FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

AJ Moorehead - LAVC

Have been judging since 2001. Have coached some teams, have worked some camps, so I will probably understand your argument but I will not impact it for you. I believe the "perceptual debate" is real and I try not to get sucked into it.

My default is to judge the round using the standard that has been agreed upon or defended more successfully. I will make other calculations if a debater proposes and defends that I should.

I prefer to hear about the world rather than the round so please reserve procedural (theory) arguments and kritiks until you are absolutely out of things to say or until your opponent begins to observably cheat.

All judges want a clear, numbered list of voting issues at the end of your final rebuttal and so do I. Better debaters will offer such a list at the end of each and every rebuttal.

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

Aaron Fullman - CSULB

Aaron Jaramillo - Mt. SAC

n/a

Abe Nesheiwat - Cypress College

n/a

Abigail Watson - OCC

n/a

Adri Young Toghia - SCC

n/a

Aekta Kallepalli - UCSD

n/a

Aileen Peres - Mt. SAC

n/a

Alex Tseng - PLNU

PSCFA: I'm not a communications critic. I will evaluate the debate in the most technically way possible. Debate as national circuit as possible if that matches your skillset. If you can't, I'll still do the best I can but both sides will like my decision more, the more national circuit you are.

TLDR: Read the arguments you want. I will flow and evaluate them. I will always vote on the execution of an argument rather than whether I think it is true or not. I have a slight preference for policy debates but I also like a well-executed Kritik debate. All of my preferences are just preferences and can be reversed through good debating.

Full Paradigm:

Top level things:

-As a caveat, everything in my paradigm is just my opinion and can be reversed through good debating.

-Tech>Truth.

-Nothing is at 0 or 100% risk. I evaluate debate as to which arguments have a higher risk and which ones are quantifiably bigger or implicate the debate on a deeper level.

-Debate determines risk until I'm told why it isn't.

-I don't have a problem voting for "lies" but I'd rather vote for true arguments.

-Some people whose opinions about the debate I admire are Chris Tai, Scott Wheeler, Raam Tambe, and Danish Khan.

-In my opinion, the negative does not read enough off-case positions most of the time.

-Judge instruction is underutilized but the team that uses it more will make the debate easier to decide.

Email chains are a big vibe:alexdebates109@gmail.com

My Decision Process:

Some habits in my decision process:

-I usually evaluate defense first, I usually vote for the least mitigated argument.

-I make the techiest decision, usually without explanation from the other team. I pay more attention to implications when left to my own devices.

I will do my best to actively assess who is ahead during the debate however, this does not mean an instant decision. I will try to give a timely well thought out decision as fast as I can because I believe it's the debaters job to debate their best, and the judges to be an active listener and decisionmaker which means to think critically through the debate as it goes on. The way I use this process is by assigning risk based on explanation and/or comparison of arguments. Usually, I base the way I assign risk of on dropped arguments, explanations, and comparisons between which arguments should be considered to be the nexus question of the debate and which should not. Just to be clear when I mention explanation, I don't mean explain your argument about what is but how it fits throughout the overall strategic context of the round. This means quantifying why your evidence proves that argument has a broader scope than your opponents. Absent reading evidence, I usually vote for the team that has best articulated why their argument's risk is higher or can be quantiified as much bigger. Good ev/argument comparison, framing arguments, and evidence that can be well explained in a strategic context can shift this process in your favor. The reason for my decisionmaking process is that I believe in tech over truth and I don't try to do alot of work people. Explanation is important but only in the context of me evaluating the debate in a purely technical way because I do not want to evaluate the relative truth claims of arguments as much as I can. That is not so say I am truth over tech, the process I just listed probably only applies if the debate is close. If an argument is dropped, it's dropped and I have SUPER LOW threshold for dropped arguments which I will vote on. The more you use the process above to direct my decision, the less my predispositions factor into the decision.

I believe that the evidence determines the scope of the argument. I.E if you powertag your extinction card but it only says small scenario for war, I'll probably not against a powertagged card if the other team points it out but I'll vote for lies in any other instance.

Online Specific Stuff:

-Go 85-90% of how fast you would go in an in-person round.

-I do not require you to turn your camera if you do not feel comfortable doing so.

-If you are reading blocks that are mostly analytics, slow down a bit because not all of us have the best internet connections.

Policy Paradigm:

Kritiks:

I am a mid judge for the kritik. I think that thesis claims and links are the most important part of the Kritik. Thesis level claims should forward a description of the world that filters how I evaluate the other parts of the Kritik. For example, if you read antiblackness or Psychoanalysis, you would want to win arguments such as Blackness is ontological, Psychoanalysis is true, or the state is irredeemable. Links should be about the plan, not just rant about why a certain ideology is bad. I'm probably the worst for the K on the alt. If you don't have a K that relies heavily on winning the thesis, you should focus on winning the alt the most. I don't think I'm in the automatically assuming that the alt doesn't do anything camp but I'm not deep enough into K lit to make extrapolations based on certain buzzwords or phrases. Referencing specific lines of aff evidence that show that the aff is the ideology you are Kritiking will go far. Aff teams should leverage their aff against the K way more imho. I understand Kritik's are multifaceted and have many ways to win on them, so both sides should explain why the parts of the Kritik debate they are winning matter if you decide to divert from my preferences.

T vs Policy Aff:

Plans should be topical. Painting a scary version of the topic that creates an unreasonable research burden for the negative is always a good strategy. Depicting a litany of affs that the 2N cannot prepare for is fine. If you make a ground argument, explain why the specific Affs, Disads, or Counterplans are necessary for your side to have a fair chance at winning rather than just saying we lose "x" ground without explanation as to why that ground is necessary in the first place.

T vs K aff:

I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan but that is not a deal-breaker. I recognize that some Kritikal affirmatives have a great deal of value and are some of the best arguments in debate read by the best debaters but a lot of K affs are part of a phase that some debaters have where they want to be a "K debater" because it's fun, new, or more interesting. Rants aside, my preferences are just that; my preferences, I will ultimately vote for the team that does the better debating in the most technical way possible in every debate I judge no matter what argument the debaters read.

If you develop 1-3 pieces of good offense, I will be more inclined to vote aff. In general, the whole "we're a discussion of the resolution" argument is a decent counter-interpretation but the more aff takes the side of the discussion that affirms the action of the resolution, the more likely I'll vote aff. Redefining the words of resolution can be good too. I think that affirmatives that don't have the grammar of a plan but still affirm the action of the resolution like the "No is illegal" aff from the immigration topic are up for debate because it still gave some ground (but not enough) to the negative. Anything that goes in the direction of carte blanche rejection of the topic will be a harder sell.

If you are against a kritikal affirmative, I think that procedural fairness is the most tangible impact that my ballot has an effect over. I prefer if you read standards that engage or turn the aff's offense or demonstrate that their description of the world and debate is inaccurate or problematic. DO NOT argue racism, sexism, homophobia good, etc. but challenge the operationalization of the aff's theory in the debate by reading standards that challenge the scope of the claim that the 1AC forwards.

General Policy Stuff:

- Framing is a supplement, not a substitute for answering disads.

- Read arguments that justify the educational model of how we talk about impacts. Things "Learning about extinction is valuable" or "Extinction prediction education is bad"

-If you are reading a soft left, read arguments about extinction prediction models fail rather than some ethical orientation about immediate violence comes first.

-Debate in meta-level characterizations that tell the story of the debate. COMPARE arguments. Say things like link speaks to a broader event that the aff causes or the link evidence only describes a small event that the aff outweighs. OR "the aff's advantage is minuscule but the disad is huge because they conceded "x", "y", and "z" argument.

Counterplans:

Read them. There's not much to say here. Read a counterplan. Make sure it solves a sufficient part of the aff. Define what is a sufficient amount of the aff is solved by the counterplan and vice versa for the aff. Ideally point to lines in the evidence that identify these thresholds for solvency. Quantify counterplan solvency/solvency deficits by telling how big or a small counterplan solvency or the solvency deficit is. Solvency advocates for counterplans are helpful but not having one isn't a deal breaker.

Disads:

I evaluate them probabilistically and usually don't vote on arguments that are direct yes/no questions. Make arguments about the Aff/Disad having higher risk is the way to go for me. I care more about the impact debate than I used to but the link is still most important. Politics Disads are good and they teach valuable political forecasting skills that are extremely useful in the field of political science like making predictions about the political ramifications of political action in a probabilistic manner.

Theory:

The debate determines whether a counterplan is legitimate or not as well as any other theoretical question. All things equal, I default negative on condo, states, international counterplans, PICs, and process counterplans. If you are to go for theory, make arguments about why the negative promotes a model of debate that creates worse education or lower quality arguments rather than some claim about why it makes debate too hard for you. Counterplan theory aside, I'm agnostic. You don't have to have an interpretation but it would better if you did. Don't blaze through blocks. Do line by line.

LD paradigm:

- All of the policy stuff applies.

- I have little to no comprehension of "phil" or techy strategies germane to LD and I will evaluate "phil" like a Kritik. The closer you are to policy debate, the happier everyone will be with my decision.

- I think condo is good but I find condo bad to be more debatable in LD than in policy.

-My initial thoughts is that "Nebel" or "T: Whole Res" is a ridiculous argument. I think that it opens up the aff to all sorts of ridiculous PICs. However, I won't reject the argument on face but arguments about format distinctions between LD and Policy and justifications for why this interpretation pushes better solvency advocates will make this a more tenable argument when reading it in front of me.

Speaker Points:

I start at a 28 and work up or down from there.

27 - Still learning

28 - Alright

28.5 to 29 - You probably can break

29.5 and above - Semis/Finals

Alex Cadena - Cal State LA

n/a

Alexander Contreras - UCSD

n/a

Alicia Del Rio - Mt. SAC

n/a

Alina Van Eeghen - OCC

n/a

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

For parli: I try to just look at arguments made in the round. Both sides should weigh their impacts and explain why they should win. I expect everyone to be respectful to their opponents. I love counterplan debate. I am not the biggest fan of Ks. If you do choose to run a K spend extra time on alt. solvency. I have no problem with speed or jargon.

For IPDA: I view IPDA separately from parli and try to leave my parli knowledge at the door. I don't think debate jargon or speech belong in IPDA. Delivery and persuasion matter. I view IPDA as a combination of debate and extemp.

Allison Cooke - OCC

n/a

Alyssa Layne - NAU

n/a

Andrew Yllescas - CSUN

n/a

Andrew Morgan - DVC

Updated 2/24/24 at 7:46 AM.

I view debate as an educational event. That being said, both sides need to have equal access to debate. If you run 8 off case positions against a novice because the divisions were collapsed, I will drop you. Theres no education in that debate. If you are a junior level debater and you want to run the super cool and fun K that your open teammates are running against the junior level competition, I will drop you for a few reasons:

You are trying to skip learning the fundamentals of argumentation and debate so that you can do cool stuff
Its abusive to your opponents
Neither you nor your opponents are learning anything from that debate. I certainly wont be either.

My position on Ks changes in the open division. While I personally think its incredibly silly to try to explain Marx or Buddhism in 8 minutes or less, I will vote for them as long as you can link the K to the topic. If novice or junior are collapsed into open, please do not run a K against them. Please just debate the topic. If you are an open competitor, you should be totally fine without needing to spread a novice/junior debater/debate team in order to win.

Lastly, I am not a fan of potential abuse when running a topicality. I also think its weird and contradictory to run Disadvantages that clearly link to the plan but then say the plan is untopical.

Overall, I am some fine with speed as long as you are also clear. Articulation is key here. I also appreciate it when debaters are very organized throughout the round. Off time road maps are good; just signpost as you get there. My experience in debate is very limited. I almost exclusively competed in Individual Events.

Andrew Galey - OCC

n/a

Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa

Debate is about persuading your judge. Having said that, please talk to me, not at me. For all types of debate, let's have some clash? Call points of order in the rebuttal, I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive (I know this will look different in a remote setting but the concept still applies), I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments please just be sure that they are warranted and fully explained. Structure is vital to a clear case. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you donÃ¢t want to leave it up to me. PS-all road maps are in time.

IPDA:
Â Â This event is not Parli lite. The best way I have heard it explained is that it is dueling extemp speeches. There should be clash, clear arguments, and clear reasons to vote for you.

NFA-LD:
I prefer a conversational rate and a speaker who engages with their audience rather than just reading their cards. I have only judged 2-3 rounds of LD all year, if you run the round like I know the topic as well as you, you may lose my ballot.

Remember to have fun!

Anna Clara Zeni - CBU

n/a

Ariella Reisner - UCSD

n/a

Arina Konnova - UCSD

n/a

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - SDSU

Ashlie De La Rosa - Moorpark

n/a

Ashlie De La Rosa - OCC

n/a

Ashton Poindexter - Utah

I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD throughout my college forensics experience and currently coach at the University of Utah.

I'm okay with whatever arguments you want to run so long as you do clear warranted analysis, argument comparison, and evidence comparison. A couple of key considerations are:

I have a higher threshold for theory if you don't collapse to it.

Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.

I'll default to topicality/theory being apriori, so if you want me to evaluate something else first you need to make the arguments.

You can't win just because your advocacy could also solve the issue if you haven't linked them to offense.

I'm good with speed, though there's two reservations. First, I often flow electronically now so I need a bit extra time between page transitions. Second, if your opponents ask you to slow I expect you to slow. If you need someone to slow, you should say slow and not clear, clarity I expect them to bite their pallet while still going quick.

In general - I like good arguments, I don't like bad arguments. Pleasemake good arguments and be a good human being while you do it.

Augustina Estrada - UCSD

n/a

Averie Vockel - Utah

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.

DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.

DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.

DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.

Bhaavana Ranna - UCSD

n/a

Bill Neesen - IVC

I love debate and think it is an amazing teaching game.

I think that debaters should make it what they want and defend that with sound arguments.

Policy making, DA, K, T and other theory are all good.

I am addicted to my flow and try to decide off of it.

I am also called a speaker point meanie (K. Calderwood)

Some things you should know (not that I will not vote for them but I am sure my opinions have some effect even if I do not want them to)

I hate conditional arguments

RVI's are just dumb and when I am forced to vote on them I will take speaker points

Affs should relate at some level to the topic

IPDA

This is not the same as parli and I do not really fllow it. I do take notes but totally different. I expect less complex debate and more public style.

Blake Longfellow - CUI

I am primarily an IE coach and very much approach forensics (including debate) as a communication/persuasive activity. I approach debate with the mindset that all stories are arguments and all arguments are stories. With that said, the story which is the most internally cohesive (narrative probability) and that lines up across the debate (narrative fidelity) is likely to win my ballot.

Here is a list of things Paul Villa thinks you should know about debating in front of me:

-Truth over tech: Blake isn't flowing the debate like this is the national circuit, he is going to take minimal notes, you aren't going to win by pointing out some drop on the flow or technical analysis of the round.

-Don't spread. Like, at all. However fast you are thinking will be fine I'd go slower than that.

-Reading theory is a non-starter, if the other team isn't topical just tell Blake they aren't topical and explain why that means they should lose the debate without getting all technical.

- Blake would probably vote on a K, especially a performance one, assuming it made sense to him in the round.

- Less is more, the more simple the path to the ballot for you the more likely Blake is to vote for you.

Blake Togerson - PLNU

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandan Whearty

Palomar College

Short Version: You Talk, I'll Listen

Long Version: I tend to view debate as a negotiation between the government and opposition over what will happen during the 45 minutes of engagement. This means that whatever parameters both teams agree on are ok. I will listen to fast technical debate, slow rhetorical debate, and alternate forms such as performance with equal interest. I will listen to Topicality, C/Kritiks, Vagueness, Value Objections, Resolutionality, etc. Remember that just because its a procedural issue it doesnt mean tags will suffice. Asking me to drop a team on procedural violation requires a warrant or two, and I'm happy to listen to procedural level offense from the Affirmative as well.

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT I HAVE REPETITIVE STRESS INJURIES TO MY HANDS AND SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING, WHICH MEANS A TOP-LEVEL TEAM CAN SPEAK FASTER THAN I CAN FLOW. I CAN KEEP UP WITH 70%-75% OF TOP SPEED, PROVIDED THAT THE SPEAKER'S ARTICULATION IS EXCELLENT (SO I CAN CHEAT A LITTLE BY READING LIPS) AND THAT THE SPEAKER'S STRUCTURE IS PERFECT. IF NEITHER OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE TRUE, YOU MAY NEED TO SLOW DOWN MORE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU. Later in the tournament, I may need you to slow down even more as my hands fail. If you're losing me, you'll know immediately and loudly. Also, please avoid strategies that require me to fill sheets of paper with arguments that we all know will be discarded in the next speech. If there are more than 10-13 pages per debate, the burning in my hands starts to drown out your arguments.

Though I consider myself a flow critic, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by laundry lists of taglines filling in for substantial, warranted analysis. I think that the words, because and for example are important, and you should probably use them a lot.

Please call important points of order in both rebuttals, in order to save me from guessing which arguments you want me to intervene and discard. If both teams want me to intervene and throw out arguments I see as new, mention it in the round and I will defer to your collective judgment. Abusing Points of Order will destroy your speaker points and compromise your tournament seeding.

I collect ACTUAL TURNS. People use the word turn a lot in parliamentary debate. This confuses me, because it is usually followed by an argument like, They dont solve enough, other bad things will still happen, or is not. If you make an actual turn, I will probably pound happily on the table to let you know.

I appreciate lighthearted jabs, and heckling is fine as long as it is funny rather than rude. If you have ever wanted to run an extreme or bizarre advocacy, I may be your best chance to pick up on it. Enjoy yourselves,be nice, and speaks will be high.

A few more preferences that may help you win my ballot:

* Explain your perms and provide a clear text for each one. Otherwise, you may accidentally win the argument that your side should lose.

* It is way easier for me to vote for your procedural with demonstrated abuse in round. Potential abuse is almost impossible for me to evaluate without wondering about potential answers and potential turns.

* I am getting bored with delay/politics strategies. If you're going to run them in front of me, engage my interest with an amazing demonstration of this strategy's power and legitimacy. If you have a choice between delay/politics and a kritik debate, please choose the latter.

* Please make sure I understand what you're saying. If you want me to cast my ballot because "...durable fiat is instantaneous," you should probably make sure I know what you mean. I can *guess* at what you mean, but that's no good for either of us.

Brianna Hosmer-Laky - PLNU

n/a

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.

BG:

I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round.

Impacts:

You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate.

Case Debate:

I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well.

Disadvantages:

Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability.

Counterplans:

Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea.

Conditionality:

I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it.

Kritiks:

I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than they used the state.¢? I am not saying this cant be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I dont like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should.

Identity Arguments:

With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual.

Theory:

I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Dont just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win.

Speed

Speed is fine but please be clear. I dont see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments.

Defending the Topic:

Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument.

Speaker Points:

If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.

Miscellaneous:

Be organized and sign post. Dont assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time.

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory.

Caitlin Drees - IVC

I am an argumentation professor who has a very little experience with debate in competition. I do not know all the technical jargon so it will not help you in the round. You will want to explain your arguments and how they matter in the round. If you need me to understand the jargon you will need to explain it. Also be polite and nice to each other because I hate rudeness.

My forensic experience as a competitor was limited prep events.

Caleb Sutherlin - SCC

n/a

Carlota B. Price - Mt. SAC

n/a

Caroline Doan - Mt. SAC

n/a

Charles Root - Mt. SAC

n/a

Chelsey Barrera - OCC

n/a

Christiaan Pipion - IVC

First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
Next, clash is incredibly important. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think your points are better than the other sides'.
If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them. Otherwise, I'm happy to give critiques after the round is finished, after my ballot is turned in, and only if it doesn't impede with the tournament running on time. If you see me after the round, I'm happy to give you feedback then.
Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
Speed: I don't like it. I think speed gets in the way of clarity. If both opponents know each other, the debate format allows for it, and both debaters are comfortable, I'm happy to flow more quickly, but I will say "clear" or "speed" if I feel you're spreading your opponent out of the round.
Kritiks: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for it I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer
IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could definitely buy that argument.
Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

Christina Romo - Mt. SAC

n/a

Cindy Gutierrez - Mt. SAC

-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If youre going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have someincrediblystrong evidence.
-Dont be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, dont ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.

Cindy Chanay - UCSD

n/a

Claire McKenna - OCC

n/a

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

Damon Darling - Utah

TLDR: Been doing this for quite a while. 12 years total in forensics (if you include HS). 7 years doing Interp/Platforms/Limited Prep. 3 years doing collegiate Debate, specifically all of the areas listed prior as well as Parli Debate and IPDA Debate. Additionally, this is my third year of Collegiate Forensics coaching. I spent two years coaching for San Diego State University and now im at the University of Utah

Debate: My views on debate are very straightforward. Debate is both academic and a game. It is first a basis of argumentation and speech, and secondly an avenue for competition. What this means is I fully understand the ways debate has evolved to become this great source of competition However, I find it necessary to respect its academic roots, so please try your best to make well-educated arguments and analysis in round, rather than running a bunch of asinine arguments because you think you can win on them. With that being said, I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I like K debate and case debate equally. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that Frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. I think where the K fails often is through a misreading of the base literature. Additionally, please note that why I may be knowledgeable about a good deal of critical theory. Please make sure that you are fully articulating the argument and not relying on the assumption that I have read D&G or Baudrillard.

^^^ with that, if youre framing your K based on judge background: My area of education/expertise is in Critical Gender Studies, Sex, and Sex Work. So be weary when youre running these in front of me and please make sure you know what youre talking about

Theory/T: Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned. In the words of my colleague adeja, Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.

Flex: Stop stealing flex. Im not waiting 3 minutes while you wait for a copy of the text. Yall should have that ready on either side, please. Lets get this show on the road. I will not let my ballot be the thing that sets our schedule back.

Speed: Youre not gonna speed me out of the round most of the time you just gotta make sure youre clear. With that, my flow is not as tight as it used to be. The faster you go the more likely I am to miss it on the flow though I did hear it.

^^^ if your opponent asks you to clear or slow I fully expect you to do so. Speeding someone out doesnt make you a good debater.

Collapse: You should probably collapse. You cant go for everything

Dani Silva - Mt. SAC

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 Cordier - UCSD

n/a

David Maloney - Mt. SAC

n/a

Delilah Marrocco - PLNU

n/a

Diana Laureano - RioRunners

Don Lundy - Moorpark

n/a

Don Lundy - OCC

n/a

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

Dulce Santana - RioRunners

n/a

Eduardo Pacheco - UCSD

n/a

Edward Minasyan - RioRunners

When evaluating debate rounds I find that I look for structure and clarity of all arguments made. An argument without proper taglines or a response without signposting ends up being a thought thrown out with the hope that the judge or opponent flows it in the proper place.

I like to see topical affs who engage with the resolution, regardless of debate format, and negs who engage with the aff through DA, CP, T, and other arguments on case. Stock issues are extremely important to me in both Parli and NFA-LD. If you don't meet those burdens as an aff you will lose if the neg points it out. Fairness should be a priority for everyone, so take questions and be courteous to all.

NFA-LD specific things:You should come prepared to the rounds. That means making sure everyone has access to your case and any cards you read. It doesn't matter if it's a paper copy or on speechdrop.net. I believe that the rules matter, are important, and are the guidelines to competitors and judges in this event. That means stock issues are the most important voting issues, neg should have logically consistent arguments, and excessive speed will mean a loss.

General Notes:I like straight up debates and will almost never vote for K's just run without a truly justified reason. I think spread delivery actively hurts the competition of debate, so just don't do it in front of me if you want my ballot. Don't run excessive or abusive theory just to win a ballot in front of me. Try not to run apocolyptic impacts because they're never explained enough or convincing enough to be realistic. Probability > Magnitude. Don't lie or cheat.

Be nice, have fun.

Edwin Ramirez - PCC

As someone who primarily judges and works with IEs, the debater(s) that will earn my vote are the ones that have strong delivery, are courteous to their competitors and have an easy-to-follow structure to their arguments.

Please do not spread. Remember that I judge delivery; if I lose what you're saying, you'll probably lose the round.

Eli Castro - Mt. SAC

n/a

Elise Fanney - Saddleback

n/a

Eric Beutz - UCSD

n/a

Eugene Kong - UCSD

n/a

Favour Onyeso - Mt. SAC

n/a

Felip Gerdes - UCSD

n/a

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10.

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn.There arelots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, butI try notto bring them into the round.Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you can lose a round if you drop one little argument, though it's unlikely unless your opponents blow it up, but if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework argument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool, or ask me to vote on real world impacts, I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have been "won." A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up or lie. In LD, I will read evidence, including that which the debaters don't read and will not give the ballot to debaters who misrepresent authors.

Because I try to base my decision based solely on argumentsthat are madein the round,I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad.Likewise, you don't have to run only conventionally believed positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or if they are "true."In general, know that I don't believe that debate is a search for the truth; I believe it is a game. As when you play all games, you should have fun!!!

BUT . . . if you are excessively rude or bullying, I will probably drop you.

2023 Update: after 3 yrs of competing and 23 years of judging, I have decided that I am over the k. My mindet has not changed; society has not changed. College students, who went through the application process, which by its nature excludes some, speaking for others has become old. I'm not saying I will never vote for a k again, but it will prob have to be different from the versions on a theme that I have heard for the last 30 years. Plus it's really killing parli which makes me sad. :/

Frank Drugge - UCSD

n/a

Gabe Graville - SDSU

He/Him

Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.

I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.

I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.

I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp. You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.

While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.

Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe

Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it

Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space.

Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Gavin Pascale - PLNU

n/a

Genesis Zavala - OCC

n/a

Greg Gorham - GCU

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! :)

Hailea Stone - SDSU

n/a

Harish Rao - LPC

n/a

Heera Narayan - UCSD

n/a

Holland Smith - Palomar

n/a

Irene Torres - Mt. SAC

n/a

Iris Sanchez - OCC

n/a

JC Caldwell - UCSD

n/a

Jacob Caballero - OCC

n/a

Jacob Friend - Mt. SAC

n/a

Jacqueline Yu - PCC

Keep the debate clean and well structured. Provide a road map and be clear with the order of contentions, sub-points, evidence, etc. I want to be able to flow the debate with ease!

I'm open to all arguments - the more clash the better. If an opponent drops an argument - do not let that be the sole reason for the judge to vote, still rationale the point made.

For partner communication in parli, be careful of puppeteering.

Please do not spread. Breathe!

But most of all - 1) don't be rude 2) respect and be kind to those in the round (and in general, everyone), and 3) have fun! Bring that passion!

Jake Garmo - UCSD

NPDA:
I competed for three years in NPDA and IPDA at UCSD. I am currently the head coach for PF and
Parli at Mt. Carmel High School.
An ideal Parli round for me is one where both teams are organized, make strategic choices, and
engage in effective clash.
Important Stuff
I evaluate debate within an offense-defense paradigm.
I will evaluate any argument read in front of me regardless of my preferences. Even though I don't
love voting on theory, you will lose if you respond poorly to a well-constructed shell.
I will not flow new arguments made in the 1NR. New arguments in the 1AR must be in response to
the block. You should still call out POO.
Speed/Style
I am okay at flowing speed. I prefer small pauses between sheets. Read advocacy texts and
ROB/ROJ at normal speed. If you outspread me, I will shout "slow."
Please tag your arguments. Please tell me where you are on the flow.
Theory
I have a high threshold for voting for theory arguments where interpretation calls for the other team
to take some specific action (e.g. spec).
I don't have strong opinions on condo. But the more conditional advocacies you run, the easier it is
for me to vote on condo bad.
My threshold for voting for an RVI is extremely high. But I do think an RVI might make sense against
a team that runs three or more bad theory arguments.
Kritiks
I am probably not familiar with your K's lit base, but I don't think that should prevent you from reading
it in front of me. Please read a clear thesis statement and contextualize your links (explain how the
other team specifically is linking to your K).
If you run a K-Aff or a Performance K, please spend time on framework/ROB. K-Affs should either
justify why they are not debating the topic or explain how they are actually being topical.
-------------------------------
IPDA/TPDA:
If both competitors agree prior to the round to wanting a 1v1 parli round, I will judge as such. If not...
Generally, I think your arguments should be understandable to a lay judge, and I think your
arguments should be well warranted.

You probably shouldn't run a K verbatim, but I am fine with impact-framing arguments that
accomplish similar goals.
Specifically, I don't think IPDA should have spreading, conditional advocacies, or theory outside of
actual abuse. I will intervene and vote against these strats if used.

James Laky - PLNU

Im a parli debater at heart but in my twelve years Ive dabbled with all four major styles we
practice in the PacSW region (IPDA/TPDA, NPDA, LD, BP)
Tl;dr: Give me impacts and tell me why they outweigh your opponent. If you dont, Ill have to
do the work and you might not like the results.
K Debate: I love a good K. Consequently, that also means I hate lazy Ks. If there are major
components like Thesis, ROB, or any unique solvency then it will be very easy for your
opponent to non-unique the link level of your K. Solvency is the most important area of the K
and the most historically undercovered. Tell me how to sequence the K against case and theory.
If you dont; Ill probably weigh them equally and it will be easy for your opponent to win on
probability. Winning framework wont guarantee a win if you lose the rest of your K.
Theory: As a competitor, I was a theory hack, but that doesnt mean Ill vote for you just
because you run a spec sheet. I default to reasonability unless you say the words competing
interps. I wont ignore RVIs but I have a pretty high bar for voting on them. I dont mind if you
run Theory as a time tradeoff but you shouldnt mind if your opponent calls you out for doing so.
MG theory is pretty much my favorite but it follows the same rules as theory out of the LOR
Case: Case debate seems like a lost art to me sometimes. Leverage your uniqueness, warrant
your links, and terminalize your impacts. I love the cross-application of arguments from one
sheet to another. I evaluate counterplans as an opportunity cost disad, and perms as theoretical
tests of competition.
Speed: I can track with speed and have no fundamental issue with it; however, I do have a
fundamental issue with debaters losing access to rounds, so if you can speed, great. But if your
opponent cannot, pay attention to that because I will be.
Impact Calc: Without impact calc, youre practically guaranteeing that I have to intervene in the
round in some way. I typically prefer probability to magnitude, but Ill vote on any calculus as
long as you give me reasons to prefer.
IPDA: While I typically find myself being a primarily tech over truth style judge, I understand
the purpose of IPDA is to be a more persuasive form of debate, so I will tend to be looser on my
expectations for mechanics (though not on my desire for a clean flow.) That said, if you tell me it
is a policy, you need to have a plan. With solvency. And advantages. Most of my ballots in IPDA
tend to come down to framing arguments. If youre telling me how I should vote and that youre
doing that thing best, youll probably win my ballot. I do not flow cross-x.
What I would like to see: Be creative and weird! I dont know what happened but when I was
debating, we ran advocacies based on Star Wars and My Little Pony and Starcraft and Lovecraft.
Ive won rounds on the argument that Finland doesnt exist. Im in no way saying you have to be
outlandish but please take the chance on running arguments in a way besides the most obvious
path.
Bottom line: debate is a game. Be gamey. But be fair and fun.

James Miller - Moorpark

n/a

James Miller - OCC

n/a

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Moorpark

I don't really like giving a philosophy because I think your education in this activity should not be limited/influenced by my preferences. I will adapt to the round and evaluate it based on the parameters set by the debaters. I'm not going to do any work for you----tell me where you want your arguments applied, weigh your impacts, stress where/why you are winning, etc. I value clash & accessibility in debate. Without accessibility, there can be no clash. I have no problems with speed or jargon, but please be courteous with your opponent (I probably won't clear you, but if your opponent does, you need to slow down.) Off-time roadmaps & a clear structure promote accessibility and make everyone's life easier. Just have fun & respect your opponent.

Jamie Scott - OCC

n/a

Jana Abulaban - El Camino

n/a

Janene Whitesell - Solano CC

I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:

1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.

2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.

3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.

4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.

5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.

6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.

7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.

8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?

9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.

Jason Tang - Clovis

n/a

Jason Baumwirt - LAVC

n/a

Jeannie Hunt - Utah

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

FLEX TIME - stop stealing flex and adding several minutes to each round. You should have a plan text, alt, CP text, interpretation - anything you know the opposition is going to want a copy of - written and ready to go. And flow, ask for it to be repeated when they say it, or let them know before the round starts what you will want in writing. I will not wait more than 30 seconds for you to write it out before I start flex.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything (except stealing flex).

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing, I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Jen Page - Cypress College

I am an educator and the Director of Forensics. I am also a former debater, platformer, and interper and have been a part of this community since the late 80s. I teach and coach all events. I love it all!

Just a few points: IPDA is not a version of Parli-LD or NFA-LD. The resolution in IPDA is what the debate should be about. Please do not turn IPDA into something it was not meant to be.

Please dont expect me to make arguments for you or draw conclusions. I judge based on what is said/happens in the round. Links, impacts, etc.... Articulate any abuse. Stock issues are important. QUICK road maps are appreciated and are not timed. Please be kind to your partner and to your opponents. Speaker points do matter if competition is fierce. Dont run T just for the sake of running it, in hopes that I may buy the argument. If there is no reason to run T (and/or you dont make the argument clear), it is a waste of your time. Running Ks...sure. But explain, justify, link, and dont use it as a strategy to confuse your opponents. Dont make assumptions that anyone else in the room has read the lit/info on your K. Clash in round is good. Speed...ok. BUT, if you out-spread your opponent, there is no debate, and I see this as a form of abuse in the round. (See previous comment about judging based on what is said/happens in round.). Dont call a point of order unless its an actual point of order! Remember the opposition block in Parli. Again, be kind, have fun, and tell me why you should win.

Persuade me with your arguments and logic, knowledge, humanity, wit, and sense of humor...just as long as you arent abusive to others in the round.

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.

Jim Dobson - LPC

I prefer to see debate rounds as something that a lay person could watch and think was cool. Rapid delivery, technicalities, and rude people are not what I am looking for. A lively and fun debate with good attitudes is what I will want to see.

If it looks good for general public speaking it should look good for debate.

Joe Hana - Saddleback

n/a

Joe Faina - (PSCFA)

n/a

Joel Lemuel - CSUN

n/a

John Symank - CUI

n/a

John Cho - IVC

First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
Next, clash is incredibly important. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think your points are better than the other sides'.
Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
Kritiks: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for it I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer
IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could definitely buy that argument.
Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

Johnny Tapia - Cal State LA

n/a

Jordan Kay - OCC

n/a

Jorge De Leon - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Joseph Evans - El Camino

About me:I have been involved in forensics for over 13 years including 7 years of coaching. I have debated in High School, College and I am now currently a full-time professor and Director of Debate at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of argument and impact prioritization. Thus, I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. Please feel free to ask me for clarification before the round!.

Framework/Role of the Ballot: I will evaluate and weigh the round through any framework that the Aff or Neg presents to me. I have no predisposition towards one specific FW because all frameworks can either be strategic or not depending on how its debated. In terms of evaluating competing FWs, I will only make my decision on how each are warranted and impacted out in round and will never insert my own beliefs. In terms of the ROB, I will weigh the ROB through the FW presented and if its not contested, this will frame how I evaluate the rest of the round. If no one tells me how to frame the round, I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the lens of utilitarianism (net benefits). When impacting out why you win a policy debate, please frame your impacts through lenses like timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversibility.

TLDR: Framework is important! You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and impact out why your framework is best.

Theory: I will evaluate theoretical positions the same as others. The interpretation will frame how I evaluate the position. You must have a clear description of how the debate round should have been constructed. Additionally, I will evaluate the interp/counter-interp debate based on the standards/impacts presented. I dont have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps you must justify why I should frame theory through either. If a teams decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them (unless there is conceded offense).

Counter Plans/Alts/Perms: I view counterplans or alternatives as a test of competition against the affirmatives advocacy. I believe that counterplans/alts can compete based on impact prioritization, functional competition, or (sigh) textual competitiveness. I have no predisposition towards one type of competition. Teams must justify why I should vote on the competitiveness or lack of in the CP or Alt debate. In terms of the perm debate, perms also tests of the competitiveness of the counter advocacy. In order to win the perm debate you need to justify and impact out why it outweighs the CP or alt. I am also open to theoretical reasons why the CP/ALT or Perm should be rejected in the round.

Speed: Go as fast as you want but please be clear! I have judged NPTE/NPDA finals and/or semi-finals the last 3 of 4 years so I will be able to keep up. However, if you are unclear, I will give you non-verbals or yell clear¢?. My priority is getting everything you say on my flow so sacrificing clarity for speed is not advisable. Additionally, I have voted on speed arguments a few times when teams use speed as a bullying or ableist technique. So be conscious of how you use speed within the round. If you can beat a team without going fast, its a win-win for both teams. You get the W and the other team has an educational/ teaching moment.

Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in most critical arguments, but I am not by any means an expert on critical theory. Therefore, if you are running something new or obscure, dont assume I understand the literature. Regardless of the K, I will listen how your frame, impact and weight the FW and Alt/Alt solvency. Additionally,

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Josiah Edwards - El Camino

n/a

Judit Young - SCC

n/a

Jules Brütsch - SDSU

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.

Kate Gerspacher - PLNU

n/a

Katya Azzam - SD Mesa

n/a

Kayla Mercure - Saddleback

Although my specialty is primarily in IEs, I have over 7 years of experience in forensics and debate.

I care most about quality of evidence and your arguments. I am particularly looking for strong LINKS. Don't force your judge/audience to do any of the work for you!

I do not appreciate spreading at all and I tend to drop those who do.

That being said...Be a good human! Be respectful! Have as much fun as you possibly can!

Kayla Cook - PLNU

n/a

Kevin Shufford - Maricopa

As a judge, I prioritize logically consistent arguments backed by real-world, tangible examples. I value clear structure and roadmaps, which help me follow the flow of the debate and understand each debater's position. I appreciate debaters who engage in rigorous analysis and provide well-supported evidence to bolster their claims. Ultimately, I seek to reward debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills, effective communication, and a deep understanding of the topic at hand.

Khushi Kumar - UCSD

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 the Director of Debate at SDSU. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.

FAQs:

What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
Can I spread?: Sure, just dont be abusive.
Can I reject the topic?: Probably! Do you know your own K? (If you cannot give an enthusiastic YES! To this question, think twice)
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?: The same rules apply from parli but give me a little bit more pen time because I am still figuring out how I feel.
How do you feel about IPDA?: Poorly. The closer it is to NPDA the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am. Do with that what you will.
How do you feel about TPDA? Please reject the topic and spread as fast as you can. The faster we can get TPDA to collapse, the better.
Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge?: I like to have fun silly goofy time in debate rounds. I also have carpal tunnel, 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 be writing down your oral feedback anyway.
If I ask you what your paradigm is before round, what will you say?: This exact sentence: Its on ForensicsTournament if you wanna check it out.

Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell

TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.

Speaks: 26-30 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.

Kyle Duffy - COC

Ive been judging for the past 8 years and mainly judge I.E. events. Thus, I look for a few key things when it comes to debate:

- Do NOT Spread. I dont consider this a sign of a well thought out argument. More information rarely helps. Choose the best sources and arguments you have. You wont always have time to say everything and thats ok.

- Do NOT speak quickly. A normal, conversational rate is always the most appropriate.

- Absolutely no personal attacks against your opponent. Be respectful.

- Do your best to signpost your topics and follow a logical structure. I do have difficulty following along at times, especially if pacing is quick. So help me out.

- No need for complicated theory positions.

- If you can insert humor into your debate, go for it!

- Please time yourselves. This allows me to focus on your arguments and not the clock.

- Most importantly, have fun and relax! Im friendly and I love to joke around.

At the end, I primarily judge based on two key areas: how well you convinced me that your argument is the correct one via your logic and evidence (how credible do you sound?), and second, your ability to persuade me via your emotional connection to the topic (they really moved me).

Kyle Rivkin - (PSCFA)

n/a

Laura Ortiz - PCC

n/a

Leane Hepburn - PLNU

n/a

Lily Tan - OCC

n/a

Lily Foltz - Cypress College

n/a

Linda Keel - UCSD

n/a

Lucas Vargas - Mt. SAC

n/a

Makenna Ma - UCSD

n/a

Marc Clark - PLNU

n/a

Mark Dorrough - Cypress College

n/a

Marnie Salvani - Mt. SAC

n/a

Matt Grisat - RioRunners

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! :)

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!

Michael Williams - PCC

I have participated and judged debate for awhile so I am okay with any style or strategy that the debaters use. As long it follows the rules of the debate format and is properly structured and articulated.

Michael Eisenstadt - CSULB

Michael Eisenstadt, Ph.D.

Director of Forensics, California State University Long Beach

12th Year Judging College Debate | 16th Year Judging High School Debate

2014 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year | 2018 "Top Critic Award" at the Las Vegas Classic (UNLV) | 2019 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year

For questions of any kind, please e-mail me at: michael.eisenstadt@csulb.edu

Tournaments Judged This Season (2023-2024): Jack Howe, CSUN

Updated 9-17-19

***I would like to be on the e-mail chain (m.stadt89@gmail.com, not my Tabroom e-mail).***

I will not necessarily read along with your speeches, but I would like to have evidence in the case that particular cards are disputed in cross-x and/or to make reading them after the debate concludes quicker.

This judge philosophy is just that, a philosophy. I think I have become more ambivalent to what your argument is over the years and more concerned with how you argue it. My job is to evaluate the arguments made in a debate, your job is to tell me why and how I should vote for them. Therefore, I think the following information is more helpful for you than me telling you what arguments I "like." This is your debate and not mine. Every day is #GAMEDAY and I will work hard when judging your debate, the same way I appreciated those who worked hard to judge my own.

An important meta-theoretical note: I believe in a 'healthy diet' of persuasion. I perceive there to be a serious problem with communication in competitive debate. Debates are won by important communicative moments (see below). Whether they are fast, slow, passionate, or hilarious, they must happen. I believe Will Repko has called these "Moments of Connection." Reading into your computer screen with no emphasis or clarity would make having such a moment extraordinarily difficult.

Debate is a communicative activity. This means that to win an argument a) I have to understand it and b) I have to hear it clearly enough to know it was there. At the end of the round, if we have a disagreement about something, usually a failure to achieve those requirements will be my explanation. Reading directly into your computer during your speeches and/or making no attempt at eye contact drastically heightens the risk of a miscommunication.

I am deeply concerned about the trend of evidence quality in debate. Teams seem to frequently read evidence that either fails to make a warranted claim OR that is highlighted down into oblivion. I think that a team who reads fewer, better (read: warranted) cards and sets the bar high for their opponents has a much better chance of winning their nexus/framing arguments.

Debate is what you make it.For some, debate is a game of verbal chess that is designed to teach them about institutional policy-making. For others, it is a place to develop community and advocacy skills for the problems and issues they face on an everyday basis whether at school, within debate, or elsewhere. I believe that one of the best things about this activity is that it can accomplish so many different things for so many individuals and it serves a variety of purposes. I think either or any of these approaches teach us the transferable skills debate can offer. No matter the arguments presented in a debate, I will always recognize this and will always support you for what you do. Over the years I have found myself voting fairly evenly for and against "framework" arguments because I will evaluate the arguments made in the debate itself. My ballot will never be an endorsement of one form of debate over another, it will very simply represent who I thought did the better debating.

Framework.In 1984, Dr. David Zarefsky famously argued, "the person who can set the terms of the debate has the power to win it." Generally, the 2NR that goes for "Topicality + Case D to Aff Impact Turns" is more likely to win in front of me than the 2NR who only goes for "State Good/Inevitable," though that is typically suitable defense on the case when the affirmative criticizes governmental action. The negative wins in front of me going for this 2NR strategy most often when it includes some combination of the following 3 arguments:

1. An interpretation supported by definitional evidence (that is ideally contextual to the topic). I am uncertain why negative interpretations like "direction of the topic" circumvents affirmative offense. These softer interpretations typically hurt the negative's ability to win the limits DA without much payoff. I have found that negative teams have a more uphill battle in front of me when the only term in the resolution they have defined is "United States Federal Government."

2. A Topical Version of the Aff and/or Switch Side Debate argument - I think of "framework" as the intersection between Topicality and argument(s) about how I prioritize impacts, which impacts should be prioritized, and what the best strategy for dealing with those impacts is. So, having a "counterplan" that plays defense to and/or solves portions of the case (and/or the impact turns) can be a good way to beat the affirmative. I find myself voting affirmative in debates where the 2NR did not address the affirmative's substantive offense (so, you did not respond to internal links to impact turns, address impact priority arguments, etc.). I also think this sets the negative up to make arguments about potential neg ground as well as a switch-side debate argument.

3. An impact - I have voted on procedural and structural fairness, topic education, and argument advocacy/testing impacts. Ideally, the 2NR will be careful to identify why these impacts access/outweigh the affirmative's offense and/or solve it. I think that debate is generally more valuable for "argument testing" than "truth testing," since the vast majority of arguments made in a debate rely on assumptions that "the plan/aff happens" or "the alternative/framework resolves a link."

Conversely, the affirmative should point out and capitalize on the absence of these arguments.

Presumption:This is a legal term that I think folks are often confused about. Presumption means that the affirmative has not met their burden of proof (sufficient evidence for change) and that I should err negative and be skeptical of change. Although a 2NR should try to avoid finding themselves with no offense, I am increasingly compelled by arguments that an affirmative who has not chosen to defend a(n) change/outcome (note: this does not mean a plan) has not met their burden of proof. For instance, an affirmative that says "the State is always bad" but does not offer some alternative to it has not overcome the presumption that shifting away from "the State" would be inherently risky. Of course, a framework argument about what it means to vote affirmative, or whether the role of the debate is to advocate for/against change factors into how I think about these issues.

Flowing:is a dying art. Regardless of whether I am instructed to or not, I will record all of the arguments on a flow. You should flow too. Reading along with speech docs does not constitute flowing. I am frustrated by teams who spend an entire cross-x asking which cards were read and requesting a speech doc with fewer cards. In the days of paper debate (I am a dinosaur to the teens of 2020), you would not have such a luxury. There are clearly instances where this is not uncalled for, but the majority of cases appear to be flowing issues, and not "card dumps" from an opposing team.

Permutations:I am almost never persuaded by the argument that the affirmative does not get a permutation in a "method debate." Permutations are mathematical combinations and all methods are permutations of theories and methods that preceded it. I could [rather easily] be persuaded that if the affirmative has no stable advocacy or plan, then they should not get a permutation. That is a different case and has a different warrant (affirmative conditionality). "Perm do the aff" is not an argument, it is not a permutation and says nothing about how a counterplan or alternative competes with the aff. I have also found that teams seem to have difficulty in defending the theoretical legitimacy of permutations. Although I would have an astronomically high threshold for voting on an argument like "severance permutations are a voting issue," such arguments could be persuasive reasons to reject a permutation.

Risk:I find that I am mostly on the "1% risk" side of things when a team has [good] evidence to support a claim. However, I can also beeasilypersuaded there is a "0% risk" if a team has made too much of a logical leap between their evidence and their claim, especially if the opposing team has also indicted their opponent's evidence and compared it to their own. This is especially true of "Link->Internal Link" questions for advantages and disadvantages.

Tech and Truth:If all arguments were equal in a debate, I would err on the side of truth. However, that is rarely (and should not be) the case. When there is not a clear attempt by both teams to engage in line-by-line refutation, one team tends to miss important framing arguments their opponents are making that undercut the "impact" of their truth claims. This understanding is distinct from "they dropped an arg, judge, so it must be true," since that is not a warranted extension of an argument nor is it a comparison that tells me why the "dropped argument" (how do we know it was dropped if we aren't debating line-by-line and making these comparisons? Could an argument somewhere else or on an entirely different sheet answer it?) should affect the way I evaluate other portions of the debate.

Other important notes:

A) I will vote for the team who I found to do the better debating. This means if your framing argument is "your ballot is political because _______" and I vote for you, my ballot isNOTnecessarily an endorsement of that politics. Rather, it means you won your impact prioritization and did the better debating, nothing more, nothing less.

B) I do not want to preside over accusations about what has or has not happened outside of the debate I am judging. In these situations, I will always defer to the arguments presented in a debate first and try to resolve the debate in that fashion, since I am often not witness to the events that are brought up about what may or may not have happened prior to a debate.

C) I am ambivalent about argument selection and theory and am willing to vote against my own convictions. E.G. I think the Delay CP is 100% cheating and unfair but I will not credit a 2AR on that position that does not defeat the negative's arguments about why the CP is good/legitimate or I think conditionality is generally good but would still vote that it is bad if the negative is unable to defend their 1NC strategy.

D) I am unwilling to "judge kick" a CP extended by the 2NR unless they have explicitly told me why I should. The affirmative should, of course, contest the claim that I can always revert to the status quo in the event that a counterplan is insufficient/unnecessary.

Michael Acuna - Mt. SAC

n/a

Michael Marse - CBU

I adopt a real-world policy-maker paradigm, which means:

I give leeway to either side to point out deliberate obfuscation and/or spread as a procedural voter.
I give leeway to the affirmative to argue that critiques/kritiks should be treated as disadvantages.
I believe the resolution has primacy, so unless the affirmative rejects the resolution, the negative has no ground to argue for the resolution by offering a topical counterplan.
Value resolutions should aim for clarity with arguments used in support of a side. Values can not, generally, become facts through argument.
Fact resolutions should rarely be argued since the required objective verification is difficult with no pre-written evidence allowed.
Affirmatives in a policy round should provide enough detail to allow the negative to make arguments, but are not required to provide absolute certainty. So, an expensive plan should generally state what the source of funding should be, or which types of programs will be cut to pay for the plan. Specific amounts and line items are not required.

I flow arguments, not responses. So, a claim of "no link" with no grounds will be ignored.

Ties go to the best arguments, and in the case of argumentation being close, the win will go to the best (most effective in a real-world scenario) delivery style.

Michelle Gironda - Saddleback

The one rule to rule them all: Dont be an asshole.

Background:

I competed in all forms of debate at Orange Coast College for 2 years before moving to Loyola Marymount University and competing in BP for a year. I graduated from LMU with a BA in Communication Studies in 2018.

IPDA Generalities:

I generally believe that this form of debate should be accessible to the lay judge/person-meaning: minimal jargon, no spreading, and no mini-parli rounds. This is a separate form of debate and I will be treating it as such. While I welcome some parli structures such as plan and solvency-the should be parsed in a way that stays accessible to a lay judge. This should be a way to persuade the audience/judge that your case is the better option to choose.

General Philosophies:

Please don't spread. If you speed up towards the very end of your speech, thats fine but please don't spend all of your constructive spreading-it will end in an immediate loss on the ballot. Kritiks are very seldom going to fly with me, this is especially true for IPDA in which I really dont ever see how a Kritik would apply-so if you do it better be the most well run and effective K you have ever done. That being said a K will not immediately lose you a ballot. In Parli, I fall under the tabla rossa ideology, however in IPDA I take this stance but with a more relaxed view-in that I take into account generally wide known things that any lay person would know about or understand and will use that information to help fill in some gaps. That being said-don't expect me to fill in your case with critical details and ideas. Any case should be fleshed out to include all critical details, examples and main points of argumentation/contention, and clear structure. Make clear any voting issues as such-voters. I want to see why your case is more important, more impactful, has more magnitude, etc. Impacts are huge for me-make them clear and understandable but also extended out. Give me a clear way I should evaluate the debate and make sure your case ties back to this. Think criteria and impacts linked to that, amongst other ways.

I tend to have what many friends have lovingly called a RBF, but I do tend to show my feelings pretty clearly with my face and nonverbals in round-use this. Part of the job of a good debater is to persuade and part of persuasion is taking into account your audience and how they are receiving what you are speaking about. This holds especially true for IPDA.

TL;DR: Make a clearly structured case without abusive arguments and spreading but with good impacts and be clear how I should evaluate the round. Use all tools of persuasion within ethical and regulatory boundaries. Don't spread. Don't make debate not fun or educational.

Miguel Tanjuakio - Mt. SAC

n/a

Mikayla Holzinger - 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.

Mike Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Mohamad Almouazzen - Mt. SAC

Experience: I completed for two years on the community college circuit in IPDA and Parli debate, taking both events to Regionals, State, and Nationals. My ideal debate round is most importantly respectful on all sides, and focuses on the clash of ideas! IPDA for me is not about the detailed refutation of every claim, but the overall argument of the two sides on the resolution. For Parli, I have one fundamental rule which is to never spread, there is most definitely a difference between spreading and speaking fast, but if I have to call clear you are speaking way too fast.

Naoimi Fobes - Moorpark

n/a

Natalie Kellner - LPC

I am an Individual Event judge. I value clarity of structure, specificity of examples & illustrations, preciseness of voting criteria, and (above all else) a delivery that enables ease of understanding for the listener. Avoid "debate speak" at all costs....I will not understand you, and if I do not understand you then you can not win the ballot. Civility is also of key importance. I will look at an IPDA debate as if it were an interactive Persuasive Speaking round: be clear, be organized, be understandable, be engaging. I can't be any more clear than that I think.

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.

Nathan Wensko - Clovis

My main focus in the area of all debates is to focus on how the debate is defined for each of its categories. I like to adhere to the guidelines presented for each format. So, Parli is Parli and has jargon, IPDA has some emphasis in delivery and sure be attempted with less jargon, NFA LD has priority of stock issues, and so on.

Beyond that, my philosophy is grounded in structure and clarity so that I can let the arguments do the work instead of myself and my perceptions.

The main focus within constructive speeches is looking at links, impacts, and solvency. I believe these to be highly persuasive elements.

In refutation, I look for the clear line drawn by the speaker from the point they are making and its relation to the point they are addressing.

In Rebuttal speeches, I do like to hear clear Voting issues and why they matter and a comparative approach to the status quo versus changing it.

Regarding Topicality and Kritik. I am open to these arguments; however, using them just to throw everything at the government is problematic for me. Essentially, there must be sound cause to introduce such arguments into the round.

Partner Communication should not be disruptive to the speaker.

Finally, I also enjoy seeing collegiality and community in rhetoric and language. I know that the heat of a debate can be invigorating and can be healthy, but if there are any ad hominem arguments, I will take this into account as a voting issue.

In any Individual Event, I am open to anything presented to me.

Nathan Anderson - Cypress College

n/a

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!

Navya Khurana - UCSD

n/a

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

I evaluate IPDA, like any other event, on a combination of content and delivery. Debaters should treat opponents, judges, and audience members with respect. Feel free to make any argument you feel can be persuasively explained to a general audience. Speed, jargon, and technical elements should be appropriate to a general audience. Everything said during your speech (such as roadmaps) should be on-time.

Nicholas Santamaria - CBU

n/a

Nicholas Thomas - CSU San Marcos

n/a

Nichole Barta - LACC

n/a

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the Director of Forensics at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching in PSCFA since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:

I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed that is faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will probably result in me understanding maybe 20% of what you are saying, which is not conducive to your chances of winning.
My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.
I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative (!) impact calculus, and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.
I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.
I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them.
My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
- Whining: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
- Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...
The affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.
I don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

Nicole Castro - Moorpark

n/a

Nina Menzagopian - OCC

n/a

Oli Loeffler - IVC

I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.

I think neg teams have ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.

Speed shouldn't be a problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down.

Oscar Martinez - UCSD

n/a

Patricia Hughes - RioRunners

When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.

When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters.

I am not a fan of K s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.

I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.

While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Paul Rufino - Mt. SAC

n/a

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: September 2023

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 spreading

- 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 director of debate 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. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

Phoebe Osterman - OCC

n/a

Ramal Johnson - UCSD

I focus mostly on structure, clarity, and strength of argument ind ebate and quality of performance in speeches. If a layperson can understand your arguments and follow your argument/speech, this is a major benefit. Spreading (speed reading) works against an individual/team in a debate. My main concern in debates is whether or not an argument is reasonable and supported with evidence that the opposition cannot overcome or struggles to overcome.

Ramon Nunez - Clovis

I tend to focus on argument construction and delivery. Also, how well can you defend your arguments through rebuttals and break down your opponent's arguments through refutations.

In addition to the above, I feel that delivery is key in presenting your case. Being confident in what you say, in and out of debate, carries a lot of weight.

In any Individual Event, I am open to anything presented to me.

Rebekah Symank - CUI

n/a

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.

Reyna Velarde - Cypress College

n/a

Rhiannon Lewis - CSULB

n/a

Richard Hu - Cal State LA

n/a

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 clear how you reached your conclusions.

River Mishow - OCC

n/a

Robert Campbell - UCSD

Head Coach, University of California Speech & Debate. Former member of the national championship teams at the University of Kansas. An ideal debate round involves organization of case and arguments, clarity, and clash (direct argumentation). I despise "spreading" (no auctioneer ever won an argument) and any Affirmative "K"s (debate the resolution).

Robert Montgomery - CSUF

n/a

Robert Hawkins - DVC

I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in LD and regularly judge Parli & IPDA. I am not big on complicated language. I am more impressed if a student understands the argument and can make adjustments to different judging pools. I would classify myself as LAY judge for debate, but I can hang with most rounds if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

As a debater, I competed in both NDT and CEDA, however, I left those forms of debate as a coach when I felt that they lacked any semblance of 'real-world' argumentation. I believe stock issues are labeled that way for a reason and I will weigh arguments around those issues heavily (even inherency on policy topics). I do not consider myself a 'games-theory' judge, nor do I consider myself purely 'Tabula Rasa'. I do not abandon my knowledge or common sense when I come into a debate round. This does not mean, however, that I am an 'interventionist.' I will only impose my thoughts/feelings into the round in the event that I am absolutely sure that arguments are erroneous.

One of the topline philosophies I bring to this activity is that I am an educator first and foremost. This means that if your approach to the debate undermines the educational experience for anyone in the round, it will probably result in a lost ballot for you. Additionally, behavior that would not be tolerated in an inclusive classroom will not be tolerated in front of me in the debate space. As a Director of Forensics I am also deeply concerned with the future of this activity, which requires the support of administrators that do not have a background in forensics. If your behavior in rounds is such that it would turn lay decision makers against the activity, that is a more real world impact calculus to me than any disad or theory shell I've ever seen in a debate and will be treated as such.

If I were to describe my philosophy, it would be that of 'a critic of argument.' This is to say that if your opponent drops an argument it does not necessarily mean that you win the round:

You have only won whatever persuasiveness the argument had to begin with. If it had a 'Persuasiveness Quotient' of 0% when it was issued then you have won an argument that is meaningless. If it was a good argument (a PQ of 80%) then the argument will have much more weight in the round.
Not every argument is a 'voter' and simply labeling it as such does not make it so. In fact, there are few trends more annoying than labeling everything a 'voter.' If you want me to vote on it, you need to explain why, in the context of this round, it is.

My first preference has to do with speed. I used to believe that I could flow 'almost' anyone. I am realistic enough to know that this is simply no longer the case. I'm out of practice and in my experience most of the time people do not speak clearly when they spread anyway. Additionally, most of the time spread is unnecessary. Bottom line, if you went too fast for me to flow it - I won't consider it in the round.

My second preference has to do with specific arguments:

Topicality - I DO believe that topicality is a relevant issue in NFA LD, Parli, and IPDA. I am tired of seeing Government/Affirmative cases that have little or nothing to do with the topic.
Kritiks - Most of the kritiks I have seen are interesting theory with little 'real world' relevance. If you're going to run it, make it real world. I find it hard to believe that a single specific language choice will destroy humanity. Additionally, while I understand the way K's function, do not assume that I understand the specifics of whatever theoretical framework you are using. Make sure you explain it thoroughly.
Resolutions - I believe there are three types of resolutions: fact, value, and policy - don't try to twist one of them into something else. Just debate it straight up.

My third preference has to do with behavior.

Ad Hominems are never appropriate and the use of them will be reflected in the points awarded in the round.
Don't ask me to disclose. If I wish to, and have time without making the tournament run behind, I will.

My fourth preference is that while I view IPDA as debate, it should not be Parli LD. IPDA was created with an attention to delivery baked in. I will respect that on the ballot.

Finally, if you have specific questions, ask me before the round.

Ronnell Evans - CSUN

n/a

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.

Ryan Serrano - RioRunners

n/a

Sabrina Pacheco - UCSD

n/a

Sabrina Olivas - Mt. SAC

n/a

Sarah Walker - NAU

Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University

Altogether, I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary Debate.

I have a strong background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed, technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however, I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier judge.

Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c) Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make your arguments clear.

2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items

(a) I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy, not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b) When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those dropped args.
(d) Evidence is evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat. Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan, rather than simply insisting that it can be done.

3) Clipping Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a decision after the review. While I understand why other people proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.

4) Topicality debates: If you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the interpretations of the T.

5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.

Sarina Wang - PCC

I have competed and coached debate so I am familiar with some jargon, but I do want competitors to treat me as a lay judge. Make sure you provide signposts, give clear arguments, and speak professionally and courteously.

Be kind & have fun!

Sean Nowlan - CUI

I've done Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and IPDA debate for three years competitively. I've read all manner of kritiks, theory, and case debate, so anything you read in front of me goes as far as kinds of debate are concerned. While I read a lot of kritiks around Settler Colonialism during my Sophomore year, that doesn't mean I want to hear them over and over if the arguments aren't going to be good. I'll highlight the most important no-nos.

THIS IS UPDATED FOR NPDA NATIONALS 2024. BOLDED PORTIONS ARE NEW/CHANGED AS OF 03/13/2024

In General-

Pessimistic Kritiks:

See kritik section, but with specifically pessimistic kritiks. I'm more prone towards voting for actions that build systems or have alternative systems of power rather than just tear them down. I am more prone to vote for optimistic kritiks than pessimistic ones; usually because I've rarely seen a pess kritik where tearing down systems doesn't make things worse for the groups it's trying to protect

Speed:

I debated fast and against fast debaters. Once you start exceeding 400+ words a minute I won't write down every single minor argument made.
If the other team shouts "slow," "clear," or "loud" please do so. Maximize accessibility for everyone. I am receptive to theory if the other team doesn't take reasonable steps to ensure accessibility.

Theory

Theory is more than a bunch of taglines, the taglines need explanations to matter. Don't just state a voter or a priori, state why it matters.

- I default to theory as a priori and weigh on the basis of competing interps unless otherwise told.

Case Debate

Love it. It's my favorite kind of debate by far, it's the whole reason I started debate was to argue about politics around the world

- Quoting Alex Li: Theory is often a copout. If you are winning case and theory, I prefer case, but do whatever is strategic.

- From monetary policy to Congressional bureaucratic minutiae to the environment, I love all kinds of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not a person predisposed to hating the United States or capitalism

- If youre going to say a person or policy is bad, you can't just call it right-wing, Republican, or conservative you have to actually explain why it's wrong or the material action a group takes to harm others. Terminalize your impacts.

- When it comes to case debates, I need warrants, and more often than not I'm constantly asking for people to specify/quantify in any way their impacts

Kritiks

Nothing makes me more excited on the kritik than to see links and impacts very contextual to the round/resolution.
If your alt has no impact, is not competitive, is generic, or is conditional; it makes me much less likely to vote for you on the basis of a kritik.

- Many kritikal alternatives I hear very easily can be argued to have no solvency or have solvency which actively makes the world worse; dont be afraid to argue against kritikal solvency.

- There are very good reasons to reasons to reject some topics, but usually I default to affirmatives upholding the resolution. You have to have good links to the topic, claiming that you need to run your affirmative kritik just because there is a structural problem with debate itself usually doesn't balance out against topicality theory in front of me.

Conditionality and PICs-

I voted for conditional advocacies and for PICS, and voted against them. There are theoretical reasons for and against both.
If you collapse to a conditional kritik, your solvency and the necessity of your advocacy are undermined by the fact you are willing to kick it.

Sebastian Chavez - El Camino

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

Shahin Shams - IVC

I debated for IVC for a few years. I’ve done NPDA, IPDA, LD mostly. I’m okay with anything in round if you give me a reason to believe it. I’m okay with speed but if me or anyone indicates “clear” I expect you to respect them in round and adjust the speed. Be respectful to each other in round.

Shawn Howard - UCSD

n/a

Sibi Sivaram - UCSD

n/a

Skyler Meador - IVC

I competed in community for two years in Parli and I can comprehend most arguments. I love debates centered around the resolution, but if you want to run something and feel confident, go for it. I will call clear if I can't understand you. I will flow kritiks, but make sure the link is strong and its topical. Don't run something just to run something. Respect for your opponents is something I take seriously. I flow what the speaker is saying, not their teammate. Sign post, especially in rebuttals. If you don't tell me where to put it you can guarantee it isn't going where you want it to. The winner of the round weighs heavily on overall clarity of arguments, well thought out impact scenarios, and overall respect for fellow competitors. Have fun, be organized, and show me good communication skills.

Stella Perez - UCSD

n/a

Stephen Hosmer - PLNU

Summer Bruneta - El Camino

n/a

Sydney Alexander - DVC

My specialty is in individual events, and that is most of my background when it comes to forensics. But, I enjoy watching, and judging debate events. When it comes to speed, I can keep up, so that's no problem. But if I slow you then please slow. I think organization in debate events is really important. Clear signposting throughout the round is a must for me. All things considered, please respect each other and have fun.

Tess Halbert - PLNU

n/a

Tim Seavey - SDSU

Vanessa Young - SCC

n/a

Vanessa Baba - Mt. SAC

n/a

Victor Wright - RioRunners

n/a

Vivian Huynh - OCC

n/a

Xavier Torres - Cal State LA

n/a

Yancy Duncan - LAVC

After 40+ years in Speech and Debate....

I want clear direct arguments, no silly games. I'm not going to assume anything for you, or draw conclusions without you leading me there. I prefer a sincere persuasive style over being blasted with 10 arguments trying to cover everything possible. Don't try to change boats mid-stream.

You'll happily take me as an IPDA judge - most other types of debate make me grumpy.

Zach Waters - Solano CC

HI, my name is Zachary Waters. I've been a competitor in forensics for over four years and coaching for one. I primarily judge debate rounds based on defining impacts and weight mechanisms, as well as the clarity of arguments over speed. Be nice to each other.

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)

Zaynah Robb - El Camino

n/a

Zihad Amin - IVC

Judging Philosophy

2 year community college debater. Competed at state and nationals. Open to everything. Prefer to see debate centered around the resolution. Will flow critiques, but need to make sure the link is clear and strong. Be respectful to your opponents. Partner to partner communication is acceptable, but do not speak for your partner. Will only flow what the primary speaker is saying, nothing that the partner says will be flowed. I have a hearing disability so try not to speak too fast and be clear. Extremely important to be clear so I can get as much of the argument as possible. Will default to judging rounds based on net benefits unless am told otherwise. Really enjoy impact calculus and the round will heavily be weighed on which side provides the clearest and most powerful impacts. I am willing to answer any specific questions debaters may have prior to the round

2023 PSCFA Fall Champs

Tournament Time: 10:12 AM Pacific

Judge Philosophies

AJ Moorehead - LAVC

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

Aaron Fullman - CSULB

Aaron Jaramillo - Mt. SAC

Abe Nesheiwat - Cypress College

Abigail Watson - OCC

Adri Young Toghia - SCC

Aekta Kallepalli - UCSD

Aileen Peres - Mt. SAC

Alex Tseng - PLNU

Alex Cadena - Cal State LA

Alexander Contreras - UCSD

Alicia Del Rio - Mt. SAC

Alina Van Eeghen - OCC

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

Allison Cooke - OCC

Alyssa Layne - NAU

Andrew Yllescas - CSUN

Andrew Morgan - DVC

Andrew Galey - OCC

Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa

Anna Clara Zeni - CBU

Ariella Reisner - UCSD

Arina Konnova - UCSD

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - SDSU

Ashlie De La Rosa - Moorpark

Ashlie De La Rosa - OCC

Ashton Poindexter - Utah

Augustina Estrada - UCSD

Averie Vockel - Utah

Bhaavana Ranna - UCSD

Bill Neesen - IVC

Blake Longfellow - CUI

Blake Togerson - PLNU

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brianna Hosmer-Laky - PLNU

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG:

Impacts:

Case Debate:

Disadvantages:

Counterplans:

Conditionality:

Kritiks:

Identity Arguments:

Theory:

Speed

Defending the Topic:

Speaker Points:

Caitlin Drees - IVC

Caleb Sutherlin - SCC

Carlota B. Price - Mt. SAC

Caroline Doan - Mt. SAC

Charles Root - Mt. SAC

Chelsey Barrera - OCC

Christiaan Pipion - IVC

Christina Romo - Mt. SAC

Cindy Gutierrez - Mt. SAC

Cindy Chanay - UCSD

Claire McKenna - OCC

Collette Blumer - CSUF

Damon Darling - Utah

Dani Silva - Mt. SAC

Das Nugent-Odasso - SD Mesa

David Cordier - UCSD

David Maloney - Mt. SAC

Delilah Marrocco - PLNU

Diana Laureano - RioRunners

Don Lundy - Moorpark

Don Lundy - OCC

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

Dulce Santana - RioRunners

Eduardo Pacheco - UCSD

Edward Minasyan - RioRunners

Edwin Ramirez - PCC

Eli Castro - Mt. SAC

Elise Fanney - Saddleback