Judge Philosophies
Adrian Guzman - Grossmont
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.
Alex Christenson - Compton College
n/a
Alexia Gallon - IVC
n/a
Andrea Adame - RioRunners
n/a
Andy Chen - Chaffey
n/a
Angel Wang - Fullerton College
n/a
Angela Flores - RioRunners
n/a
Bryce Trevino - Cerritos
n/a
Campbell Gorlinski - OCC
n/a
Cassy Molina - RioRunners
n/a
Charles Dherlin - OCC
n/a
Chelsey Barrera - OCC
n/a
Chiara Aleman - OCC
n/a
Chloe Han - IVC
n/a
Cipriana Rodriguez - Palomar
n/a
Das Nugent-Odasso - SD Mesa
Das Nugent
Debate Judging Philosophy
(1) What is your experience with speech and debate?
I have competed in all styles of IE’s and have taught and judged NPDA for well over a decade. IPDA is a form of debate that does not sound like or use any kind of debate lingo. It is for the everyday man. It is absolutely NOT Parli or LD; please do not treat it as such.
(2) What does your ideal debate round look like?
The debate should be ethical, and there should be a good on-case clash. If you run anything outside of the debate topic, you should know how to persuade me.
(3) Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?
Some of my best friends are debaters, and they tell their teams to watch my face - apparently, I am expressive. I think debate jargon is overrated. I think that the speed of speech (in every type of debate) should be the rate of a platform speech. I take into consideration Ethical /Logical violations as voting issues. Finally, be clear as to why your team wins the debate.
David Williams - Palomar
n/a
Dominic Craddock - Fullerton College
n/a
Elvia Maravilla - RioRunners
n/a
Emely Bobadilla - RioRunners
n/a
Ethan Sepulveda - RioRunners
n/a
Eva Frye - SD Mesa
n/a
Evan Andrade - RioRunners
n/a
Hannah Wilson - SD Mesa
Most importantly - have fun! Be respectful and nice, everyones here to learn. Please do not spread, I will likely just stop listening. Have good organization and clear taglines, it makes it easier for everyone.
Explain why your arguments matter for the debate. Impacts are important, so make sure I know what yours are. If you don't tell me what to focus on/why it's important I focus on that then I will have to pick what I think is most important. I like big picture arguments, spoon feed everything to me - this is important because this will happen and that means I will not draw conclusions for you. Include voters so I know what you want me to vote on.Good luck and have fun!
Hannah Schubert - OCC
n/a
Harrison Martin - IVC
n/a
Henry Mendez - PCC
n/a
Janine Rho - SD Mesa
Treat everyone in the round with kindness and respect. You will be dropped if you resort to ad hominem attacks or insulting behavior. Have fun and I will, too!
NPDA/LD:
Please be organized! I appreciate clear signposts, a clear weighing mechanism, and direct refutation. Dont assume I will make links in my head or draw conclusions for youtell me why your case is more impactful, has more magnitude, etc. I only flow what is explicitly said.
Give me clear voters.
Im not a big fan of Ks. Most topics are debatable and reasonable for both sides.
IPDA:
Treat me like a lay judge. I believe that IPDA is an informal-debate-over-dinner style of argumentation. Keep it conversational and persuade me!
General notes:
- Your delivery as a speaker is important and impacts your ethos in the round.
- Please do not spread. I will stop flowing/ listening if I cant understand you, so speak to be understood.
- I dont flow CX. Tell me in your speeches what happened during CX if you want me to flow/weigh it.
Jeff Samano - Fullerton College
n/a
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!
Jennifer Baney - MSJC
My judging paradigm is a policymaker. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot.
Tips for the neg team: I will vote heavily on disadvantages and counter plans. I find that the chance for students to build their neg case in relation to those items makes for a debate round that is both entertaining and educational therefore easier to judge. However, something that I do not value in a debate is arguments used to fill time rather than which appears to be the overall use of Topicality. Specifically, unless someone is clearly not topical I think it just fills time in debate and removes any educational value so don't run it just to run it. Additionally, my paradigm solves so there should be no need to have a topicality. K's are okay but again unless there is a blatant obvious or necessary it removes the educational value from the debate. To clarify K's are awesome when if you want to sip on some coffee and talk about all sorts of theories, please send me an invitation. However, in a debate round.
Tips for aff: you should make sure that you are calling the neg for these items. It is your job to shape the round fairly and to hold a lasting impact. Do not remove education by making the round too restrictive and please include advantages as well as impacts that are unique. The simplest way to view the debate and remove bias is weighing affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages because it allows for impacts to decide the ballot. Impacts win my ballot 9/10 times but this does not mean claiming the biggest impact wins but rather the most logical impact carries the most amount of weight.
General tips: I like clear speed but you have to create the most inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. If you are competing against someone who cannot handle your speed it is your responsibility to become inclusive. I flow on a laptop so that means that I need labels to be explicit regardless if you spread or not. I refuse to take "outside gossip" as a role on my ballot and if you decide slander is your game, best of luck.
TLDR; All I really care about are impacts, however, if you want to make the round more enjoyable for me and follow the other stuff I really enjoy, sounds good.
Jonathan Martinez - SMC
n/a
Jose Lara - RioRunners
n/a
Jules Ausbrooks - PCC
n/a
Justin Perkins - Cypress College
My name is Justin Perkins, I am the assistant coach at Cypress College, where I am primarily responsible for Debate events including Parliamentary Debate, IPDA, and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically and intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 50 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in a subtly similar yet beautifully different ways.
Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game, and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. However, I am persuaded by debaters exercising and explaining what they know that I know that they know, you know? That means explain everything to the point of redundancy. My brain is mush by the end of a long tournament. I like criteria based arguments, meaning that all warrants should frame the data supporting your claim in the context of the criteria agreed upon in round.
With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round.
This leads to the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, its your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out clear for you to speak more clearly, Speed to speak more slowly, and Signpost if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't pull through incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.
I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and dont really recognize reverse voters for numerous reasons. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. I don't discourage the practice of fact and value debate, in fact, I consider the degree of difficulty in running those cases to be higher. I will entertain as many points of order as you call. You may state your point, and I will entertain a response from the other side, before finally giving you a brutally honest decision to the best of my ability and will encourage my fellow judges on panels to rule on important, big round arguments in rebuttals at their discretion. It is a team activity, but I will only weigh arguments made by the speaker, feel free to repeat partner prompts or pass notes. Give me your best and have fun, I'll be giving you my best and ensuring we have an ordered and fair round.
Kasim Alimahomed - Cypress College
5 years college debate, 3 years as a graduate assistant coach, coached 3 college teams and 2 high school squads. I have voted for everything and anything; tabula rasa. Can't wait to see you debate!
First, be nice. I love a good debater who destroys another debater with grace and humor as opposed to someone who tries to brow-beat someone into submission.
Second, procedurals. If you are running anything "above the gameboard," I am more likely to vote on it if it has some form of abuse, and I love it when a debater tells me how they lose ground in the round itself. I was a big K debater back in the day, but I really love a K debate if someone has some kind of discursive implication that links to in-round advocacy. Spec and plan vagueness debates are nice, but please try to implicate where your disad ground gets harmed because of funding or an agent. I am pretty old, and I have been known to "pull the trigger" on old stuff like J.
Counterplans are great, and I will listen to them all. I think CPs are better if they are non-topical and mutally competitive, but I will listen to them all. The more you stray away from the fundamentals of CPs, the more room the other side has to permute you.
I still love an old disad debate, I still teach students to run a T to link into a disad. I am perfectly fine with hearing a nice old "traditional" neg strategy.
But remember that the round is yours, this is your advocacy, not mine. Run what makes you feel feel heard and what you think will win rounds. If you implicate it, I will vote for it!
Katelyn Ayala - RioRunners
n/a
Kayla Cardenas - SD Mesa
n/a
Kyle Rivkin - OCC
I am primarily an IE Coach, however I also appreciate a good debate.
Spreading: Dont do it. It defeats the purpose of the educational nature of this activity. Speak to be heard and understood.
Organization: Be clear in your structure; show me how the arguments fit together and be sure that clash is occurring between your and your opponents arguments; roadmap your speeches and label your components,
Kritiks/Topicality: Im game as long as they make sense. Dont do it to do it. Do it because it makes sense.
IPDA: This event is meant to be distinct from Parliamentary Debate; I think about it as competing extemps; this means that style is an important component that must be utilized. You should also avoid highly technical language and treat me as a lay judge.
NPDA:You may use more technical language with me; however, this does not mean you may spread (see above).
Off-Time Roadmaps: I time roadmaps; they don't take a lot of time, so do them but include it in your time.
Partner Communication: Keep communication to a minimum while each partner debates; you may pass notes, but the person speaking is the person that needs to be the one making the arguments
If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them.
Larson Looney - Palomar
n/a
Laura Ortiz - PCC
n/a
Lauren Lin - PCC
n/a
Lilanna Huynh - PCC
n/a
Matthew Montero - RioRunners
n/a
Melissa Deleon - Cal State LA
Background
- she/her/hers
- I competed in parli and IPDA for 4 years at Rio Hondo College and Cal State LA.
- I currently coach debate at Cal State LA & East Los Angeles College
- I prefer specificity when asked questions like: "How do you feel about theory?" That's kind of vague, so I might not give you the answer you want. Hopefully the answers you seek are found below.
- Yes partner to partner communication is cool
- I was hesitant to write a judging philosophy because you should run your rounds as you please, not as I please. Appealing to your audience is a fundamental aspect of communication, but it can also harm the authenticity of your advocacy. This is your round, find the balance & speak your truth.
GENERAL
- Be respectful to everyone
- Be mindful of your positionality in the world as you run arguments about others
- Don't misgender others
- I'm a fan of people first language (people that are homeless, people with addiction, etc.)
- You can still be fair while being strategic
- Debate is a game
- Be persuasive
IPDA
- This event is NOT an extension of parli
- Conversational doesn't mean structure isn't important = don't make claims without backing them up
- I like voters here
PARLI
- Sure, debate is a game where we engage in a thought process of imagination, but I tend to vote on real world impacts.
- I don't like voting for nuclear war
THEORY
- Procedurals/T: necessary when the opponent is unfair/not following rules
- I'll vote for articulated abuse
- Kritik: no thank you :)
SPEED
- Since speed is so subjective, feel free to speak at the rate which is most comfortable or necessary for you, as long as your opponent has access to the words you are speaking.
- If someone is speaking too rapidly, please slow them down by saying "slow".
- If someone is speaking in a manner that their words are unintelligible, say "clear".
- Please don't use the opponents method of delivery as a reason for me to "vote them down" if you did not first attempt to demonstrate that it was problematic. Fairness goes all ways.
If there's anything else you would like to know, please don't hesitate to ask me! :)
Merveille Kouekabakilaho - SD Mesa
n/a
Michael Servin - RioRunners
n/a
Michelle Menjivar - SMC
n/a
Miguel Castro - RioRunners
n/a
Miguel Oliveros - Compton College
n/a
Nate Brown - SMC
Parli: I dislike spreading and speed in general. This event should develop desirable communication skills like any other. Speed is not good communication. I will not flow it and will vote against it.
Speaking points are about delivery skills, not about arguments. Be a good speaker to get high speaker points. Eye contact, gestures, vocal fillers, etc.
Everything is on-time. Road maps, introductions, ingratiations are all part of your time. Flex time is the opportunity for the next speaker to get ready. The next speech time will begin immediately at the end of the previous flex time. Partner communication should be minimal and should not interrupt the natural flow of a debate. The sitting partner should not interrupt the partner who is speaking unless necessary. And even then, not in the middle of their sentence.
IPDA: I shouldn't hear any NPDA jargon in IPDA. This is debate for a public audience and a lay judge. Arguments should sound and feel conversational. Delivery style (speaker points) should be much more appealing to a lay audience than in any other Forensics event. This is an event that values research and citations, so I should hear some clear source citation.
LD: Keep it slow for me. I can't follow speed.
Nichole Barta - LACC
n/a
Nina Menzagopian - OCC
n/a
Peter Moore - Compton College
n/a
Philycius Oey - PCC
n/a
Richard Bickerstaff - Maricopa
n/a
Richard Hu - Cal State LA
n/a
Rocki Del Castillo - PCC
n/a
Ronnell Evans - CSUN
n/a
Rosemary Han - Fullerton College
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
Sophia Kaplan - SD Mesa
n/a
Sydney Do - OCC
n/a
Vaughn Thomas - Chaffey
n/a
Victoria Jackson - CSUF
n/a
Vincent Woo - IVC
n/a
Zac Dybeck - Palomar
n/a
Zachary White - Cypress College
Overall:
I think debate should be accesssible and educational. Be nice in your rounds, be courteous, and remember to be considerate of everyone's identities, religions, values, ability, etc. Don't make asssumptions about what I know or don't know. Always explain and warrant your impacts, links, etc with examples, explanations, etc. Off time roadmaps are great!
Parli:
I love parli! One of my favorite events and really enjoy judging it. Make sure to have clear links, clear warrants, good info. Cite and justify those sources. Be nice! Remember to call points of order as it is a part of the debate I enjoy is still around. Don't assume I will protect an argument.
Be respectful about partner communication. Don't puppet but notes or checking with your partner are fine in round within reason
LD:
Dislikes speed in LD (I just can't flow every argument as well as I want). I appreciate warrants, but I will try to read the sources you drop. Don't drop me bad evidence and expect me not to read it. I want good clash and clear links to arguments.
Background:
2 years of parlimentary debate and 5 years experience teaching debate. I prefer clash, clearly sturctured arguments, and making debate approachable. Give me examples, warrants, etc. Mostly competed in IEs, so I primarily value delivery elements, direct refutation, and a fun, friendly debate environment.
I will accept a stock issues, Ks, and identity arguments, but I prefer a debate within the general boundaries, limits, and standards of the resolution. If there is a topicality, moving target, or vagueness issue, feel free to call it out within reason. If you run procedurals for procedurals sake or feels heavily unwarranted, it may effect how I percieve the round. (Not so much in IPDA though)