FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

Aaron Wakashige - Biola

Adam Navarro - Cerritos

Adriena Young - APU

n/a

Alex Almaraz - Mt. SAC

n/a

Alexander Cadena - RioRunners

Background Information:

I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. I have experience judging policy while I was in graduate school. This is my third year of coaching forensics. I enjoy the spirit of this event and I am hoping to do so for more years to come.

How I evaluate rounds:

I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like filled and completed arguments. Do you have Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? I would like Plan texts and CPs to be stated twice. In the rebuttals, tell me what arguments to vote on and why they have greater importance than your opponent's arguments.

If you are running a K, please state the Roll of the Ballot and Alternative twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. For the times when it is K v.s. K debates, (I will question my life choices) I will try to vote on the most articulated position that is flushed out in the rebuttals. I am not a fan of spread. If competitors ask how I feel about spread, I will say Its hurts my head.

Topicality Theory Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. Do not expect me to fill in the blips of your standards and impacts. Im not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Ive been persuaded by a compelling RVI against that tactic in the past. (They made pretty smart argument which had no response.)

Some other comments:

Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to win a ballot. If you dont care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POIs are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals.

P.S. Flex-Time is NOT a designated CX period. There are still POI allowed in speech time, I am not a fan of this social norm where questions are only allowed in-between speeches! Also if you have time before your speeches, you should be pretty close to speaking by the time FLEX ends!

Alexandria Conway - RioRunners

Alexis Stefani - Biola

Alicia Batice - PCC

Alix Lopez - ELAC

n/a

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

Allison Doig - PLNU

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.

Alonzo Eldridge - SCC

Alyssa Betancourt - RioRunners

Analicia Avila - Compton College

n/a

Angel Cardenas - Mt. SAC

n/a

Anthony Anderson - CBU

n/a

April Bracamontes - Cerritos

April Joy Brizuela - RioRunners

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

Arturo Pichardo - RioRunners

Ashley Graham - El Camino

Ashley Johnson - Biola

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

THEORY/THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE - This is my bread and butter. If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and therefore debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well.

When reading fresh new and exciting theory I expect a concise interpretation, a clean violation and a distinct link to the ballot through things that should be prioritized in debate/life. If those 'things' are not fairness and education I'll likely need an explanation as to why I should care about this third priority as well.

Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you're buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just do it because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

Theory positions have differing layers of severity that adjust how I get to prioritize them when writing the ballot. This means that I want to hear arguments that suggest plan plus counterplans are justified when the AFF isn't topical or that MG theory is a bigger offense than topicality etc. Many of my ballots have been decided simple arguments that change the priority of certain theory over others.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

To newer debaters who have stumbled into a paradigm, during the other team's speech you are free to use the words "slow" and "clear" if you feel as though you cannot keep up in the round. If the other team does not acknowledge your request, you should make it an argument that you should win the round because the other team has not accommodated basic requests for an efficient debate.

If you are an older debater with lots of experience and debating a team with less experience, I expect you to know that speed doesn't win rounds. The teams that your speed drills will give you an edge over are teams that you could have beat going at their pace. Additionally, speed good arguments being weaponized as reasons to make a grab at the ballot are not compelling to me and I'll write on your ballot that you're a bully.

For the most part, I can handle your speed. Since my time debating at Long Beach I've not had an issue in any round over speed but I have CLEARed people. I will verbally notify debaters if I can't keep up.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. An older It could just be a difference in meta between when I debated and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

As a debater I read a fair amount of Derrida and Marx. As a student I spent much of my time writing on Derrida, Marx, Foucault, Baudrillard and most of the writers in the existentialism grab bag of philosophers. If you aren't reading direct copy pastes out of the Long Beach files that Fletcher sent around, it would probably be to your benefit to assume that you know more than I about the inspiration for the position you're reading.

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Free Stuff - If you don't have access to files from the old Long Beach Dropbox and would like them, tell me after round and I'll send them to you. Many teams have read positions from this collection of files in front of me, which I don't suggest doing (as they're old and other teams have access to them) however, they're great learning tools.

Ben Mann - Utah

They/them or he/him (gender non-binary).

tl;dr for prep time: I evaluate comparative access to comparative impacts. In other words, I will vote for the team that demonstrates to me that they best access the most important impacts in the round. Feel free to read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with in front of me, including advantages/disadvantages, counterplans, theory, Ks, performance-centered arguments, or any other arrangement inclusive or outside of these categories. I can efficiently flow fast debates, but will say SLOW¢ if youre speaking too quickly (generally not an issue) or CLEAR¢ if I cannot understand your words, regardless of your rate of delivery. I take my role as a critic very seriously and my goal in RFDs is to clearly explain how I reached my decision and offer suggestions in the role of an educator. I will disclose speaker points after my RFD if you ask me to, because I want to be held accountable for why I assign the speaker points that I do. If you have additional questions, feel free to contact me at benwmann@gmail.com

Everything below is more extensive and substantially less important.

---

Experience: this is my ninth year involved in NPDA debate (fifth year out of competing) and tenth year involved in forensics. I competed in NPDA debate on the national circuit for four years at Lewis & Clark College, coached NPDA for two years at University of the Pacific where I received my Masters degree in Communication, and am currently in my third year coaching NPDA at the University of Utah, where I am a primary NPDA coach and a Ph.D. student in Communication.

Things I like:

1. Strategic decision-making and collapse in the back half of debates.

2. Clear impact and warrant comparison in rebuttals.

3. Specific, well-developed link arguments.

Things I dont like:

1. Blips in constructive speeches that suddenly metamorphize into well-developed arguments in rebuttals.

2. Using speed and esoteric postmodern jargon for the purposes of excluding other teams.

3. Treating other teams/competitors poorly, especiallyif said competitors come from community/junior college programs and/or programs with limited resources.

Other notes:

1. My average speaker points are 27.5, and will go up or down from there.

2. Parli is not a textual event. I do not want copies of your advocacies. I dowant you to slow and/or repeat your advocacies or theory interps.

3. Call points of order if theyre close. Ill protect against blatantly new arguments.

4. MG theory is more in vogue these days, and Im fine with these arguments. I am, however, sympathetic to neg arguments telling me I should evaluate MG theory differently than other theory arguments because the block is the only chance to respond.

5. I prefer advocacy-based debates on policy resolutions, but I will listen to debaters/programs who want to engage in trichot-based rounds. If you engage in those debates, I would prefer that you give some sort of stable advocacy statement.

6. I think conditional Ks are often poorly executed, especially on the framework level. I am not opposed to you reading these arguments, but I am persuaded, for example, by two white people kicking a conditional Wilderson K probably being a link to anti-blackness.

7. My research areas pertain to disability rhetoric and disabilitys relationship to gender identity/expression. I do not see this being expressly relevant to evaluating debates, but I will call out ableism and disrespect for gender identity/expression.

8. Im autistic. I have next-to-no awareness of my affect, including my facial expressions, and I will probably give you little-to-no eye contact. Nothing personal.

9. I really, really do not care about the impact of my decisions on the community¢ for many reasons, in part because it would compromise my integrity as a critic, and in part because there is no debate community (Jordan & Stewart, 2017).

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.

Brianna Broady - PCC

1.What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate?

As a judge of primarily individual events, it is important that debaters are clear with their arguments. I am not opposed to any specific arguments as long as you provide clear evidence and warrants to justify your stances.

2. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?

Be respectful to each other and have fun in your round. Be sure to communicate with each other. Clearly respond to each otherÃ?Â¢??s arguments and engage in clash.

3. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?

I would say that I am open to any argument as long as it is well thought out and clearly structured. It is also crucial that arguments are fairly easy to follow along.

4. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?

I prefer speed to be at a conversational pace and for jargon and technical elements to remain at a minimum or clearly defined.

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.

Bryan Malinis - SD Mesa

What is your experience with speech and debate?

I have coached and judged 2-year and 4-year speech and debate since 2011. I coach all events: oral interpretation, platform, limited preparation, NPDA, and IPDA.

What does your ideal debate round look like?

An ideal debate round is one in which debaters perform with professionalism and respect. I do not condone distasteful or disparaging remarks made against opponents, nor insulting nonverbal behavior. Such behavior tarnishes your own credibility as a persuasive speaker. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Insults will result in me dropping you or your team. Above all, make me happy to be in your presence. Have a good time and I will, too!
For IPDA, treat me as a lay judge. I firmly believe IPDA is different from all other debate formats in that IPDA is intended for anyone. Do not treat this event like a Parli or LD round. Eliminate jargon. This is pure persuasion, as if we are all sitting at a dining table and each of you is trying to persuade me to take your side.

Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?

For NPDA/LD:
- I am stock issues all the way! I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-articulated by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. I am not a fan of Kritiks.
- Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate effectively. I have dropped teams in the past due to their lack of a CLEAR structure. Do not simply tell me that legalizing marijuana leads to dying children. Provide links, internal links, and impacts. Do not assume that I will make the argument/connection for you in my head. I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. Most important, give me clear voters.
For all debate types:
- Your delivery skills are unequivocally tied to my perception of your credibility and competence as a speaker. I pay close attention to your speech rate (breathe like a human), volume, pitch, gestures, posture, eye contact, etc. Since nonverbal communication comprises up to 90% of what we communicate, you must be mindful of all the aforementioned elements during your speaking time. I am comfortable with jargon and technical elements, though I am partial to a more straightforward, narrative debate style.
- I time everything: roadmaps, thanks, etc.

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)

She/her are my pronouns.

Update: K's with bomb links are my love language. K's with horrible links make me want to cry.

Update #2: I like learning new things. If I can learn something new about how the world works after leaving a debate I am stooooooooked!

Background:

This is my ninth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.

Specific Inquiries

1. General Overview

I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!).

2. Framework

This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case.

3. Theory

It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it.

4. Counterplan Debate

This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy.

5. Round Evaluation

Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally.

A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story.

6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things

I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Caleb Moore - PLNU

Ten things:

1. I did policy in high school and 4 years NPTE/NPDA style parli in college.

2. Speed is good but not everybody is fast. Don't exclude your opponent though because I WILL vote on a well-articulated speed position if there is genuine abuse.

3. I ran the K half of the time in my own rounds but I preferred reading the K over policy arguments all of the time.

4. If you read a K on the aff make sure you justify your framework, explain why there isn't a TVA, or read a criticism that is in the same direction of the resolution.

5. I love uniqueness debates. Your link is way less compelling if you don't have control of the direction of uniqueness.

6. Being overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise violent is a voting issue.

7. Read interps/counter-interps, plan texts, counterplan texts, AND/OR alternatives slowly and twice.

8. I value creativity. If you have a strategy you have always wanted to try but never knew if the judge was down¢?¦ I am down.

9. I have almost no hard opinions on what is legitimate in debate. That means that I am down to listen to most theory arguments. You do still need to actually win them though. I default to competing interps. I also take the wording of interpretations pretty seriously so make sure that the interp actually says what you want it to.

10. Terminal defense wins, but terminal solvency defense does not. A we meet makes theory go away, a no link makes a disad/K go away (assuming you win it). "The plan doesn't solve" needs to be coupled with some offense reason to reject the position.

Caleb Klubben - PLNU

ÃÃ?Ã

Caleb Gallegos - Mt. SAC

n/a

Casey Jones - RioRunners

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chris Bickel - El Camino

Chris Inclan - Mt. SAC

n/a

Christiaan Pipion - CSULB

Christian Pipion - Compton College

n/a

Christian Wimenta - Mt. SAC

n/a

Claire Crossman - Cal State LA

Cori Jones - Cypress College

Damon Lawson - El Camino

TLDR: Been doing this for quite a while. 7 years total in forensics. 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. Do what you want. At the end of the day, I'm judging on the flow.

Debate: My views on debate are very straight forward. I believe that 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 how debate has evolved over time to become this great source of competition, however I find it necessary to 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 all that being said, lets go into some specifics.

Speed: I am okay with speed most of the time. As a collegiate parliamentary debater, I as well as many of the individuals I compete with go rather fast. With that being said, I do believe that speed has a huge trade off. Sure, you can get out more arguments when you speak fast, however the quality and depth of those arguments can suffer. Furthermore, speaking fast often times has an adverse affect on your speaking ability and clarity. To put it simply, Clarity> Speed, everyday. Next, I am a Hard of Hearing individual, so if you are speaking fast and mumbling, I probably cannot understand you, and will call you to clear. If that happens its probably a key sign to either slow down or enunciate.
T: Yes, do it, love it. *okay hand sign emoji*
Kritik: Kirtiks can be awesome... if done right. Please make sure you understand the arguments you are trying to run. I will be the first person to call you out if you try to read some neolib argument you don't actually understand.
Timing: Please time yourselves.
Partner Communication: Sure, don't puppet your partner, and don't be loud and distracting while your opponent is speaking

Daniel Zaragoza - PLNU

Daniel Gilchrist - UCI

I've done a combination of parli and Lincoln-Douglas debate for seven years, but this was nearly entirely lay tournaments. As a result, I strongly recommend avoiding spreading, as I will likely not be able to flow crucial arguments (though I will make every effort to).
I'm fine with both T and K, but it's crucial that you tell me where and how to vote. Related, T and K should be structured as T and K for me to flow it most easily.
K framework should be reasonable and offer ground to both debaters; I am not likely to vote for the alt "Reject the aff" by itself.
In events with Points of Order, I expect the debaters to protect the flow; in events without, I will.
I'm pretty lax with humor and rudeness in round (especially C-X or Points of Order), but if it elevates to a personal attack, I'll start taking off speaks. That said, I don't see a reasonable debater losing a round because they were too rude.

On all other matters, ask me before the round or make your case in the round.

Daniel Monroe - Biola

I currently debate in open and think that debate is an educational game.

1. I personally do not speed but can understand speed usually. If you speed too fast then I will tell you to slow down.

2. K debate is where the league is but i prefer policy debate. If you run a K make sure it is warranted and not just some canned K that barely links. Obviously if the other team undercovers your canned K then you'll win the k, but not essentially the round. Tell me how the k interacts in the round.

3. In the rebuttal tell me how you win the debate. Give me the way in which to view this round.

4. If you run procedurals you need to tell me their are a priori. This is because if you run more than one I don't know which one to look at first.

5. please impact calc the heck out of your debate round.

6. Theory debate is cool and needed sometimes.

Danny Cantrell - Mt. SAC

Debate should be presented in such a way that a lay audience can understand the arguments and learn something from the debate. In general, debaters should have strong public speaking, critical thinking, and argumentation. Don't rely on me to fill in the holes of arguments or assume we all know a certain theory or argument -- it is your burden to prove your arguments.

Darron DeVillez - Palomar

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 Rehm - SCC

n/a

David Sonnenberg - OCC

Dawne McClure - CUI

Dawson Khoury - Mt. SAC

Judge Philosophy

DeRod Taylor - ELAC

n/a

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Though I am known as a dreaded "communication judge" which is code for "she has no idea about debate and wouldn't know a kritik if it dropped on her head".....I actually love debate, and have judged it over the years. I appreciate well-read teams: meaning I am up on current events. Speed doesn't win my ballot, unless it is executed in such a fashion that the speaker isn't stumbling over themselves to spread their opponent out of the room with ten off case positions. I appreciate clarity, labeling, and solid argumentation. I am judging only IPDA now, which means, this debate should be run before a lay judge without the demonstration of debate jargon, technical prowess, or extreme speed necessary/popular to win a parli debate. I appreciate competitors that are professional both in round towards their opponent, and out of round post debate. You will win my ballot on both content and presentational style. I am a firm believer that the competitor not only represents themselves, but their entire team and coaches that put heavy instructional time into them. In essence, make this round count. I will be most appreciative of your efforts.

Donna Eissoh - Biola

Dorri Mang - CSULB

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.

Dylan Gray - Mt. SAC

n/a

Eddie Ayala - Cerritos

Elizabeth Kravchuck - PLNU

Elizabeth Rivas - Biola

Emilly Shaffer - NAU

Emily Sandoval - RioRunners

Eric Garcia - IVC

Erin Roberts - OCC

Euni Kim - Utah

My debate background is in British Parliamentary, which means a couple things:
1. I dont like spreading, period.
2. I like when debaters debate the topic, which means Ts should only be for when the aff is non-topical, theorys a pretty hard no, and Ks should be at your own discretion.
3. You should be actually making arguments. Theres nothing persuasive or smart about fancy jargon and/or buzzwords.

In closing, a quote/reminder by someone smarter than either of us:
Be excellent to each other.¢ - Michel Foucault

Fernanda De La O - APU

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. :/

Gabby Kaufman - PLNU

Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners

I debated NPDA and NFA-LD. In IE's, focused on Limited Prep and Platforms, minimal personal experience in Interps. Been coaching forensics speech and debate for the last 15 plus years.

You matter, your opponent matters, your speech matters, truth matters, rules matter, I matter. I refrain from interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also, hurting, kicking, and just violence in general, I frown upon)

In all forms of debates my guiding principle aside from fairneness, consideration and humility will be the official rules of the event. Although I might disagree with some of the rules, untill they are changed, I will abide by the existing sets.

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any students. Do not isolate, offend, or make your opponent feel less than wonderful human beings and students that they are. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attacks and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments and not a bully pulpit to bash fellow students.

I prefer good On Case/Off Case. Be aware that procedurals force judge intervention. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. If you are running a CP, you give up presumption. You take upon yourself same burdens as the Aff. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete.

I firmly believe that speed kills, "DO NOT SPREAD" as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything.

I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.

Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

On IPDA. It is a stand-alone debate. It is not Parli Light, it needs logic, anlaysis and persuasivness, which means for the duration of IPDA round I do not speak Parli. Make your arguments conversational, logical and devoid of lingo that has no place in this event.

On NFA-LD. Its stock issues and spread delivery is antithetical to this event.

Greg Gorham - GCU

Hailey Byerly - CUI

Hannah Haghighat - OCC

In debate, I want to see clash! The worst kind of debates happen when it results in 2 ships passing in the night. Make sure you have impacts and clash! I will vote a lot of times based off impacts so provide them and have solid voters in your rebuttal speeches. Make sure you have clear structure and signpost.

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. Be kind and respectful towards one another. I prefer good on case argumentation over procedural arguments that are run in order to avoid on case analysis. However, if you do feel as though the opposing team is being unfair to you, or ran something that warrants a procedural argument I will accept it. If you are running a procedural argument make sure you run it properly and respond to it properly.

Also, part of being a good debater is in presenting arguments in order to be persuasive, so make sure you are not spreading and speaking too quickly. That is not persuasive! Talk like a human. I do prefer that you stand while speaking, just like you would during a speech. When it comes to partner to partner communication, if it is your team member that is speaking I am okay with it, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches, pass notes instead. Ultimately, I want to experience a fun, constructive, and respectful debate.

Hector Pacheco - Mt. SAC

n/a

Hillary Phillips - COC

n/a

Holland Smith - Cal State LA

Isaac Boateng - SMC

n/a

Jackson Spencer - Cal State LA

Jake Strader - Mt. SAC

n/a

James Shotwell - PCC

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.

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.

Jared Kubicka-Miller - SCC

I have been competing in, or coaching forensics for more than 20 years. I specialized in NPDA and limited preparation events, but I competed in most events, and I have coached them all. Since this philosophy is primarily for debaters to reference, I believe that any debate must start with a good faith effort to identify an issue that is fairly debatable. I consider it my job to judge who are the better debaters, not who is right. If I know you are factually wrong about an issue, I will only make that a part of my decision if your opponent points it out.

For the affirmative. It is not uncommon for debaters to mistake exclusionary practices as cleverness. I encourage unorthodox, and unpredictable approaches to topics, but I consider it a sign of weakness if debaters disregard a debate topic in order to introduce a "safe" case that they have practiced numerous times before. if you happen to get a topic that you are familiar with, good for you. But, I will give your opponent's a lot of latitude if it seems like you are using the privilege of speaking first as a way to revoke access to legitimate negative arguments.

For the negative. If you feel that your opponent is unfairly limiting access to the debate activity, it is not enough just to accuse them. There must be proof to back up the accusation. In other words, I expect you to explain the arguments you believe are legitimately, and exclusively afforded to the negative. And, by explain I do not mean to just give me a title of the argument, I expect a complete description. it should be clear how your arguments address the heart of the matter, and not just what you hoped to talk about.

Above all, I have little regard for debate tricks that have zero application outside of a round. Make sure you prepare arguments that are genuine, relevant, accurate, and rational. Do not rely exclusively on offense. Incorporate strategic defensive arguments and use them to mitigate your opponent's points. I rarely see debates won on 100% offense. Credibility matters, and might be the difference in a close round.

Jared Morrison - Mt. SAC

Jared Kubicka-Miller - SCC

Jasmine McLeod - Mt. SAC

Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means

clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow.
no spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you!
you are courteous to your opponent.
you make it clear why I should vote for you.

Excited to see you all debate!

Jason Jordan - Utah

*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine.

*make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or be.

*Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Jay Arntson - PCC

This judging philosophy only pertains to parliamentary debate. I perceive my role as adapting myself to the sort of round the debaters would like to have more so than debaters adapting to me. I will pretty much entertain any argument a debater wishes to advance. I typically see debate as a game rather than a requirement to relec the so-called real world.
I don't mind debaters being assertive but needs to be balanced with empathy and compassion. I believe language has power and ebaters should own the implications of their rhetoric.
The argument I vote for will only be the one the debaters in the round assert an not one of my own. My RFD will always be specific to an argument the debaters made in the round. I am fine with debaters kicking arguments. In-round abuse is easier to vote for than potential abuse. I am willing to vote on any procedural or kritik/project. I am comfortable with debate theory.
I will adapt to whatever speed the debaters choose to have. Please adjust to debaters with disability concerns. I am familiar with flowing speed and understanding technical jargon. I have judged debate for 10+ years in a variety of formats (policy, parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, etc.). I graduated from UC Berkeley as a double major in Philosophy and Rhetoric. My Masters is in Communication Studies from Cal State Long Beach. I have been a debate coach for 12 years.

Jedi Curva - ELAC

n/a

Jeff Samano - Fullerton College

n/a

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.

Jessica Kwack - SMC

Jimmy Gomez - OCC

Debate philo: Speed is not good. Be respectful of each other, but some lite cattiness and shade is always fun. Focus on arguments rather than the peripheral stuff. We are here to debate not to win on technicalities. I time road maps, sis so you better get in to it.

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joe Faina - LAVC

My judging philosophy is straightforward: I base my decision on who makes the best overall arguments in support of their side. Preponderance of effective argumentation.

Joe Anderson - ELAC

n/a

Jonathan Veal - PLNU

Hello friends,

I have been coaching college parli since 2016 and competed in the activity previously.

Case debate/Policy: I really enjoy case debate. I am particularly persuaded by positions that interact with the uniqueness of the topic. DAs that are bottom heavy or generic can work but are vulnerable to MG non-unique and link arguments.

Theory: I default to competing interpretations. I tend to hold MG theory to a relatively high threshold due to lack of backside rebuttals, but see it as a check against particularly abusive neg strategies. I will go either way on condo depending on the argumentation in the round, but I tend to vote aff on delay/consult theory and when the neg reads multiple advocacies.

Critical Debate: Love it. Aff Ks need to either interact with the topic or present strong reasons for not doing so. I really like to see topic oriented-debate if possible. Accessibility is key, so I will not fill in the blanks on K authors even if I am familiar with them. Explain your Thesis/Solvency in a way that can be understood by the other team. Links of omission/generic links tend to be iffy for me. Show clear links.

Speed: I will listen to speed procedurals if the other team does not respond to clears and the team reading the position is clearly losing access to participating in the round. Speed is both strategic and lacks a bright line, but that is not an excuse to push people out of debate.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Some side notes

- Be cool to your opponents. Seriously, I consider this important enough to influence my decision in extreme instances.

- Provide a plan/CP/interp/perm text if asked. Perms with clear texts are preferred.

- Read trigger warnings if you are in doubt.

Jonathan Tran - Mt. SAC

n/a

Jordan Kay - SCC

n/a

Jordan Kay - SCC

n/a

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 Vannoy - GCU

Joshua Vannoy - Grand Canyon University

Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. 4 years of coaching at GCU, one as ADOD and three as DOD. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood, Bear Saulet, and Amanda Ozaki-Laughon have all been large influences in my debate career.

General:

Debate is a game. There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make.

- One question should be answered during each constructive. (Flex can make this semi-optional)

- Partner to partner communication is cool, but if you (the speaker) don't say the words I won't flow it.

- Be friendly

Theory:

Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All interps should be read slowly twice, or I won't be able to flow it. I do not need articulated abuse. Competing interps is my go unless you have something else. I most likely will not vote for you must disclose arguments.

Case:

If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg. If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say "poverty" without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you.

Performance:

So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not "perform" anywhere else then there may be an issue. I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. In your performance never do harm to yourself or another competitor.

The K:

All K's should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces is missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better). The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates. I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K. I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is; name-dropping means nothing to me unless you explain the idea.

Non-topical Affirmatives:

After four years of seeing many non-topical debates as a judge, I have become more open to hearing them without much justification needed to reject the topic. With that being said I am still compelled and convinced by FW if ran effectively on the negative.

CP Theory:

Is condo bad? Probably? Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this one of the arguments that stuck with me. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate).

Never run delay.

50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so.

Pics are awesome if done well (Does not mean PICS bad is also not a good argument), and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice. If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down then what I wrote will be what I work with.

Permutations:

I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1-2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 3-8 perms. If your perm does not solve links to the DA's/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition.

Speaker Points:

I have found that I have a pretty routine pattern of speaker points; I generally give out 26 -29.5 depending on how well the debaters perform. With the 26-27 range being debates that usually are more learning experiences for the debaters, while the 28-29 range is usually for the debaters who do not have as much technical work and have very competitive performances. Jokes and making debate fun is always a safe way to get higher speaks in general. I also have found that the more hyper-masculine an individuals performance is, especially directed towards the other team, the lower my speaker points go for that individual.

Josh House - Cypress College

Juan Guerrero - RioRunners

Julia Shotwell - PLNU

Debate however makes you comfortable, but don't sacrifice clarity because I still need to follow along, and also don't forget to tell me how to evaluate the round. I really value the rebuttals to analyze the important arguments and voting points in the debate. Don't be rude to me or your opponents, because that makes debate uncomfortable for everyone.

I'm fine with critical arguments and theory, but I need you to still explain yourself so I don't do work for you. The way you interact with your opponents' arguments and apply offense throughout the debate is probably something I'll pay attention to. Read 'important' arguments twice/clearly: plan texts, interps, etc. I'll call speed if I need to I guess. I have experience debating parli for four years and now I'm coaching at PLNU.

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.

Kara Sutton - SDSU

Hi all,

I have competed in forensics in both policy and parli. I will vote for anything but you have to tell me how to. Articulate clear framing of the round and have analysis and weighing between impacts of neg and aff is the clearest path to a ballot. I am inclined to vote on the flow regardless of how weird argument. and I appreciate organized response orders. your link/impact scenarios should be clearly articulated.

Speed: I can *generally* keep up, but please be accommodating to other debaters/judges.

Procedurals: down for procedural debates, just situate the arguments/your interp in how/why i should vote.

K: Down for kritiks, explain your framework well and don't assume i/competitors know what you are talking about/what literature you use. Links should be specific and clear, please repeat your perm.

Be a nice person to everyone in round please!

Karen Bagoumian - LAVC

Kasim Alimahomed - Cypress College

5 years college debate, 3 years as a graduate assistant coach, coached 3 college teams and 2 high school squads. I have voted for everything and anything; tabula rasa. Can't wait to see you debate!

First, be nice. I love a good debater who destroys another debater with grace and humor as opposed to someone who tries to brow-beat someone into submission.

Second, procedurals. If you are running anything "above the gameboard," I am more likely to vote on it if it has some form of abuse, and I love it when a debater tells me how they lose ground in the round itself. I was a big K debater back in the day, but I really love a K debate if someone has some kind of discursive implication that links to in-round advocacy. Spec and plan vagueness debates are nice, but please try to implicate where your disad ground gets harmed because of funding or an agent. I am pretty old, and I have been known to "pull the trigger" on old stuff like J.

Counterplans are great, and I will listen to them all. I think CPs are better if they are non-topical and mutally competitive, but I will listen to them all. The more you stray away from the fundamentals of CPs, the more room the other side has to permute you.

I still love an old disad debate, I still teach students to run a T to link into a disad. I am perfectly fine with hearing a nice old "traditional" neg strategy.

But remember that the round is yours, this is your advocacy, not mine. Run what makes you feel feel heard and what you think will win rounds. If you implicate it, I will vote for it!

Kathy Ngo - Mt. SAC

n/a

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

n/a

Kayla King - PLNU

Kayla Cook - Biola

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kelly Pena - Mt. SAC

n/a

Ken Carrell - Cerritos

Ive been a judge for previous debate tournaments before and have been teaching public speaking and argumentation for 10 years. During debates, I like to know that the debaters understand how the burden of proof works and is established early into the rounds, as well as how it plays a key role in the unfolding of the debate.

Kevin Guzman - RioRunners

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

I am not a debate coach, but I teach and understand argumentation. Communicate effectively, lay out your arguments clearly, and tell me why you won. Passion in your performance is always a plus, just be respectful of your opponent.

Kevin Garcia - Mt. SAC

n/a

Kiefer Storrer - Maricopa

Competed 4 years high school Policy, 4 years college parli. Took a year off, judged, then helped coach a comprehensive program in Grad School. Currently in my 2nd year of head coaching, 3rd year of professional coaching. I think debate is whatever you want to make it. It can be a game or a really good platform of advocacy, so I'm pretty supportive of like, inclusive arguments, theory, projects, etc. Speed is fine but especially in Parli give me clear tag lines. You don't need to read DAs to prove abuse on procedurals, just explain to me args you missed out on. Umm. Don't kick offense, please. I like clash and impact calc unless you are warranting out other places I should be specifically voting. Good luck, have fun; don't be a dick.

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).

Laura Tabah - CUI

Marc Ouimet - SDSU

marc ouimet - SDSU expectations: debate is a game. you will try to employ a winning strategy. do what you want. teams will play relatively nice. people will avoid making inherently reprehensible arguments. preferences: speed is fine, i will ask for pen time if i need it. if you have a rebuttal issue, feel free to call it, but also youll probably be able to read my non-verbals about how im feeling regarding an argument but i find 9 times out of 10 the objection is irrelevant. theory specifics: condo, multiple perms, whatever sneaky stuff you want to do is probably fine if you can win it. please accommodate the other team if they ask you to slow down. theory, solvency, links, and impact framing should all get particular. i tend to be a stickler for solvency. performance, narratives, and most flavors of the k are cool but please know the second lines of your lit, because generic parli blips on interesting questions make them uninteresting. about me: competed 2 years Palomar, coached 4 years Palomar, competed 3 years Beach, coached 2 years Beach. presently coaching for San Diego State. i liked to get weird and not have the same debate every time so gestures of creativity are highly appreciated but not required.

Marcos Santos - PCC

For individual events, I look for how well rounded the performance is with regards to content and delivery. If itÃ?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?Â¢??s close, I usually give the advantage to the most engaging speaker. For debate, I simply give the advantage to the more persuasive and logical arguments that are presented in a clear and digestible manner.Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?Â

Maritza Gonzalez - Mt. SAC

n/a

Mark Crossman - El Camino

Mark Dorrough - OCC

Marquesa Cook-Whearty - Palomar

Matt Grisat - RioRunners

Matthew Grisat - CBU

n/a

Melinda Womack - SCC

n/a

Melinda Womack - SCC

n/a

Melissa Moreno - MSJC

Michael Dvorak - GCU

Michael Moran - RioRunners

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.

Michael Middleton - Utah

A Quotation:

"The present situation is highly discouraging" -Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari

A Haiku:

Debate is Awesome

Judging Makes Me Cry Softly

Do I weep in vain?

Some things to consider (when debating in front of me):

10. I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion

9. I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me. You will like it less if you don't. On the other hand, I will like it more.

8. I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures.

7. I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don't explain/provide a rationale for why your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate.

6. I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team.

5. I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument. Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy.

4. I am a participant in the round also. While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points.

3. Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time.

2. Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn't really equal anything.

1. Debate is not life. Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity. I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this.

0. Have Fun

Michelle Gironda - OCC

Michelle Little - Cerritos

Mike Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Monica Roldan - Cal State LA

Monica Olvera - Mt. SAC

n/a

Myhanh Anderson - ELAC

n/a

Natalie Lu - Mt. SAC

n/a

Natasha Calidung - El Camino

Nate Brown - SMC

Parli: I dislike spreading and speed in general. This event should develop desirable communication skills like any other. Speed is not good communication. I will not flow it and will vote against it.

Speaking points are about delivery skills, not about arguments. Be a good speaker to get high speaker points. Eye contact, gestures, vocal fillers, etc.

Everything is on-time. Road maps, introductions, ingratiations are all part of your time. Flex time is the opportunity for the next speaker to get ready. The next speech time will begin immediately at the end of the previous flex time. Partner communication should be minimal and should not interrupt the natural flow of a debate. The sitting partner should not interrupt the partner who is speaking unless necessary. And even then, not in the middle of their sentence.

IPDA: I shouldn't hear any NPDA jargon in IPDA. This is debate for a public audience and a lay judge. Arguments should sound and feel conversational. Delivery style (speaker points) should be much more appealing to a lay audience than in any other Forensics event. This is an event that values research and citations, so I should hear some clear source citation.

LD: Keep it slow for me. I can't follow speed.

Nate Brown - SMC

Speaking points are about delivery skills, not about arguments. Be a good speaker to get high speaker points. Eye contact, gestures, vocal fillers, etc.

LD: Keep it slow for me. I can't follow speed.

Nate Wensko - OCC

Nicholas Thomas - Palomar

n/a

Nicholas Solis - Mt. SAC

n/a

Nichole Barta - IVC

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.

Nick Barajas - APU

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.

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.

Patrick Von Hanzlik - SMC

n/a

Raffaela Baker - Saddleback

n/a

Ralph Castellanos - SCC

IPDA: every argument should be digestible to a non-debater. Speak with eloquence and linguistic style. Cases should be organized in a manner in such a way that flowing comes with ease. Make it substantive but keep it simple. Cite your sources. Analyze the round. Winning my ballot means you gave an articulate analysis of the round in your rebuttal speech. In regard to evidence, a strong metaphor or narrative moves me more than a statistic.

NPDA: Be respectful. Be assertive but not aggressive. Be organized. Be easy to flow. I don't really vote for hypothetical examples and futuristic technology that doesn't exist. CP's should be non-topical. Res is the AFF's ground. Plan text matters. Cross-applying everything isn't enough. Link to your impacts. Articulate your impacts. Give impact analysis in rebuttal speeches. Explain how you outweigh. Give me explicit voters. Be engaging. I am not good with speed, you will lose me. I am happy to answer pre-round questions about how I jude.

Ralph Castellanos - SCC

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.

Rob Loy - SMC

Robert Loy - PCC

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt. SAC

n /a

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.

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 Reid - El Camino

Sam Jones - PLNU

Samal Senaratna - El Camino

Samantha Thomas - CBU

n/a

Sarina Wang - CSUN

Scott Elliott - KCKCC

Sean Connor - 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. Otherwise, I'm happy to give critiquesafterthe round is finished,aftermy 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.

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

Shannon Yong - PCC

Shannon Ustariz - Mt. SAC

Shaunte Caraballo - IVC

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shawn Briscoe - Maricopa

The first thing debaters seem to ask: what is your debate backround:
- HS: Debated (policy) for Nevada HS on the lay judge circuits of Missouri in the early 90s.
- College: 4 years of CEDA at the US Air Force Academy during the CEDA/NDT re-merger.
- Coaching: Was a volunteer coach back in MO for a couple of years right after college. Entered the professional world of coaching in 2003 at Ft Walton Beach HS (national circuit), from 2007-2012 at the University of Alaska Anchorage (worlds-debating circuit/British Parliamentary), from 2006-2013 in at South Anchorage HS (primarily lay/traditional circuit of Alaska with brief ventures onto the nat circuit... continued as a volunteer through 2015), from 2013-2018 as the Program Director of the St Louis Urban Debate League, and from 2018-present as the Regional Coach for Maricopa Community Colleges.

The vast majority of this is for Policy Debate, because that's where I spend the most time judging. This, obviously has nothing to do with how I judge BP/WUDC, and to a lesser degree formats like LD. If you have questions, I'm happy to chat.

Cliff Notes Version (expanded explanations below):
- Default Paradigm: Policymaker
- Speed: Fine... but not necessary. Slow & smart can easily beat fast & mediocre.
- Clarity: A Must... If I can't understand you, it doesn't make my flow. Not on my flow, it can't impact my decision.
- Cards/Analytics are more important to me than tags & sources of them.
- Please signpost clearly.
- Ks: Run at your own risk. Good critical teams can easily win my ballot, but many run them as non-unique DAs and/or don't understand what they are reading.
- PICs (of the topical & non-comp variety): Ditto previous comment. Strategically, I don't really
understand why the Neg would choose to affirm the rez.
- Theory: I'm game.
- Multiple Worlds: Weird. Lazy. Strategically Awkward. Confusing.
- Performance: I'm an advocate with caveats...
- Generic DAs: Useful & appropriate. (Specific links, obviously, make them better.)
- CPs: Can be great if the round warrants it. (Conditionality? Dispositionality? See Theory.)
- Defense: A solid defense can beat an offensive position. However, offense wins rounds.

If you would like a more detailed philosophy, enjoy… It's getting lengthy, but I find really good teams want to know as much as possible about their judges' starting point.

I call myself a "modern policymaker." I prefer hearing debate in a policymaker framework; thus, that is my default paradigm. I do not hold pre-conceived notions over the acceptability of substantive arguments (unless it's offensive). It is possible to mold me into a different paradigm. However, it is the responsibility of the debaters to explain why my "view" is being shifted, along with "how" I am supposed to evaluate the round. If you don't explain, I will evaluate them within the context of my own understanding (using the policymaker perspective).

Speed: Sure. I enjoy (prefer?) fast rounds. However, clarity is key. If you try to speak more quickly than you are capable, many judges cannot flow you. It is extremely rare for a debater to speak faster than I can flow; however, many debaters do not speak clearly enough for me to understand them. (I've sat behind many judges who do not ask you to be clear, but also aren't flowing your speeches. It is in your best interest to be clear.) Also, I don't believe that debate rounds have to be fast. I also don't think that a fast team necessarily beats a slow team. The quality of argumentation/engagement/framing is far more important than speed/delivery.

Evidence: It takes many forms. A quotation does not always beat a debater's analysis. Quite often, debaters quote evidence that makes additional unsubstantiated claims, authors who fail to develop a logical point, is horribly overtagged or mistagged, etc. Thus, a high school student is certainly capable of providing superior analysis as compared to that of his/her opponent's card.

Signposting: Please. I would prefer that you use a hard count numbering system (or lettering system)… it's quick, it's easy, it's organized. Signposting with "next," "second," "in addition," gets very confusing. Often, I don't realize when you have moved on to the next piece of ev until it's too late; thus, my flow gets muddled. Also, please don't signpost by referencing "my Smith in '04" card. Which Smith in '04 card? Often times, debaters have read multiple cards from the same author. Furthermore, my first two priorities in flowing are the tag line and analysis within the card… I rarely note the author unless it stands out for some reason.

Kritiks: I think most K debates are poorly understood and misapplied to the debate round. Many Neg teams seem to run them as nonunique disads in disguise. Therefore, policy responses seem compelling to me. It is possible to win my ballot with a critical Aff or Neg (and many have), but you should take the time to explain what your kritik means, how I am supposed to evaluate it in context with your opponent's debating efforts, what role I play in the world/debate/etc. Please don’t assume that I am familiar with your critical rhetoric (I probably am not)… that should go for all arguments. (It is a debater's responsibility to fill in gaps, not the judge's.) Please don't tell me that the "alternative" is the opposite viewpoint of the Aff and that I should reject the Aff (or Neg) in every instance because they represent the "evil" in the system. (Exception: a true moral/ethical position can ask me to reject every instance of something evil... racism, sexism, for example. Even then, your link and alt/framework must be clear.) You need to develop the advocacy of the alternative (and whether it operates pre- or post-fiat) so that I know what my ballot signifies and it's relationship to the teams/cases in the round.

PICs (of the topical, and non-competitive variety): I think they make rounds confusing... both teams share the same advocacy? Where is the conflict, the controversy, the debate? Affs have a lot of room to claim that the PIC is the plan, that the CP proves the resolution true, etc. That said, you are welcome to debate the theory (see next section).

Theory : Whatever you want. I think it's great that debaters get to debate and define the rules of this activity. Just make sure you are debating each other and not engaged in a war of blip responses. (This may mean that you need to slow down and engage in lots of analysis.) If no one engages in a discussion of theory, I will be informed by "traditional debate theory" as viewed through the eyes of a modern policymaker. If you want to turn me into a pure stock issues judge, you need to do some significant work to tell me what that means and how the arguments are to be evaluated. On the flip side, if Aff wants me to reject the Neg explanation that competitiveness on a CP is irrelevant or that Topical CPs are legit, the Aff will have to do more than just say the CP is not competitive/the CP is topical… they'll have to explain why that matters. (If neither team provides analysis, I'll default to my "traditional debate theory in a modern policy context," and agree with the Aff that the CP is non-comp./topical and should be rejected.)
For some, this may lead you to ask, what are some of those traditional debate theory ideas?
- Affs have 5 stock issues. (I'm sure you all know them.)
- CPs have 4 stock issues (non-T, comp., solve Aff harm, & a net benefit)
- Function of the stock issues in a modern policymaker context: They form the building blocks of arguments. If one is absent, the argument is deemed irrelevant to the outcome of the debate. In short, it's like proving that a DA lacks a link, lacks an impact, or is non-unique… Thus, it ceases to be weighed in the decision calculus.
- Am I tied to these stock issues & functions? Absolutely not, you can mold me/change my perspective, but you must explain/provide analysis.

Multiple Worlds: I think this strategy makes the round confusing. What does the Neg advocate? Personally, I think smart debaters should be able to point out contradictions and use that to their own strategic advantage. At the same time, I'm open to hearing the theory debate (see section above). After all, I am interested in seeing if you are doing it because there is a strategically sound explanation for it, because you can defend its legitimacy, or because you were lazy & didn't realize that you were contradicting yourself. (Oh, btw, if the Neg can have multiple worlds, I think an Aff could potentially argue the same.)

Performance: I don't believe there is a "right way to debate." For years, I thought performance was destroying debate, was abusive, etc. Then, debaters opened my eyes to the role of performance in debate, and I became intrigued by the idea. I've had several lengthy discussions with "performance" debaters and seen some exceptional use of performance (or non-traditional approaches) to the activity. In other words, debaters opened my eyes and educated me. If you continue to do that, I'm completely down with performance-based approaches. However, some caveats or insights (into my brain) follow...
1) Getting me to vote on the Framework… team X is bad because they debate one way or present (yes, I mean that in multiple contexts) a certain way… is probably a tough sell… for either team. (Exception: If their approach to the debate is clearly giving you a link, that's different.)
2) If your performance -- whether it be line-by-line, poetry, music, narrative, spoken word, etc. -- is more compelling and persuasive when examining the issues, you will likely win.

Politics: There is a time & place... poltical backlash, elections, etc. However, it seems that most Poltics DAs run today are rooted in political capital (as it relates to congress); this seems odd to me since fiat would get the Aff past this reality. That's why the resolution is about what the USFG should do. Of course, fiat doesn't get you past individual actors or voting blocks in congress. Thus, a story hinging on a certain subcommitte, committee chair, majority leader, or Tea Party block (for example) are ripe for the picking. (Again, I'm open to debate on the theory about how fiat effects the link story.)

Defense: Why can't defense beat a bad card/argument? For that matter, why can't great defense beat a really, really good card/argument?

Other:

Pre-written Position Overviews: Please don't read them, unless there is a very good reason to do so. I won't flow them, unless it's obvious that it was necessary or I'm in the minority on a panel. I am not referring to a 10-20 second conceptualization of the argument or a brief explanation of how it fits into the round. I am referring to the practice of reading 1-3 minute overviews with multiple cards. Generally, they don't have anything to do with the responses of your opponents. Often, they reference (cross apply) ev that may or may not have been read in this particular round. Almost never do debaters use them effectively by cross-applying them to specific responses of their opponents or developing the internal link story or impact scenarios of their own positions, which makes the round messy.

CX: Is a time for debaters to seek clarification from one another… in an effort to achieve "gooder debate." As long as you don't get rude, I don't care what you do in CX. I don't flow CX, but I do keep an open ear, because I think you should be held to your answer; a shifting target is not representative of "gooder debate." (Note: That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to a good disco.)

Rebuttals: Write the RFD. Don't leave it up to me. You should spell out the round. Compare the arguments. Compare the relative efforts between the two sides. Engage in impact comparisons. (But, don't neglect the line-by-line. Much of these comparisons can be inherently obvious as you work your way down the line-by-line, but an excellent Rebuttal saves the last 45-60 seconds to write the RFD for the judge.)

Most importantly, Have Fun!

Sherana Polk - OCC

Stephanie Mu - PCC

Stetler Brown - SDSU

Taylor Alandzes - GCU

Taylor Alandzes â Grand Canyon University

TLDR: Run what you want, Ks are fine, speed is fine, be an awful person and I will drop you.

Experience: I debated with GCU for four years. I am a first year out judge but Iâve been coaching in some capacity for a year and half. I was fairly successfully as a debater and made it to quarters last year at NPDA so I can handle whatever you want to run.

General: I ran a lot of traditional arguments and a lot of Ks but Iâd leave it all for a good straight case debate or theory debate. I spent a majority of my Junior and Senior year running Debate-space criticisms, so I am very open to any of those arguments as well.

Theory: Love it. Run it. Run it well. Theory, especially creative theory, is my favorite kind of debate. I can be persuaded that RVIs are legit, convince me.

The K: I enjoy a good K. By good I mean well-read and with round-specific links. Specific Kâs I enjoy are fem, cap, and debate-space related Ks but Iâm open to whatever your wheelhouse is just explain your lit. Real world alternatives are my preference but if you can tell me why your meta-reality is worth the ballot Iâm willing to hear you out.

Non-topical Affirmatives: Have good answers to T. Give me topic specific links or a good framework that tells me why I should ignore the topic.

Speaker Points: I will almost always give 30s because speaker points are inherently exclusionary HOWEVER I will break this rule if you are a horrible human being. Debate is a hard enough space to exist in, letâs be kind and decent to each other.

2018 PSCFA Fall Champs

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

Aaron Wakashige - Biola

Adam Navarro - Cerritos

Adriena Young - APU

Alex Almaraz - Mt. SAC

Alexander Cadena - RioRunners

Alexandria Conway - RioRunners

Alexis Stefani - Biola

Alicia Batice - PCC

Alix Lopez - ELAC

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

Allison Doig - PLNU

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

Alonzo Eldridge - SCC

Alyssa Betancourt - RioRunners

Analicia Avila - Compton College

Angel Cardenas - Mt. SAC

Anthony Anderson - CBU

April Bracamontes - Cerritos

April Bracamontes - Cerritos

April Joy Brizuela - RioRunners

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

Arturo Pichardo - RioRunners

Ashley Graham - El Camino

Ashley Johnson - Biola

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

Ben Mann - Utah

Bill Neesen - IVC

Brianna Broady - PCC

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG:

Impacts:

Case Debate:

Disadvantages:

Counterplans:

Conditionality:

Kritiks:

Identity Arguments:

Theory:

Speed

Defending the Topic:

Speaker Points:

Bryan Malinis - SD Mesa

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Caleb Moore - PLNU

Caleb Klubben - PLNU

Caleb Gallegos - Mt. SAC

Casey Jones - RioRunners

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chris Bickel - El Camino

Chris Inclan - Mt. SAC

Christiaan Pipion - CSULB

Christian Pipion - Compton College

Christian Wimenta - Mt. SAC

Claire Crossman - Cal State LA

Cori Jones - Cypress College

Damon Lawson - El Camino

Daniel Zaragoza - PLNU

Daniel Gilchrist - UCI

Daniel Monroe - Biola

Danny Cantrell - Mt. SAC

Darron DeVillez - Palomar

Das Nugent-Odasso - SD Mesa

David Rehm - SCC

David Sonnenberg - OCC

Dawne McClure - CUI

Dawson Khoury - Mt. SAC

DeRod Taylor - ELAC

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Donna Eissoh - Biola

Dorri Mang - CSULB

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

Dylan Gray - Mt. SAC

Eddie Ayala - Cerritos

Elizabeth Kravchuck - PLNU

Elizabeth Rivas - Biola

Emilly Shaffer - NAU

Emily Sandoval - RioRunners