2022 PSCFA Cool-Off
Online - Apr 30-1 | Status: Completed | 9:31 PM Pacific
Tournament Time: 9:31 PM Pacific
Judge Philosophies
Abi Royster - COC
n/a
Adrienne Fleming - SD Mesa
n/a
Agatha Attridge - Cal State LA
In NPDA, I find clear warranting in-case and impact calculus very helpful, particularly direct comparison between the world each side's impacts create. I am more than fine following quick speed in delivery, though clarity is still appreciated in both delivery and argumentation (the latter particularly within rebuttal). Argumentative consistency helps me in adjudicating, and so clear disclaimer regarding which arguments within cases are being addressed or rebutted is very useful. In line with this organization's values, I value more critically-directed debate, though this approach does not necessarily require argumentative structures idiosyncratic to NPDA or other forms of debate. I believe that the debate space should be safe for protected populations, and behavior that threatens these populations will be at the very least remarked upon on the ballot, and may impact my judging decision if egregious. My familiarity in debate is more philosophically and policy-directed, though arguments making other appeals will still receive full consideration.
Ali Adgate - SD Mesa
n/a
Andrew Yllescas - CSUN
n/a
Angel Sanabria - Cerritos
n/a
Anna Osman - SD Mesa
n/a
Anna Gangemi - PCC
n/a
Avery Graham - Maricopa
n/a
Avery Belcher - SD Mesa
n/a
Brandon Sanchez - RioRunners
n/a
Candace Soto - Fullerton College
n/a
Destinee Sior - Maricopa
Hello!
My name is Destinee Sior and I am a debate coach for Maricopa Community College. I just have a few things to say about how I view the wonderful world of debate, and my method on judging. For starters- no matter the type of debate- I will always want you to do what you do best, what you feel comfortable with, and debate in whichever way makes you happy.
I do not mind if you do critical or policy oriented debate. I enjoy listening to Ks and I really enjoy just straight policy cases. Whichever one you choose, all I ask is that you give me a solid structure and you stick to it. Sloppy debate is one of my biggest pet peeves. Please make it easy for me to follow you so I can get everything you say down on paper. I don't care for the double-clutching speed debate, but I can typically flow well if you want to spread. However-- just because, I can flow it does not mean your opponent can. If you are asked to clear you need to SLOW DOWN. I do not care for Ks ran out of the affirmative, but if you want to party please have a solid link story. Negative strats should include an interrogation of the affirmative, as well as their own case. I will not gut check your arguments for you, please do not ask me to do that. Tell me why dropped arguments are important. I love impact calc ¤ Weigh your impacts on timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Give me voters / reasons to prefer. I think it is the job of the debater to make my job easy, but also have fun. I loved debate and you should debate the way you love.
IPDA-- For the IPDA debaters, please understand I have a Parli and LD background. With that being said, I understand that IPDA is not Parli nor LD. Therefore, please do not debate as such. My judging philosophy for this though is roughly the same-- structure, structure, structure. Give me a solid impact story. Do not just say lives saves improves ecosystem -- what does that MEAN? Why does it matter? How are you weighing it against your opponent? Do not just rely on me to do the work for you. Give me lots and lots of warrants, I love evidence. Most importantly, lets have some fun.
Dulce Santana - RioRunners
n/a
Ethan Sepulveda - RioRunners
n/a
Jana Kanaan - SDSU
n/a
Jen Montgomery - CSUF
My Experience:
2.5 years of college individual events for OCC and CSUF (NFA/AFA)
INFO, POE, POI, IMP, PROS
3 years coaching elementary, middle school, high school and college-level forensics
- Coached and judged all IE events as well as Parli, POFO, IPDA, and a bit of LD
Tldr; I'm looking for logical, respectful, and fair debates where you show confidence in your arguments and sources. Fun debates are welcome as long as any sassiness, jokes, etc. are made in good fun maintain respect, and everyone is clear on this. Focus building YOUR argument most of all.
What are the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate?
I'm looking for solid arguments that are backed by sources and can be defended against your opponent's questions and counter-arguments. Confidence in your argument makes a huge difference as well; if you don't believe your own arguments, how do you expect me to?
I appreciate a slower, clear, emphasis on your main contentions so that I am clear on what I am judging and where points are dropped. It's extra helpful however, fo you to call out any dropped arguments as it (1) helps me catch any I missed and (2) shows me that you caught it and are critically analyzing your opponent's arguments.
What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?
Courtesy above all else. This usually isn't a problem, but I have seen some eye rolls, face-making, and rude remarks made mid-debate. I don't mind a friendly banter amongst competitors (in fact, I LOVE a witty and fun debate) but please make that clear at the end with some good sportsmanship. Overall I don't want to see any lines crossed in terms of respect. Keep ad hominem at the door, we are a community and should treat each other as such.
I also love to see your personalities pop in a debate and love to see any personal ties to your arguments. You are a unique human being so play to your strengths as a speaker, I will adapt to you.
What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?
I want you to make a strong argument for YOUR point and not just focus on dismantling your opponent's points (especially neg). Even if you manage to poke holes in your opponent's arguments or plans, if they're the only ones who gave me a solid plan to go off of, they will still get my vote. Do not simply tell me to vote for you, let your arguments convince me of that.
How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?
If your opponent is fine with these aspects so am, however, I am also aware of the many arguments against spreading so if this is brought up mid-round that is something I will take into consideration against anyone spreading who did not check in with their opponents (& me) beforehand. In short, your opponent needs to be able to follow along with your arguments in order for this debate to be fair.
Most importantly: Have fun! :)
Jenifer Montgomery - SCC
My Experience:
2.5 years of college individual events for OCC and CSUF (NFA/AFA)
INFO, POE, POI, IMP, PROS
3 years coaching elementary, middle school, high school and college-level forensics
- Coached and judged all IE events as well as Parli, POFO, IPDA, and a bit of LD
Tldr; I'm looking for logical, respectful, and fair debates where you show confidence in your arguments and sources. Fun debates are welcome as long as any sassiness, jokes, etc. are made in good fun maintain respect, and everyone is clear on this. Focus building YOUR argument most of all.
What are the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate?
I'm looking for solid arguments that are backed by sources and can be defended against your opponent's questions and counter-arguments. Confidence in your argument makes a huge difference as well; if you don't believe your own arguments, how do you expect me to?
I appreciate a slower, clear, emphasis on your main contentions so that I am clear on what I am judging and where points are dropped. It's extra helpful however, fo you to call out any dropped arguments as it (1) helps me catch any I missed and (2) shows me that you caught it and are critically analyzing your opponent's arguments.
What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?
Courtesy above all else. This usually isn't a problem, but I have seen some eye rolls, face-making, and rude remarks made mid-debate. I don't mind a friendly banter amongst competitors (in fact, I LOVE a witty and fun debate) but please make that clear at the end with some good sportsmanship. Overall I don't want to see any lines crossed in terms of respect. Keep ad hominem at the door, we are a community and should treat each other as such.
I also love to see your personalities pop in a debate and love to see any personal ties to your arguments. You are a unique human being so play to your strengths as a speaker, I will adapt to you.
What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?
I want you to make a strong argument for YOUR point and not just focus on dismantling your opponent's points (especially neg). Even if you manage to poke holes in your opponent's arguments or plans, if they're the only ones who gave me a solid plan to go off of, they will still get my vote. Do not simply tell me to vote for you, let your arguments convince me of that.
How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?
If your opponent is fine with these aspects so am, however, I am also aware of the many arguments against spreading so if this is brought up mid-round that is something I will take into consideration against anyone spreading who did not check in with their opponents (& me) beforehand. In short, your opponent needs to be able to follow along with your arguments in order for this debate to be fair.
Most importantly: Have fun!
Jessica Kwack - LACC
n/a
Josh Arp - UCSB
I competed in LD as well as IPDA. The only debate I have judged before is IPDA
My judging style is relatively traditional
Essentially debaters should debate to me as if they are trying to convince the average college-educated layperson (who has the ability to differentiate strong arguments from weak ones) that their side is correct. This doesn't mean employing sophism or theatrical tricks or anything like that one might actually use against a truly lay audience. Strength of evidence is very important.
Don't make things up, if you do and I discover that, you will likely lose
Speed is typically not an issue for me, however, in IPDA specifically, there is an aspect of persuasion and eloquence so don't go too fast
Evaluation of impacts is crucial, do not forget to do this.
Julian Mackenzie - Grossmont
n/a
Justin Machado - SD Mesa
What is your experience with speech and debate?
- I have 3 semesters of Debate experience at all levels of competition.
What does your ideal debate round look like?
- Just keep it respectful and have fun.
Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?
- Im not the most important part of the round, dont worry about me. The best argument that is argued the most skillfully will win. Dont worry about adjusting your strategy to suit me. That being said, no speed and spread please.
Kalani Curl - SD Mesa
n/a
Kendall Seevers - OCC
n/a
Kevin Chase - CWI
n/a
Kyle Pryor-Landman - SDSU
Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am an ADOF at SDSU and Secretary of the NPDA. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.
TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.
FAQs:
- What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
- I am pretty comfortable with most of the lit in the meta (esp. continental philosophy)! If you want to do something outside of that, just explain it!
- Can I spread? Sure, just don't be abusive. (I am not a fan of listening to or evaluating speed T so please just be nice to each other :D )
- Can I reject the topic? Update 2025 - I don't like K affs. I really don't like K affs which wholesale reject the topic. I don't have an issue with K affs that affirm the topic (read: derive offense from the implementation of a topical(ish) plan). If you are going for structural impacts, please weigh them. I have a pretty low threshold for buying FW-T, so do what you will with that.
- What do you want to see?: In order from most to least enjoyable for me to judge:
- Topical Aff vs. Disads/CP/T
- Topical Aff vs. K
- K aff vs. FW-T
- K aff vs. K (everyone understands their K)
- K aff vs K (no one understands their K) (I am the wrong judge to break your new K aff in front of)
- Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
- Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
- Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
- Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
- Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
- What about LD?: Cross apply everything from parli. I do pre-flow a bit to save my wrists, so be clear about where you are cutting your cards if you do.
- How do you feel about IPDA?: I am coming to terms with it. The closer it is to NPDA, the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am.
- What does this mean for me?: Strike to the policy topic, read a plan, and actually interact with your opponent's arguments. If you really want to do a value that's fine, just tell me how to evaluate your arguments. Please don't strike to the fact. In the case you do, please don't say preponderance of evidence and assume I know what you mean by that. I'm not counting warrants. INFO is for that.
- I am NOT EVER voting on things like eye contact (please don't stare at me), presentation (will be reflected in speaks, not the W), dress, speed, tone of voice, etc.
- Also, please spare me the thank yous, and don't shake my hand. I don't know where those things have been, and I want them nowhere near me.
- What does this mean for me?: Strike to the policy topic, read a plan, and actually interact with your opponent's arguments. If you really want to do a value that's fine, just tell me how to evaluate your arguments. Please don't strike to the fact. In the case you do, please don't say preponderance of evidence and assume I know what you mean by that. I'm not counting warrants. INFO is for that.
- Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge? I like to have a fun, silly, goofy time in debate rounds. (This does not mean you shouldn't take debate seriously.) I also have carpal tunnel (thanks, grad school!), so my written RFDs are going to be shorter than they used to be. Email me after the tournament if you want more written feedback, but you should also write down your oral feedback anyway.
- I was a squirrelly debater. I rarely read a topical plan, but I think I rejected maybe twice or three times when the topic was really bad. I don't need or desire that you emulate me in any way. Actually, I'd prefer hearing something new from time to time. Please terminalize your impacts and for the love of all things good in this world, do impact weighing. If you don't, I will look to strength of link. If I can't figure that out, I will vote on presumption. If you wanted to go for presumption, please do it for real in the MO. T voters also need to be terminalized, especially if you are collapsing to T in the MO or PMR. I am not Kant.
- I was a squirrelly debater. I rarely read a topical plan, but I think I rejected maybe twice or three times when the topic was really bad. I don't need or desire that you emulate me in any way. Actually, I'd prefer hearing something new from time to time. Please terminalize your impacts and for the love of all things good in this world, do impact weighing. If you don't, I will look to strength of link. If I can't figure that out, I will vote on presumption. If you wanted to go for presumption, please do it for real in the MO. T voters also need to be terminalized, especially if you are collapsing to T in the MO or PMR. I am not Kant.
- Clash makes me scared! What should I do? Respond to your opponent, or you probably won't win.
- If I ask you what your paradigm is before the round, what will you say?: It's on ForensicsTournament if you want to check it out.
Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell
Speaks: 26-30 (expect 27.5) unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard all year, 26 being you did not include significant portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you. I am not a point fairy and I think speaks matter.
ps. don't read fun as a voter unless you're gonna terminalize that.
Kyle Duffy - COC
Kyle's Judging Philosophy
Hey there! I've been judging since 2016, mostly Individual Events like Prose, Drama, Informative, and Persuasive, so I'm more of a storytelling, logic-and-feelings kind of judge than a speed-and-theory one. Here's what I want you to know before we dive in:
The Please Dont's- Don't spread. Fast = fuzzy. I'd rather hear a select few of your BEST arguments, not all the ones you found in a panic five minutes ago.
- Don't talk too fast. Talk to me like a normal human being. I have ADHD, the slower the better. I will unintentionally tune out if its a word avalanche.
- Don't be mean. No personal attacks, no condescending vibes. Be passionate, not petty.
- Be clear and structured. Signpost your points like you're giving me GPS directions. Help me stay on the map. (I get lost easily)
- Define your debate lingo. If you use fancy terms like "topicality" or "impact calculus", explain it. Pretend I'm 5 and I know nothing about debate (not far from the truth, lol).
- Explain why it matters. Great logic is cool but tell me why your argument wins the round in the big picture final moment.
- Time yourselves. I'm focused on you, not my stopwatch. Help me stay present.
These wont affect your score but they will make for a fun round:
- Crack a joke? LOVE IT. Even if it flops, I respect the risk.
- Feeling the feels? YES. Get emotional if the topic calls for it.
- Use a weird metaphor about dinosaurs or robot lasers? CHEFS KISS.
- Reference a fun fact, meme, or pop culture moment that fits? I'm here for it.
- Make creative analogies or silly examples? I love those, bring 'em on.
- Try something a little different? I'll always respect a creative risk. I'm rooting for you, not against you.
Two big things:
- Did you convince me with logic and evidence?
- Did you move me with passion and connection?
I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for people who care about their ideas and can make me care, too.
Final Words: Lets Make This Round Awesome!Relax. Breathe. Be your weird, wonderful self. I'm fun. I'm fair. I believe that ALL students are MY students, so I'm rooting for you! Let's leave this round together thinking: Dang, that was actually fun!
Now go give 'em hell (respectfully).
Lindsay Gagnon - Maricopa
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.
Malcolm Gamble - Cerritos
Generally:
I believe that the debate round is yours and think you should be able to advocate for the ballot in any (reasonable) way that you choose. I will try hard to evaluate your arguments based on the framework that you present and will default to a criterion of net benefits unless you tell me otherwise. If your interpretation is particularly creative, extra emphasis on how it functions within the round is helpful to me.
Evaluation:
I will try to vote on the flow, based on the arguments you make. The more structure you use, the better chance I have of putting your arguments where they go. I pay attention to your impact calculus, so you should too. If you dont explain how arguments interact, I must decide for myself, which is harder for me and less predictable for you.
Matt Hitomi - SDSU
n/a
Michael McHan - Grossmont
I'll try to keep this as brief and simple as possible.
For Parliamentary Debate:
- Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
- Structure, structure, structure.
- The PMC speech should contain a clear and fair resolutional analysis. Be very clear when providing the voting criterion (V/C) and articulating how the judge should weigh the round. *Remember, if the Gov. team fails to offer a V/C then the Opp. has the right to do so for them.
- Please make sure you are signposting and clearly labeling your arguments.
- Not a fan of Ks.
- Okay with Ts, but not when levied as a strategy to take up time.
- Both sides should have clear, numbered voters in their final speeches. Don't just summarize existing arguments but TELL me why you should get my vote.
- Ultimately, I like to hear a clean debate, with ample clash, and arguments properly linked and warranted.
For IPDA Debate:
Since IPDA was created for a lay audience it is important that debaters keep their cases as simple and clear as possible.
- Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
- Very important to speak with a clear and calm pace.
- Signposting and labeling your arguments is a necessity.
- Please do not get too fancy with the voting criterion.
- Avoid technical debate jargon.
- Offer numbered voters (reasons why you won the debate) in final speeches.
- Be kind and respectful to each other.
- Smile and have fun!
For other Speaking Events:
- One of the elements I notice first is delivery - I tend to focus first on verbal and nonverbal variety, then command of gestures, then how well you engage your audience (if appropriate for your speech).
- Second, content. How well does your content flow, how organized is it, and how much do you enjoy /belief what you are saying.
- Third, have fun and entertain me! Typically, at any given tournament, I am observing 10-20 debates/speeches, and I like to be entertained by what I am judging. Have fun!
If you have questions about something that was not mentioned in my judging philosophy please do not hesitate to ask me before the round begins!
Nathalie Guzman - PCC
n/a
Nathan Albano - Saddleback
n/a
Nichole Barta - LACC
n/a
Nikhil Emde - UCSD
n/a
Nina Menzagopian - OCC
n/a
Nirvana Hannah - OCC
n/a
Paul Jimenez - Providence
n/a
Raffaela Sansone - Saddleback
Keep it conversational
Let me know how to evaluate the debate (i.e., provide a voting criteria)
No spreading please.
Have fun!
Rebecca Du - UCSD
n/a
Rob Montgomery - SCC
n/a
Safiya Younas - MSJC
n/a
Samantha Corona - Maricopa
Sean Perez - RioRunners
n/a
Selene Aguirre - Cerritos
As an educator, the core of my teaching and judging philosophy is empowerment and inclusion. My experiences are primarily focused on platform speaking. However, Iâ??ve taught Argumentation and Debate for the past four years and have developed a few preferences when judging IPDA, Parli, and LD.
As a debater, I expect you to speak with clarity, a bit faster than a conversation speaking rate (but avoid speeding if the speech will be affected), and loud enough for me to hear you. I prefer off-time roadmaps for clarity, appreciate signposts throughout speeches, and praise respectfulness and good sports[person]ship. Also, I am a tabula rasa judge (consider myself a clean slate). I will allow you to guide the round and not let my preconceived ideas cloud my judgment. Therefore, I look for clear and well-supported arguments, evidence, and analysis, and lastly, let me know how you weigh your impacts and why your voters are more critical than your opponent. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm if thereâ??s no way to assess it another way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your time!
Inclusion is not a matter of political correctness. It is the key to growth. -Jesse Jackson
Shivum Berry - IVC
n/a
Tiberius Hernandez - UCSB
All debates
Any argument you want to read works. Impact weighing is an absolute must.
Policy
I know a lot people automatically are looking for how judges feel about the k. In terms of where I land on the spectrum of policy to kritikal arguments, I probably more comfortable with policy arguments but this does NOT mean I hate the k. I will vote for anything that is well explained, but a lot of times teams will rely on the judge being very familiar with their scholarship in order to get away with their tricks and skip explanations; if you do this you will lose. If at the end of the debate I'm not scratching my head about what the advocacy/alternative does and what your thesis is because you explained it well, you'll be in good shape.
Disad stories should be well explained. Don't just read a zillion 1 sentence cards; actually answer the specific warrants of the link and uniqueness claims of both sides. It's possible for there to be zero risk for something.
The counterplans can be either textually or functionally competitive. If you're reading more than 4 conditional positions I'd probably think that's abusive; but if you win condo good than hey, condo's good.
T is incredibly strategic, more teams should go for it. That being said, if the t debate just is a bunch of the classic one liner arguments being thrown by both sides, then it is incredibly difficult to evaluate. Also, in framework debates, aff should be sure to answer the 1nc warrants thoroughly and not just put 15 disads on the flow.
Impact turn debates are always a good time.
Final word: I personally can't stand excessively long overviews. Its become a trend to hide a bunch of offense in there and then go onto the line by line and answer stuff with "that was in the overview." Do your explanation and whatever you else you feel you need to do at the top, but please do the line by line on the line by line.
I start at 29.0 and work my way up. If you slip in a sports joke I'll boost you an extra 0.05. I'll tank you if you say something hella problematic.
Tim Seavey - SDSU
Zac Dybeck - Palomar
n/a