want to earn extra speaks as a reward for reading my whole paradigm, say the word Godzilla in a speech. Also, jokes are fun. Humor is a good tool to ensure a listener will remember your speech, and I think debate is a perfect place to practice that tool. Let's get a lil silly with it.

Will White - Parli at Berkeley

They/them

Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019

Coached LD with DebateDrills
Coached circuit tech parli at Piedmont and Evergreen

General

Put me on an email chain
Grace periods don't exist, I'll probably deck speaks if you go over 3 seconds
I like ev comparison. I also really like when someone points out that a card contradicts the tag. However, debaters should always highlight and read the part of the card that they say contradicts the tag
Flex prep is fine
You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it. Violations should also probably have a screenshot and time stamp *except in parli
Either flash analytics or slow down because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
Probability>Magnitude>Time Frame but can be convinced other wise
Tech>Truth
I think implicit clash is true to the extent that if the disad directly contradicts the advantage and the disad is won but the advantage is dropped then my brain doesnt just magically turn off.

Theory: I [usually] don't feel strongly about things~~like condo, dispo, or anything as such~~. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.

Competing interps > reasonability
Text > Spirit of the interp
Drop the debater > Drop the argument
Theory comes before critical args
Fairness and education are voters
Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
1NC interps comes before 1AR/2AC interps
I tend to hack for condo good
I'm a bit unclear why bad speech times are uniquely solved by an interp. I don't think these args are inherently bad but often under explained for me.
No RVIs

K Debate: I think Im a hack against metaphysics framing. If theres no material/physical basis of oppression but rather a mystical ideological apparatus that just so happens to touch upon material things then Im super persuaded by defense that says the alt is the logic of land acknowledgments at Lockheed Martin and makes it impossible to materially solve whatever ism in your alt is trying to solve for.

I also do find that Im really receptive to uniqueness thumpers about debate shapes subjectivity types of arguments that say what actually does is your day to day practice, relationships with people/society, and background. This is not today that subjectivity is irrelevant but that theres a material and social basis for subjectivity and thats what our ideas need to be in the direction of so we get some solid practices!

Policy debaters should read carefully. Im also not stoked by incrementalist reformism key args. However, I am sympathetic to policy education making us better activists in the real world. This is not to say I am not down for the K anymore. But if K teams dont want to fight an uphill battle for my ballot they should change the way they throw down their shells

All this said, I wont auto vote you down for reading a metaphysical position. Tbh if you can make it clean I would prefer that over adapting to me because I dont think debate is THAT serious (hence debate doesnt shape subjectivity stuff) and I don't want to have to judge an unnecessarily messy debate.

Reject alts have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
Fiated K alts with practical methods can be interesting though, however, the way most of these alts are explained turn them into reform or charity which makes the perm debate for the aff easy in my head.
I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!

K Affs:

Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!
I think Framework is a good arg against K affs
I find the fairness paradox against K aff args that say fairness is bad to be pretty persuasive. Not unbeatable but you'll need more than just repeating your generics. I think a better route is going for competitive counter interp and defending your model of debate

Case:

Fiat is durable
I don't judge kick unless told to
kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation
Link turns or uniqueness blocks make more sense to me than impact defense

Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks

Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and reads speed bad
"mew", "clap", and "inshallah" T

MISC:

Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
Terminal defense is hard to win
PF Debaters should not paraphrase ev and not exchange ev untimed

2025 NPDA Fall Championships

Tournament Time: 10:13 AM Pacific