2019 PSCFA "Norene Hokett" Spring Championships

Palomar College - Feb 22-24 | Status: Completed

Profile Image
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   Results

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

Aaron Wakashige - Biola

 

Abdullah Sallehudin - CSULB

Adriena Young - APU

n/a

Ali Aldalhimi - Grossmont

Alicia Batice - PCC

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

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

Alonzo Eldridge - SCC

Amanda Afentakis - Grossmont

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - CUI

Hello,

I am the Director of Forensics at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 4th year coaching and judging.? 

I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.? 

Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.? 

Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.? 

Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.? 

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).? 


Amy Hileman - NOVA

For IPDA debate I do not want a jargon-filled round where students attempt to speak so quickly that the competition and judge won't notice the flaws in their logic. I do not believe that IPDA should look/sound like other types of debate. Give me the politeness/ettiquete at the start of the constructives. Focus on the quality of your argument vs speed. If I put my pen down when you are speaking, you are speaking too quickly. I am looking for sound arguments with clear structure and supporting research.

Andrea Ruiz - CSUF

n/a

Anthony Anderson - CBU

n/a

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

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.

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.

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandan Whearty

Palomar College

Short Version: You Talk, I'll Listen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brianna 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?¢??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.

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.

Bryan Davis - OCC

Caitlyn Rosenberg - Moorpark

n/a

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

Carl Trigilio - CUI

 

Carly Pearlman - Moorpark

n/a

Chad Stroot - Maricopa

n/a

Chase Gittisarn - Biola

n/a

Chathi Anderson - IVC

 

Daniel Zaragoza - PLNU

? 

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 Rehm - SCC

n/a

David Rehm - SCC

n/a

David Sonnenberg - OCC

David Hale - ELAC

n/a

Dawson Khoury - Mt. SAC

Judge Philosophy

Destinee Sior - Maricopa

Hello!

My name is Destinee Sior and I am a debate coach for Maricopa Community College. I just have a few things to say about how I view the wonderful world of debate, and my method on judging. For starters- no matter the type of debate- I will always want you to do what you do best, what you feel comfortable with, and debate in whichever way makes you happy. 

I do not mind if you do critical or policy oriented debate. I enjoy listening to Ks and I really enjoy just straight policy cases. Whichever one you choose, all I ask is that you give me a solid structure and you stick to it. Sloppy debate is one of my biggest pet peeves. Please make it easy for me to follow you so I can get everything you say down on paper. I don't care for the double-clutching speed debate, but I can typically flow well if you want to spread. However-- just because, I can flow it does not mean your opponent can. If you are asked to clear you need to SLOW DOWN. I do not care for Ks ran out of the affirmative, but if you want to party please have a solid link story. Negative strats should include an interrogation of the affirmative, as well as their own case. I will not gut check your arguments for you, please do not ask me to do that. Tell me why dropped arguments are important. I love impact calc ¤ Weigh your impacts on timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Give me voters / reasons to prefer. I think it is the job of the debater to make my job easy, but also have fun. I loved debate and you should debate the way you love. 

IPDA-- For the IPDA debaters, please understand I have a Parli and LD background. With that being said, I understand that IPDA is not Parli nor LD. Therefore, please do not debate as such. My judging philosophy for this though is roughly the same-- structure, structure, structure. Give me a solid impact story. Do not just say lives saves improves ecosystem -- what does that MEAN? Why does it matter? How are you weighing it against your opponent? Do not just rely on me to do the work for you. Give me lots and lots of warrants, I love evidence. Most importantly, lets have some fun.

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.

Dorri Mang - CSULB

Erin Roberts - OCC

Fernanda De La O - APU

n/a

Four Pico - SMC

n/a

Hank Lewis - IVC


Hannah Wald - PLNU

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.

Hillary Phillips - COC

n/a

Israel Beltran - CUI

 

Jacee Cantler - PCC

Jackie Stabenau - UCSD

n/a

Jackson Spencer - Cal State LA

James Shotwell - PCC

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Cal State LA

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 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 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. 

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!

Jay Arntson - PCC

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

Jeff Samano - Fullerton College

n/a

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joe Anderson - ELAC

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.

John Halcomb - Fullerton College

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.

Jordan Kay - SCC

n/a

Jordan Kay - SCC

n/a

Joseph Laughon - CUI

Debated for five years, 2 for Moorpark College and 3 for CUI. I did ok. I am now the assistant director of debate at Concordia University.

I am a fairly straight up critic. A few points though;

- The K  Despite my reputation while competing as being one of the most boring white men alive, I do not discourage it and towards the end, Will and I ran it fairly often. I am familiar with most generic kritiks (cap, whiteness, militarism, Virilio, borders, coercion, the gift, etc...) and have no problem voting on it. However my threshhold for defense on the k is likely lower than most judges, though not extremely so. You can't win on defense as much as I might sympathize with your struggle to do so. For me the vast majority of frameworks are poorly written and debates exclusively about poorly written frameworks are fairly boring. Debates on the alt solvency/alt offense/perm solvency/perm NBs are far more interesting and will help you win more often. That being said I've become more of a fan of well done framework debate.  Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad." Also understand I do not spend even 1/25th the time you have spent reading the literature for your K (unless its cap or coercion). Be gentle with it. Name dropping a bunch of authors/authoresses isn't going to be persuasive because I will not have read them as deeply as you have.  On a side note I see debate largely as a game we do largely for fun with the side benefits of being smarter/well rounded. I do not see it primarily as a catalyst for revolutionary social change or really any kind of "community. I'll vote on whatever wins you the game but please don't assume I am "down" because unless it's the restoration of monarchy, then odds are no.  -Theory  Hated as a competitor, like it a lot as a judge. Down with T but your counter interp probably needs to actually respond to the interp. Counter interps like "We must only be held to the resolution" isn't counter to anything much less their interp.    

-DAs.  Obviously I'm a fan. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.  Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. Please do that. The amount of times good team just spot the other side the notion that a nuclear bomb will cause extinction is so high it's absurd.

- Counter plans/perm debate.
 Competition is good. Personally I prefer NB competition as I think its the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not. Do better than the same 3 generic perm blocks. How many times must we hear "Butler says..." in the perm debate?  Impact Calc:  If no one tells me how to judge straight up impact debates then I revert to magnitude and probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. some one feels bad about themselves). Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa. I do enjoy good defense debate on the probability level. Time frame isn't brought up enough.  I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc.  Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.

-House keeping

>Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. If your advocacy is long as hell please repeat it.

>POOs: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a fit, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to POO this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

>I'm not a point fairy.

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. 

Kat Pimpanit - CBU

n/a

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

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).

Madeleine Prater - Biola

n/a

Mark Dorrough - OCC

Marquesa Cook-Whearty - Palomar

Martin Willis-Raymondo - Mt. SAC

 

Matthew Grisat - CBU

n/a

Melissa Moreno - MSJC

Michael Starzynski - CUI

tabula rasa, no spreading, roadmaps and signposts please!

Mike Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Myhanh Anderson - ELAC

n/a

Naomi Raal - Moorpark

n/a

Nate Brown - SMC

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

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


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

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

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

Nate Wensko - OCC

Nicholas Thomas - Palomar

n/a

Nichole Barta - IVC

 

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. 

Olivia Neidhart - PLNU

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!

One Pico - SMC

n/a

Paris Swett - PLNU

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.

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.

Richard Andrus - UCSD

n/a

Rob Loy - SMC

Robert Campbell - UCSD

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

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Sam Jones - PLNU

? 

Scott Plambek - SD Mesa

n/a

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.

Shannon Yong - PCC

Shaunte Caraballo - IVC

 

Shaw Davari - OCC

Stephanie Mu - PCC

Stetler Brown - SDSU

 

Taylor Stickle - CUI

 

Three Pico - SMC

n/a

Two Pico - SMC

n/a

Tyler Kline - Saddleback

n/a

Tyler Watkins - CUI

 

Victor Akioyame - CBU

n/a

Yaw Kyeremateng - CUI

 

Zach Rosen - Saddleback

n/a

Zeshan Monks-Hussain - PLNU

a d - CSUF

n/a

a d - CSUF

n/a

a a - CSUF

n/a

a a - CSUF

n/a