Judge Philosophies

Aadil Jadwet -- Hired Judges


Aaliyah King -- Santiago Canyon College


Abdullah Salehuddin -- California State University, Long Beach


Aimee Newton -- College of the Canyons


Alexander Cadena -- Rio Hondo Community College

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 â??Its hurts my head.â?

Topicality â?? Theory â?? Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. Do not expect me to fill in the â??blipsâ?? of your standards and impacts. Iâ??m not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Iâ??ve 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 â??win a ballot.â? If you donâ??t 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. POIâ??s 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!

Alexis Aschacher -- Hired Judges


Alicia Batice -- Pasadena City College


Alicia Carpenter -- Hired Judges


Alissa Duong -- California State University, Long Beach


Alix Lopez -- Mt. San Antonio College


Allysen Charles -- Hired Judges


Alonzo Eldridge -- Hired Judges


Alyson Escalante -- El Camino College

Alyssa Mullins -- Santa Monica College


Amy Hileman -- Northern Virginia Community College


Andrea Ruiz -- California State University Fullerton


Andy Kyle -- Point Loma Nazarene University

Angelica Grigsby -- Maricopa Speech and Debate

Anthony Violissi -- Northern Arizona University


Arely Venegas -- Hired Judges


Arthur Valenzuela -- Los Angeles Valley College


Ashlyn Guidetti -- Hired Judges


Averie Vockel -- University of Utah


Ayden Loeffler -- Irvine Valley College

  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.

Bailey Porras -- Hired Judges


Barrett Kocher -- Hired Judges


Beau Koren -- Hired Judges


Benjamin Lange -- Concordia University Irvine

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well. 

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on. As a Neg, I think your best bet is to read a diverse strategy, but if you have a baller K that you want to go all in on then go for it.

Finally, and I've realized that this is probably a very important thing to make clear, I am willing to vote on terminal defense if you are able to explain what it means for the round. That means that if you win the "we meet" on theory, then the rest of the sheet is irrelevant - even under a paradigm of competing interpretations, their rule is irrelevant if you followed it.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)

Bill Neesen -- Irvine Valley College

Brenna Thomale -- California Baptist University


Brianna Seidler -- Point Loma Nazarene University

Brigitte Chavez -- Northern Virginia Community College


Britney Tempelton -- Hired Judges


Britney Thomas -- California Baptist University


Brittany Hubble -- El Camino College


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


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. 


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 LOâ?¦in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 â??they used the state.â? I am not saying this canâ??t 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 donâ??t 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. 


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! Donâ??t 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 is fine but please be clear. I donâ??t 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.


Be organized and sign post. Donâ??t 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. 

Brooke Hinds -- Hired Judges


C.L.S. Ferguson -- Azusa Pacific University


Caitlin Culhane -- Hired Judges


Caitlin Adornato -- California State University, Northridge.


Caitlyn Burford -- Northern Arizona University

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!



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!

Caitlyn Rosenberg -- Moorpark College


Carl Trigilio -- Concordia University Irvine


Carly Daste -- Hired Judges


Carol Damgen -- Mt. San Jacinto College


Chathi Anderson -- Irvine Valley College


Chris Dreifus -- Hired Judges


Christiaan Pipion -- Orange Coast College

Christine Chragian -- Hired Judges


Claire Crossman -- Concordia University Irvine


Coco Shapiro -- Hired Judges


Collette Blumer -- California State University Fullerton


Cory Nims -- Grand Canyon University

Daniel Zaragoza -- Point Loma Nazarene University


Daniela Vasquez -- Azusa Pacific University


Danny Cantrell -- Mt. San Antonio College

Testing 123

Das Nugent-Odasso -- San Diego Mesa College


Dawson Khoury -- Mt. San Antonio College


DeRod Taylor -- East Los Angeles College


Deven Cooper -- California State University, Long Beach


Dinnett Hermosillo -- Compton College


Dorri Mang -- Orange Coast College

Dylan Henteieff -- Hired Judges


Eddie Leonardo -- Hired Judges


Elin Olausson -- Santa Monica College


Elle Baez -- Point Loma Nazarene University

Emil Avaresian -- Hired Judges


Faith Roberts -- Hired Judges


Faith Guidetti -- Hired Judges


Francesca Bishop -- El Camino College

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 are lots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, but I try not to 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 in any way, 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 "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. 

Because I try to base my decision based solely on arguments that are made in 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!!!

Ged Valenzeula -- Point Loma Nazarene University

Debate is a game that should be played, so play it the best you can.�???�??�?�  By default I assume net benefits analysis weighed through timeframe, magnitude, and probability but you can honestly run whatever you are most comfortable with, so long as you give clear justification for your method and/or weighing mechanisms within the framework. Hopefully the following information allows for a more concise and enjoyable debate for everyone.

DAs, CPs, advantages:

Run them or kick them

On criticisms:

I love critical theory but please don't assume that I already know the thesis of your argument. In general, please articulate: what does the alt do, and what does a post-alt world look like?�???�??�?�  If you are indicting the debate space or claiming real-world solvency, it is also imperative to have explanations of how the speech act of the kritik functions to affect the classroom and competitors.�???�??�?�  Demonstrate that you know how to apply these arguments and I�??�?�¢??m more likely to give good speaks and the ballot to you. �???�??�?� 

*Affs, when responding to criticisms, blipping out "perm - do both" or "do plan and all mutually exclusive parts of the K" or other non-contextualized responses is not something I can vote on.�???�??�?�  You have to explain to me how the perm functions before garnering any sort of offense/net benefit.�???�??�?�  Executing both this and framework arguments effectively will be very strong.

*Also affs, if you are running a critical affirmative, please demonstrate how the position relates to the topic to allow for competitive equity. �???�??�?� �???�??�?� Criticisms without links will lose to a perm anyways (Veal 2017).

On procedurals/theory:

I try not to presume any theory argumentation; things like condo bad/good only matter when teams bring it up.�???�??�?�  That being said, I enjoy procedural debate, especially when it revolves around creative and educational interps. �???�??�?� 

When it comes to T, please demonstrate articulated abuse, potential abuse is not something that I can vote on.�???�??�?�  I will default to a competing interpretations paradigm if the topicality is not resolved.�???�??�?�  Make offensive theory arguments with �??�?�¢??impact�??�?�¢?�??�?� scenarios as to how fairness and education are undermined by that debate theory practice/argument and I�??�?�¢??m pretty likely to vote there.

On reverse voting issues: if you want to leverage one, go hard and be confident.�???�??�?�  This also means allocating less time to answering them if they are bad/intended as a time suck.�???�??�?�  I am not necessarily predisposed against RVIs and I believe that there are some legitimate reasons for voting on them, such as checking against in-round exclusion as well as fostering better education about the resolution.�???�??�?�  Make those arguments, though.

Speaker points:

Speaks start at 27.5 and can go up or down depending on the round (will never go below 25 though, unless something really terrible happens).�???�??�?�  Some things that would dock your speaks include excessive POOs, running Wilderson as a non-black individual, using speed to exclude the other team, impact turning morally repugnant things like genocide/rape/racism/etc.�???�??�?�  Don't be a jerk. Additionally, please don't group responses to arguments that require more nuanced answers and expect me to do the work, articulating your arguments is part of your responsibilities as debaters and not mine as critic and your performance will suffer.

Ways to improve speaks would be clear taglining, good args, giving me a text of your plan/CP/alt (though you should be doing that anyways), (!!) having an effective collapse (line-by-line rebuttals are a strategically bad decision anyways).�???�??�?�  Higher speaks if it�??�?�¢??s a gutsy collapse, but don�??�?�¢??t take this to mean purposely kicking legitimately good offense in the rebuttals in order to get better speaks.�???�??�?�  Just go for where you think you are winning and why they are voting issues.

I reserve the right to deviate from my judging philosophy at any time.�???�??�?�  Though this serves as a reliable framework for evaluating debates, there are always exceptions to the rule and opportunities for me to grow as a critic that will prompt me to shift my paradigm.

Genavieve Faherty -- Santa Monica College


Giselle Jahangiri -- Concordia University Irvine

Gisselle Sanabriga -- Santa Monica College

Golsa Jaberi -- Hired Judges


Gonzola Secaira -- Claremont Colleges


Grant Tovmasian -- Rio Hondo Community College

The most important criteria for me is fairness. I will avoid 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 kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon)

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. 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.Ã? Ã? If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) 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. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD.

I firmly believe that speed kills, 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. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.

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.)

Greg Gorham -- Grand Canyon University

Hannah Haghighat -- Orange Coast College

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.

Hazel Palencia -- Hired Judges


Helena Ong -- Claremont Colleges


IJ Sanda -- Santa Monica College


Isaac Pang -- El Camino College

Isaiah Salgado -- Fullerton College


Isaiah Washington -- California Baptist University


Israel Sandoval -- California State University, Northridge.


J Y -- California State University Fullerton


Jack Bramlett -- California Baptist University


Jackson Spencer -- Hired Judges


Jaclyn Krynsky -- Hired Judges


Jake Meany -- Claremont Colleges


James Depersis -- Hired Judges


Jamie Whittington-Studer -- California State University, Los Angeles

Janay Bombino -- Orange Coast College

Janet Marroquin -- East Los Angeles College


Janiel Victorino -- Santiago Canyon College


Jared Kubicka-Miller -- Santiago Canyon College

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. 

Jasmine McLeod -- Mt. San Antonio College


Jasmine Hernandez -- Santa Monica College

Jason Jordan -- University of 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 â??be.â??� 

*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.


Jedi Curva -- East Los Angeles College


Jen Montgomery -- California State University Fullerton


Jenise Wong -- Santa Monica College

Jhovanni Diaz -- Hired Judges


Jimmy Gomez -- Orange Coast College

Joe Anderson -- East Los Angeles College


Joe Faina -- Los Angeles Valley College


Joe Sindicich -- California State University Fullerton


John Cho -- Irvine Valley College


Jonas LeBarillec -- El Camino College

Jonathan Delaplane -- Hired Judges


Jonathan Veal -- Point Loma Nazarene University

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. DAâ??s 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 Kâ??s 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.

Jose Oyuela -- Santa Monica College


Jose Mejia -- California Baptist University


Joseph Evans -- El Camino College

  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 itâ??s 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 itâ??s 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 donâ??t 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 affirmativeâ??s 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 â??clearâ?. 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, itâ??s 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, donâ??t 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 -- Grand Canyon University

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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.

Joy Bautista -- Cerritos College


Julia Shotwell -- Point Loma Nazarene University

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. 

Julia Leslie -- Irvine Valley College


Kaitlyn Carpenter -- Moorpark College


Kaylin Mattner -- Hired Judges


Kaylin Robinson -- Maricopa Speech and Debate


Kiefer Storrer -- Maricopa Speech and Debate

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. 

Kieran Geralde -- Hired Judges


Kureysha Abdulkadir -- California State University, Northridge.


Kyla Wroten -- Santa Monica College

Kyle Graziane -- Hired Judges


Kyle Rolda -- Hired Judges


Kyle Duffy -- College of the Canyons


Li-Ren Chang -- El Camino College

                                                                         Important stuff:

I believe an argument consists of a claim, data, and a warrant. If an argument is important and is a deciding factor to the round but doesnâ??t have any evidence to support it then I will not vote for it. If the round comes down to two competing arguments that are equally unsubstantiated I will default to the one I think is true. 

I think that if there is a vocalized concern for rude, inappropriate, violent, or unacceptable behavior that occurred within the round and/or at the tournament then I will consult tabroom or the tournament staff to see how I should continue the round. I believe that IVIâ??s or similar reason to reject the team is not a sufficient jurisdictional tool to reform problematic behavior. If you believe that call outs or personalized arguments are necessary to the way that you feel most comfortable in the debate then I ask a few things of you: These debate tend to get really heated and have more of an impact on me than the flow of the debate, and therefore I tend to have really shaky and inconsistent decisions, so recognize that before round. I also am a big wimp and cry a lot so if this happens the chances I give a decision I am confident in is probably very low.

Here are some defaults, predispositions, and random info about how I judge:
- I default to competing interpretations
- I protect against new arguments
- I think a we meet is terminal defense against theory
- I have never voted for a theory position that said all texts and/or interps need to be given (before/after/during) whatever. Teams should be expected to read the interpretation twice and slowly.
- I will vote on rviâ??s, nibs, disclosure, point of order theory, no neg fiat, afc, and other â??frivolousâ? theory with the caveat that the team should have a reasonable capacity/expectation to meet the theory position before it is read.
- I rarely call speed or clear unless it is persistent (is a problem for more than an argument). I will not call clear or speed if the arguments are blippy or a chain of claims.
- I think perms can only be a test of competition
- Root cause claims should be contextualized to the 1AC
- Alternative solvency shouldnâ??t assume a reverse causal relationship to root cause claims
- I have and will not hesitate to vote on terminal defense.
- I will fact check in round if there are two contesting arguments that are unresolved and is a deciding argument in the round
- Defense is not just impact calculus. Conceded/terminal defense means there is 0% probability of an impact
- Fiat is durable and immediate
- The negative gets access to one conditional advocacy or the status quo
- With one exception, to this day I donâ??t know what a proximal impact is or why fairness and education within the debate round is not one.
- I default to procedural fairness preceding all other theoretical impacts in the round.
- Judge intervention is inevitable to at least some degree. I will do my due diligence in being cognizant of implicit biases and attempt to minimize its influence in the round.
- To me, what is traditionally seen as a fact or value resolution is closer to a metaphor than whatever a contention is.

Hello, my name is Li-Ren, aka Fletcherâ??s partner. I debated for Long Beach in npda from 2013-2016. I have coached for high school ld since 2013 and am now coaching for El Camino College. I have read a wide range of arguments and strategies ranging from heg and econ every round on the aff and politics, counterplan, and a criticism every round on the neg to rejecting the topic every round and reading a new k every neg. 
My top 5 favorite arguments/strategies that I read are: A topical aff with two advantages predicated on the resolution, a PIC with net benefit with a short criticism and at least one theory sheet, one off criticism, one off T and case, funny strategies. 
If you want to get a better idea of what arguments I am more familiar with just look for the long beach parli files that were shared to everyone on the npda/npte facebook group a while ago. If you read these files in front of me word for word without citing the author I will drop your for reasons of plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
Assuming youâ??ve read the above then you should have a pretty good idea of how to best adapt to me. Insert obligatory debate is a game, keep it nice, have a good time.

Linda Hernandez-Mendoza -- Santa Monica College


Lori Gold -- Hired Judges


Luis Peneda -- Santa Monica College


Mackenzie DeMasters -- Hired Judges


Marcos Santos -- Pasadena City College


Mark Schmutzler -- California State University, Long Beach


Mark Dorrough -- Orange Coast College

Martin Willis-Raymondo -- Mt. San Antonio College


Matt Kazden -- Hired Judges


Matt Grisat -- Rio Hondo Community College


Mattan Pesso -- Hired Judges


Megan Lutton -- Hired Judges


Melissa Moreno -- Mt. San Jacinto College


Melissa DeLeon -- California State University, Los Angeles


Michael Gunner -- Hired Judges


Michael Pesso -- Hired Judges


Michael Gutierrez -- Orange Coast College

Michael Starzynski -- Santiago Canyon College

Michael Middleton -- University of Utah

A Quotation:

â??The present situation is highly discouragingâ? â??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 donâ??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 donâ??t explain/provide a rationale for why I 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 doesnâ??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 Yutuc -- Hired Judges


Mikayla Holzinger -- Orange Coast College

Mike Moran -- East Los Angeles College


Mike Kalustian -- Los Angeles City College


Mikhail Gonzalez -- Hired Judges


Monique Gevorkian -- California State University, Northridge.


Morgan Wetmore -- Hired Judges


Nate Brown -- Santa Monica College

NPDA: 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. Eye contact is important. Debaters who mostly only look at their notes are not connecting with me and so their arguments are less likely to connect with me. Speaking points often matter for tie-breaking to elims, so I am serious about speaker points. Speaking behaviors that would not be tolerated in PERS will not be rewarded in NPDA. Speed, poor eye contact, distracting gestures, vocal fillers, are all examples of delivery behaviors that are too often tolerated in NPDA. Gov. of course needs to do a good prima facie case, which means clear and complete resolutional analysis, and stock issues in order to stay in the game. But Opp needs to catch Gov when they fail to do that. I will not do that job for the Opp. 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 bother the partner who is speaking very often. 

IPDA: I don't want to 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 citation. I want to hear source citation. 

Nathaniel Rogers -- San Diego State University


Nichole Barta -- Los Angeles City College


Nichole Barta -- Irvine Valley College


Nick Matthews -- Cerritos College

Hello! I am a coach 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:

  1. 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 conductive to your chances of winning.

  2. 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. Donâ??t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a hell of a lot stronger than my understanding of K debate.

  3. 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.

  4. I rarely vote for arguments I donâ??t understand.

  5. 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.

  6. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
    - Whining: â??Their implementation is vague and they donâ??t explain it! They donâ??t solve!â? (Waaah!)
    - Argument: â??I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. Firstâ?¦â?

  7. 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.

  8. I donâ??t care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

Nick Fiori -- Hired Judges


Nick Federico -- Hired Judges


Nikhil Emde -- El Camino College

Olivia Neidhart -- Point Loma Nazarene University

I have a background in NPDA and consider myself open to a variety of arguments and thoughts. As long as you can give logical reasons supported by evidence, I will listen to and entertain your points without bias. With that being said, debate is based in the communicative discipline, so that should be the main focus of the round. Although I am open to speed and other strategies, you should not out spread your opponents or me. Please feel free to have fun in round, I welcome creativity and humor, as long as it is communicated well. Be respectful of each other, think critically and strategically, try your best, and have fun!

Olivia Palma -- Grand Canyon University

Patricia Hughes -- Rio Hondo Community College

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 Kâ??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 Kâ??s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For Kâ??s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.� 

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

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

Paul Gudiel -- Hired Judges


Raffaela Baker -- Saddleback College


Ramy Awad -- Hired Judges


Renee Orton -- Mt. San Jacinto College


Rita Rafael -- Santiago Canyon College


Robert Comeaux -- Concordia University Irvine

Roger Willis-Raymondo -- Mt. San Antonio College

n /a

Roma Diseati -- Northern Virginia Community College


Roxanne De Guzman -- Hired Judges


Roxanne Tuscany -- Grossmont College


Ryan Fobes -- Hired Judges


Ryan Killian -- Hired Judges


Ryan Babbitt -- Hired Judges


Sarah Grace Crocco -- Northern Arizona University


Sarina Wang -- California State University, Northridge.


Scott Plumpback -- San Diego Mesa College


Sean Connor -- Orange Coast College

Shaela Perin -- Hired Judges


Sherana Polk -- Orange Coast College

Sophia Rodriguez -- Hired Judges


Stephanie Perez-Sandoval -- California State University, Northridge.


Stephen Hosmer -- Point Loma Nazarene University


Tatiana Guionnet -- El Camino College

Tatiana Guionnet -- Compton College


Thuy Pham -- Mt. San Antonio College


Tim Seavey -- San Diego State University


Tim Seavey -- San Diego State University

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

TW: Suicide, Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Rape

Overview/ TLDR: I am a flow critic and debate is a game but we should be doing all that we can to make the space accessible to all participants. Clearly state how I should evaluate arguments and I will do that; I do default to competing interpretations and prefer high Probability, low Magnitude and Proximity impacts to high Magnitude and low Probability.�  All advocacy, criteria/ROB, and procedural texts should be repeated for clarity in the round.� 

Speed: I can keep up and will let you know to be more clear if I need it. If your opponents are unable to engage in speed please be accommodating.� 

Procedurals: I really like procedural debate. I enjoy specific interpretations and counterinterps (please repeat these since they are usually pretty important). I need articulated abuse if using an abuse paradigm but I default to a competing interpretations paradigm if not otherwise instructed.� 

K's: Run them, have fun, and give me a clear FW, ROB, ALT, and ALT solvency. I prefer K's that have specific link scenarios to the debate round instead of just generic ones. Perms should be repeated so that I can get them down correctly.� 

Theory: Like I said before, this is your game, tell me how to evaluate the round and I will operate within those parameters. I generally believe that Conditional Arguments are good but I will not do the work for you on the warrant level.

Pet Peeves: Citing a theory or theorist and expecting everyone to know what you are talking about.� 



Toni Nielson -- Fullerton College


Tufik Shayeb -- Grand Canyon University

Tyler Watkins -- Concordia University Irvine


Victoria Vally -- Hired Judges


Will White -- El Camino College

Xavi Torres -- Pasadena City College


Xochitl Buenabad -- Santa Monica College


Yakoff Assif -- Santa Monica College


Zoe Festa -- Hired Judges