Judge Philosophies
Alec Lyons - Compton College
n/a
Alejandro Hernandez - Cerritos
Overview
Specialized in debate but also done IEs. I done 3 years of parliamentary debate, 2.5 years of IPDA debate, 2 years of NFA LD debate, 2.5 years of extemp, and 0.5 years of impromptu
My judging style is mostly technical, and I am a flow judge (for all debates I dont flow cross-examination) I look for the following:
Structure
Crucial and important I want to see structure in your speeches whether it is your first or your 1000th debate round. Not only does it make me easier to understand your arguments, but also your opponents and the audience
Speed
I have a high tolerance to speed. Articulate and enunciate your words every time you present your speech even if you are speeding/spreading. One rule if your opponent shout clear or slow, you must slow down! Otherwise, I will not hesitate to vote you down for not making debate accessible to everyone, especially your opponent
Kritiks
Fine with it. If you are going to run a K, make sure it links with the case and that it has a framework, or else it will be hard to weigh the K against the aff. If you are running an aff K, have strong warrants of why the K aff is preferable than the original resolution it should relate the res at some point though
Topicality/Theory
Another great strategy to run as the negative. Have voters and warrants of why I should buy the T/theory shell. Make sure to prove abuse when running a T, otherwise it is a 99 percent chance that I wont buy it.
Counterplans
Another great strategy. Have warrants as to why the counterplan is preferable to the plan. Counterplans should be mutually exclusive otherwise it is not competitive and can do at the same time with the plan, known as a permutation
Value/fact rounds
Not a big fan of those types of debate but it is your round. For value rounds I want to see comparative analysis and impact calculus. For fact rounds I am mainly going to focus on the logic and the preponderance of evidence. Still build up your case and have warrants and give me voters of to why you win the debate (this is for all debate rounds also)
Decorum
Be on time no reason to arrive late. Grace period is usually 15 minutes for most tournaments so if you are very late, I will not hesitate to drop you
Delivery
Im fine with off time roadmaps and thank yous. Any type of delivery is fine but there are boundaries.
I understand that people sometimes get passionate about something that could have affected their personal life at least once, but I find it hard to believe that one can be passionate about every single topic out there. Please be nice to your opponent. No ad hominems. No frantic yelling or screaming at responses because it gives me the idea that your arguments are weak, and you resort to emotion to counterbalance the weak logic with your arguments. (Im going to sound like a hypocrite because I have done this before and I deeply regret it). If anyone does this, I am not going to hesitate dropping speaker points
Impacts and voters
Give me voters and why you should win the debate. No new arguments in rebuttals. If you are going for big impacts like nuclear war or the death of democracy, have strong links or else I wont buy it
Parliamentary debate specific
Im fine with partner communication but I only flow what the speaker says. Excessive partner communication will make me drop speaker points and lose credibility of your arguments.
Points of order call them when necessary do not over do it.
NFA LD specific
Favorite event to judge make sure you have your cards ready to go. If you do LD on paper, please bring a copy of your case. If you dont, I will ask you for some papers for me to take pictures of the case to write down my ballot. Other than that, I will default to stock issues per the NFA rules
IPDA specific
Fine with technical terms for IPDA
Speaker points
Will rank from 0-30 based on several factors including delivery, case strength, refutation, flow, and rebuttal strength. There are more to consider. I usually will give an average of 19-23 points
Overall, have fun may the best argument win
Alex Velez - IVC
n/a
Alexia Daniels - ULV
n/a
Allie Foltz - SD Mesa
n/a
Alyssa Olaes - Palomar
n/a
Andrew Jassick - Grossmont
Ben Mason - CSULB
TLDR: Your round! Run whatever framework you want and make my job easy.
I am a 2nd year graduate student in the Communication Studies program at CSULB, where I also teach public speaking and argumentation as part of the program. I have been coaching speech and debate at Palos Verdes high school since 2020, at CSULB since 2024, and at El Camino College since 2023, where I also competed for 2 years in parli, impromptu & extemp, DI, POI, and IPDA.
Communication: Pass notes or talk to your partner it's up to you, just don't be disruptive. I'll only flow what is said by the designated speaker.
Impacts: Please have impacts. Tell me why the thing is bad don't just say it's bad and don't elaborate. I am highly persuaded by strong impact comparisons, especially in the rebuttals.
Speed: I've gotten worse with speed over the years but generally I don't mind it as long as your opponents are okay with it. In rare cases I will call speed or clear if I can't keep up.
Kritiks: I like Kritiks most when they link to res or the aff, are easy to understand, and are as specific as possible. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear framework for evaluation, a K without framework is impossible to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I ran anthro a lot when I was debating. I'm not an expert on any given advocacy, treat me like a lay judge who happens to understand some framework arguments and theory. I'll listen to K affs but I'm very sympathetic to framework/T/fairness args on the neg. K vs K is fun but confusing to me sometimes.
Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as it's properly structured (interpretation violation standards voters). If I vote on T, usually it's on articulated abuse. I think your T's can be conditional when they're actually testing fairness, but I'll listen to condo bad positions too. I've grown very tired of frivolous T positions that don't test the fairness of the aff or don't link whatsoever. I have reluctantly voted on MG theory and time skew RVIs before, do with that what you will, I don't love it but I'll listen.
RVIS: I believe RVIs are fine when they are justified (your opponent is egregiously racist/misgendering/queerphobic/problematic or they run 7 blipped theory shells and kick all of them). I have never voted on an RVI, but I could. Usually, I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt or work it out on the flow, but if you gotta check someone you gotta check someone.
Signposting: Use taglines and tell me where you are on the flow "they say this, we say this" "judge go to advantage 1 and look at their solvency". Sometimes I miss arguments if debaters are messy.
Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but ensure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.
Benny Lindall - Grossmont
n/a
Bianca Alcantara - Cypress College
n/a
Brian Ta - Cal State LA
n/a
Cal Veitch - OCC
n/a
Campbell Gorlinski - OCC
n/a
Carlos Bonilla - Cal State LA
n/a
Charlie Bacha - Saddleback
n/a
Chelsey Barrera - OCC
n/a
Christian Delgado - OCC
n/a
Cipriana Rodriguez - CSU San Marcos
n/a
Cyrus Shirazi - Saddleback
n/a
Dia Hill - Palomar
n/a
Dylan Dorman - SD Mesa
n/a
Emily Pogosova - SCC
I have competed in both IPDA and NPDA. Make your impacts clear and source your arguments well. Debate is a system of making the best argument and convincing your audience. I love it when debaters employ tools like humour or metaphor to make their points and win over their audience. Be respectful and kind both during and before rounds.
Emma Rigor - COC
n/a
Emma Chavez - OCC
n/a
Eric Haddock - COC
n/a
Evan Parente (he/him) - Chapman
n/a
Faiz Ganie - Cypress College
n/a
Fischer Doan - UCSB
n/a
Gohan Huynh - OCC
n/a
Hugo Acevedo - CSULB
n/a
Isabelle Le - Saddleback
n/a
Jackson Tropp - Chaffey
n/a
Jacob Blair - Cypress College
n/a
James Martinez - Cerritos
n/a
Jasmin Fathi - SD Mesa
n/a
Jon MacKay - Saddleback
My primary area of experience is IPDA.
Debate philosphy:
-I base my desicions in a round off your argumentation and ability to adhere to the criteria of the debate; while pure charisma and rhetorical style are important aspects of public speaking, they fall secondary to reasoning and evidence for me.
-I also consider the clarity of your argumentative structure a very important factor in my desicion; the ability for your judge and audience to follow your reasoning is vital to effective communication of your ideas. Sepperating your contentions with "taglines" or "headers" is strongly encouraged.
-Rudeness towards your opponent, attacks on their character, or any other impolite behavior will not be tolerated; your purpose in this debate is to defend your arguments and defeat your opponent's stance, not the opponent themself. It isn't about the person, so don't make it as such.
-Don't spread. Spreading does not make you a better debater; it only indicates a lack of confidence in your ability to honestly and straightforwardly defend your arguments on the basis of their actual merit.
-The different formats of debate are, in fact, different. Do not treat an IPDA round like a Parlimentary round. Do not treat an LD round like a Parlimentary round, or any variation thereof. These different debate formats have different rules, so make sure you can distinguish between them and act accordingly.
-Take a deep breath; you're going to do great, and I have full confidence in your ability to do well in your round.
Good luck!
-Jon MacKay.
Jordan Horey - UCSB
n/a
Kamalesh Sadu - IVC
n/a
Karis Kwon - IVC
n/a
Kathy Alvarez - SD Mesa
n/a
Kenny Molina - COC
n/a
Kian Agheli - SD Mesa
n/a
Lilit Kapanjian - COC
n/a
Lily Bower-Moore - ULV
n/a
London Lopez - Cypress College
n/a
Marie Dinh - Saddleback
n/a
Max Hutchins - Palomar
n/a
Maya Srugo - SD Mesa
n/a
Maya Toma - Saddleback
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!
Miguel Oliveros - Compton College
n/a
Nadalie Leon-Munoz - CSULB
n/a
Nataly Arzate - OCC
n/a
Natan Schwartzman - SD Mesa
n/a
Nick Downs - SCC
n/a
PLNU-Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU
I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!
Renee Orton - MSJC
Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm
I believe
that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use
a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their
delivery. I do not like nor tolerate
spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear,
understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the
debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I
debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you
understand my delivery preferences.
I
flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the
resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms,
impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject
matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't
understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot.
Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's
disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.
In
NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and
counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option
picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is
indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just
to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking
time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss
of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant,
obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly
remove the educational value from the debate.
Rita Rafael - SCC
Spreading is antithetical to education and will greatly impact how I judge the round. Make logical arguments and practice good storytelling. Do the thinking for your audience, this is key! It should be obvious how you reached your conclusions.
Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont
Background: I am the Director of Forensics at Grossmont College, for the past 30 years. I have been judging and coaching Parli for at least 20 years, and coaching and judging IPDA for about 10 years, or since southern California started competing in this event. I am not an NFA/LD coach or judge.
Educational Activity: I believe that debate is an educational activity that teaches some very important skills from the areas of argumentation and public speaking. I want to hear clear, well structured, arguments. I want the speaker to label their points/sign posting throughout. I need a road map, throughout the speech, not just at the top of the speech. I want to hear arguments that have claims, with reasoning/evidence. I still believe that this is a speaking event, and using some clear structure to you debate is important to me.
Regional Differences: At a state or national tournament, I know that there are different terms/jargon that have developed from individual regions. Therefore, dont assume that everyone should know the same terms. If you use a term, quickly explain it, the first time you use it. I welcome an opposing team to ask the other team for explanations of their terms. I do not expect that team to respond with something like, everyone should know this term. If that is true, give us the definition. I see far too many debaters misusing and miscommunication about jargon.
Topicality/Spreading/Ks: Of course, I expect to occasionally hear a topicality argument, when warranted. I dont want to hear a kritik for the sake of using it, or because you have nothing else to offer. However, if warranted, I may be open to one.
I believe there is no place for spreading/speed in Parli or IPDA. Everyone who continues to encourage or allow spreading is encouraging poor communication skills, defeating the purpose of Parli/IPDA debate. It isnt about my ability to flow, it is about your ability to communicate logical, argumentation to any audience.
During rebuttals I am looking for very clear voters, to tell me why your team wins the debate.
IPDA specifically: I have watched the progression from CEDA to Parli and now IPDA. I would like judges to follow the guidelines for IPDA, which says that there should be lay judges for IPDA. This means that even though I am a Parli judge, I should listen without expecting to hear jargon. I do think a well structure speech is required to be successful.
Having said all that, I love judging Parli debates. I am excited to hear your well structured, lively, debates.
Sam Pirasteh - IVC
n/a
Samantha Guardado - COC
n/a
Seif Abaskhairon - Saddleback
I have Competed in Parli and IPDA, so I understand the structure and rules very well, but still if you are going to run some form of abuse or theory don't just assume I will fill in the blank tell me why I am voting here.
Now Regardless of the type of debate, I do not like speed as I myself, still need to follow what you are saying and I will be flowing. I don't like rudeness, unnecesary procedural arguments, or critical positions. If you run an abusive case and your opponent calls you out on it I will drop you, be FAIR.
Now in Parli I am a tabula rasa Judge. I will vote based on what is said and what is on the flow. I won't make arguments that are not stated or refute wrong arguments not called out by the debaters. But in IPDA I will reject bad arguments and bad evidence but only I still expect you to call it out.I do flow Cross-ex, Flex and Points of Information as they give us a clear moments of clash and more importantly I get to see who really understands their side.
I'm not a huge fan of off road time maps, but you can do them just keep them short.
If you have any more questions feel free to ask in the begining of the round, I am very happy to answer them.
Senen Perez - Cal State LA
n/a
Taz Hellman - Saddleback
I believe debate no matter the form should be educational and respectful at its core. This is an academic event and should be treated as such.
Regardless of the type of debate I am watching, I do not like speed, rudeness, unnecesary procedural arguments, or critical positions. If you are spreading please keep in mind that I also have to be able to flow in order to properly judge. If you speak so fast that I cannot then I will just stop flowing.
Dont try to read my facial expressions on how you're doing in debate, not even I am aware of half of my expressions and it could mean literally anything. Stay confident in yourself and you will do great.
I also believe in the rightful distinction between debate events. IPDA is to be accessible to the lay audience while Parli has the room to be more technical. I appreciate signposting/good structure so if you do that I will be a very happy judge!
I will vote solely based on what is said and what is on the flow. I will not make inferences that are not stated if it takes a lot of jumps in logic. I do flow Cross-ex and Points of Information as I believe they are just as much a part of debate as anything else when it comes to the flow.
Feel free to ask any neccesary questions before the round.
Trajan McGlathery - SD Mesa
A novice judge with a year of debate circuit experience. Format and structure are the keys to my vote. Im open to all arguments as long as it is structured and makes sense, assume I know nothing about any topic and spoon feed me the information I need for a topic.
Trish BrodakSilva - ELAC
n/a
Tymen Koetsier - IVC
n/a
Valeria Salazar - Cal State LA
n/a
Vihaan Bhardwaj - SD Mesa
n/a
Xander Hepburn - UCSB
Don't worry if you don't know about technicalities and jargon, focus on good arguments. If you make the right arguments but don't say specfic terms like "Perm," "Topicality," "A priori" etc., I still consider them fully valid. Try to organize arguements down the flow (in the order you or your opponent made them) and explain what arguments you're expanding or which of your opponent's arguments you're responding too throughout the speech (signposting).
I don't like canned impromptu speeches, make sure each topic really fits the quotation.
Don't know much about speech events other than impromptu and extemp so I'll mostly be judging on how engaging, entertaining, and informative your speech is depending on what event you're doing.
Zaynah Robb - El Camino
n/a