Aaron Alford - SU

---

Adam Gonzales-Weightman - OCC

n/a

---

Agatha Attridge - Cal State LA

In NPDA, I find clear warranting in-case and impact calculus very helpful, particularly direct comparison between the world each side's impacts create. I am more than fine following quick speed in delivery, though clarity is still appreciated in both delivery and argumentation (the latter particularly within rebuttal). Argumentative consistency helps me in adjudicating, and so clear disclaimer regarding which arguments within cases are being addressed or rebutted is very useful. In line with this organization's values, I value more critically-directed debate, though this approach does not necessarily require argumentative structures idiosyncratic to NPDA or other forms of debate. I believe that the debate space should be safe for protected populations, and behavior that threatens these populations will be at the very least remarked upon on the ballot, and may impact my judging decision if egregious. My familiarity in debate is more philosophically and policy-directed, though arguments making other appeals will still receive full consideration.

---

Ahmad Ibrahim - UCSD

n/a

---

Alex Wilson - CSU Chico

Pronouns: they/them

Updated 2021-11-07

I tend to vote for the team that makes the most persuasive arguments in a round. This generally makes me a "communication judge," though I make an effort to evaluate each position on the ballot systematically and based solely on what you say in the round.

I will not tolerate blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. arguments.

NPDA/LD Considerations

I have found that my burden for voting on a K may be higher than a lot of other judges because many of them seem hollow in the context of the round (e.g., arguing that debate is harmful while... participating in debate; or arguing that winning is bad so vote for us). Be prepared to explain your kritik more to me than to other judges if you want to win it.

I often find myself most persuaded by well-argued, genuine alternative discourses. These include re-imagining the geography/temporality of the debate space or advancing arguments that genuinely interrogate the constructedness or value of the debate space. In this sense, I'm particularly influenced by the works of Christopher Schroeder, Helen Fox, Patricia Bizzell, Ian Khara Ellasante, and Malea Powell. I am particularly interested in exploring orientations that foreground the relevance, reciprocity, and accessibility of debate for the people who benefit from it.

My threshold to vote on theory is typically pretty low, especially if it is severely undercovered by the other team.

I don't vote for (or most of the time even evaluate) arguments I don't understand.

How I evaluate (post-fiat) impacts:

1. Probability
2. Magnitude
3. Timeframe
4. Reversibility

How I evaluate the round:

1. A priori issues (theory, topicality, pre-fiat critiques)
2. Top of case, solvency, counterplan solvency (if necessary)
3. Impacts of advantages vs. disadvantages

I'm comfortable with faster than conversational speed. I don't like spreading or other paralinguistic acts that serve to reify the elitist stereotypes of college debate. If you go faster than I can keep up, be prepared for me to just write that you said "something" on my flow.

Document Exchange Considerations (LD Only)

Let's use SpeechDrop.net to share documents unless there is some persuasive reason that you cannot.

Please avoid sharing PDFs in round since most PDF makers don't create an accessible PDF with headers, etc. If you're using Microsoft Word, just save the file as a word document and share it.

Critical Debate Familiarity

These are the theoretical frameworks I'm most familiar with:

1. Trans studies (tends to work well as answer to queer critiques, especially with Rubin, Keegan, or Halley)
2. Queer theory
3. (Trans)feminist analysis
4. Rhetorical analysis/the 1AC as rhetorical artifact
5. Critical pedagogy (e.g. Fassett and Warren)
6. Foucault
7. Indigenous/first nations

IPDA Judging Paradigm

Generally, I find the same sorts of arguments discussed above to be persuasive. However, when the norms of IPDA and my philosophy are in conflict, I try to err on the side of IPDA norms. This also means that I default to weighing the depth of your arguments over the number of arguments and lend preference to arguments that are accessible (i.e., comprehensible) to a general audience.

Audience Considerations

Since IPDA is designed as public debate, Im less open to interpreting the audience narrowly toward elite/exclusionary notions of the debate community.

Assuming I am a lay judge who can take good notes will likely pay dividends when debating in front of me.

Flow

I will flow the debate to the best of my ability, but I dont use my flow as the arbiter of winning arguments. Rather, I default to voting for arguments that are persuasive, contextual, and backed by credible evidence and/or examples.

Competing Notions of Resolutional Analysis/Definitions (Topicality)

I am open to hearing arguments about the nature of the resolution and the best definitions for terms (especially with regard to metaphorical or vague resolutions) but phrasing them in the same structure as NPDA/LD/Policy is not a recipe for success. Arguments about definitions and framing are common in public debates, though the specific gamey format used for Policy-style debates is not.

Critical Arguments

Im open to arguments that reference critical/postmodern theories, but the IPDA community has fairly decisively rejected the format commonly used in NPDA/LD/Policy-style debates.

Changelog

2021-11-07: Added IPDA-specific considerations.

---

Alex Cadena - (PSCFA)

n/a

---

Alina Van Eeghen - OCC

n/a

---

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

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

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

---

Alyson Escalante - El Camino

---

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.

---

Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa

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

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

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

Remember to have fun!

---

Anish Sharma - OCC

n/a

---

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - SDSU

---

Ayden Loeffler - El Camino

T - 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 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. 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. CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed 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. Collapse - Please collapse.

---

Ayden Loeffler - (PSCFA)

n/a

---

Ben Krueger - Nevada

Ben Krueger (he/him/his)

University of Nevada, Reno

I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.

General Debate Views and Preferences

1. I come from a traditional policymaking background, but I'm open to multiple frameworks and interpretations of debate. It's up to you to defend and justify your framework choices in the round.

2. I don't do well with speed. The faster you spread, the more likely it is that I'll miss arguments on the flow and make a decision you won't like.

3. Structure is good and I appreciate signposting, but remember that it's not a replacement for substantive argument. Having a catchy tagline is not the same thing as having a well-developed warrant that supports your claim.

4. Rebuttal speeches should "zoom out" and give me a big picture overview of what's going on in the round. When the rebuttal is simply a line-by-line analysis, I inevitably have to do more work to weigh the issues myself.

5. I viscerally dislike "gut check" arguments and won't vote for them. Instead, give me more specific analytic reasons why I shouldn't believe a specific claim (for example, it doesn't have a clear source, it's based on a post hoc fallacy, it's based on a faulty analogy, etc).

6. Don't be jerks. It is possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity.

My views on Parli

I rarely judge Parli anymore, but in case you encounter me in a Parli round, there are a few things to be aware of about how I approach the event: (1) I hate stupid T arguments and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards unless there's something really wonky going on. (2) K's absolutely must have clear links and clear alt-solvency that I can weigh against the plan. If they don't, I will have a low threshold for accepting any plausible-sounding answer to them. (3) I will not vote for poorly-explained technical arguments just because they're on the flow if they aren't properly weighed or impacted out.

My views of IPDA

IPDA is NOT parli-lite! If you treat the round that way, I will at minimum tank your speaker points.

I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon as much as possible. I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like top-of-case and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory or witty comebacks alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of definitions reasons to prefer a specific criterion.

Although uncommon, I find myself giving more low-point wins in IPDA than I did in Parli. If I give you a low-point win, it typically means one of two things happened: (1) you clearly won on flow, but there was a major issue with your delivery/presentation style, (2) you weren't winning on flow, but your opponent collapsed to the wrong voting issues or made some major strategic blunder in rebuttals that led me to buy your voting issues instead.

A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)

In light of recent developments in national politics, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man. Please be mindful that resolutions about legal rights of specific groups (such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or racial minorities) can be triggering to competitors and judges when framed as a binary either/or choice between maintaining civil rights or eliminating them. In such rounds, I will grant leeway to both affirmative and negative teams to frame their arguments in ways that avoid a morally problematic division of ground. If you find yourself on the "bad" side of such a resolution, some ideas for you how might reframe include: state-level counterplans, constitutional amendments, constitutional convention, secession, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, etc.

---

Ben Lopez - OCC

n/a

---

Benjamin Lange - CUI

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 :)

---

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

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

BG:

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

Impacts:

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

Case Debate:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Counterplans:

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

Conditionality:

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

Kritiks:

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

Identity Arguments:

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

Theory:

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

Speed

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

Defending the Topic:

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

Speaker Points:

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

Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

---

Carl Marts - UCSD

n/a

---

Christian Pipion - OCC

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

---

Christian Geddes - El Camino

I liked k debate as a debater but prefer policy as a judge; that being said, do your thing. I debated for a small school in both instances. Debate does not exist in a vacuum. I consider both the theoretical and material implications of the round. I believe that accessibility is critical in the debate space and this also influences many of my positions. In particular, you will be punished or rewarded based on behavior in round. For example, if your opponent(s) clearly communicate an inability to understand speed and you decide to spread, you are actively making the space inaccessible and will be punished by speaker points and, depending on the extent of your transgression, with the ballot.

 

Speaker point scale generally goes 26.5-30 unless you do something particularly scummy.

DA/CP: I love counterplans and disads. I am also an absolute sucker for a pic with a unique/small net benefit. I’m open to pretty much any type of cp (adv, pic, agent, timeframe) but be prepared to defend them.

K: I loved debating the k and enjoy watching a good k debate (especially structural critique). However, in watching debate I find more and more that there is an expectation that I am intimately familiar with your author of choice. Give me your hightheory4dummies o/v if you’re going to read an abstract criticism. This is for me and your opponents. I also HATE the franken-K. Also, make sure you have a clear alt & alt solvency.

 

Case debate: I would love to see more of it. I love case turns and am particularly fond of impact turns and solvency debate.

 

Weighing: Do it for me. I do not want to resolve every sheet based on my flows and piecemeal a ballot. Doing so requires me to intervene far more than I would like. I will vote for linear impacts, structural impacts, or terminal impacts.

Theory: overview - I will only vote on theory if there is A. an impact B. contextualized reason it should be rejected especially if there is not in-round “abuse”. RVIs are a waste of your time. Theory shells should be specific to the context of the round.

-Will not vote on disclosure/wiki theory because A. I don’t have any proof of if someone disclosed or not B. There is 100% a better intuitive argument to make 

- Will absolutely vote on spec arguments (love aspec + an agent cp + agent specific da)

-Inclined to reject the arg and not the team

-Default to competing interps

-Topicality/FW are great but so are critiques of them.

 

Performance: Debate does not exist in a vacuum. I will vote on performance if I know what my role is and what my ballot’s role is.

---

Claire Crossman - IVC

---

Claire Crossman - CUI

Ã?Ã

---

Cyndi Berck - UCSD

n/a

---

DEVEN COOPER - CSULB

n/a

---

Dana Trunnell - Prairie State

In competitive debate, I am looking for well-argued and evidenced constructive cases that are strongly upheld through fallacy-free argumentation in rebuttal. The presentation of the top of the case should clearly identify a weighing mechanism for the round, which need not be value-based, especially when a policy or fact resolution is selected.

In each debate, clash should be evident. The AFF/Government should not run cases that prevent the NEG/Opposition from developing its case. Any unfair top-of-the-case definitions or abusive development of constructive cases by the AFF/Government will be frowned upon.

Other factors that are important to my decision:

1. As this is a communication activity, delivery (especially in IPDA), should be extemporaneous, conversational, and communicative. In rounds where I am judging, speed, especially for the sake of "spreading," will not be valued.

2. Being able to talk about controversial topics in a civil and productive manner is a skill that will be upheld in my rounds. Please be courteous to your opponent(s). Any rude behavior or comments are negative points for me.

3. I am okay with counter plans and topicality arguments if good justification can be made for using them. I am more likely to value counter plans in a policy debate.

4. I'd like to think that I am an intelligent coach/judge who writes thoughtful critiques that consider the myriad skills a good debater possesses. When proposing voters, it's okay to ask me to consider argumentation or lack thereof in my decision, but please do not tell me what I can or cannot uphold.

5. The educational pursuit of an eager debater is important to me and I will go out of my way to ensure I am contributing my part to a debater's success. I value debates where all debaters in the round seem passionate about becoming better at argumentation and conversation. In other words, each debater should want to be in the room where it happens, so to speak.

---

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 Bowers - MVC

n/a

---

Deanna Ableser - CSUN

n/a

---

Destinee Sior - Maricopa

---

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

n/a

---

Dominic Lesaca - DVC

TLDR: Speed fine, condo bad, Ks good, topical please, theory good, put me on the email chain: domlesaca@gmail.com

I competed in Parli/LD at the University of the Pacific. I am a first year out so most of my thoughts are still directly impacted by my own time in debate and my views will probably change the more I judge. I know nothing about courts so if it is a SCOTUS topic please break it into little bits that my baby brain will understand. I am annoyed by the amount of back-filling in most MOs and because of that am more willing to accept PMR arguments against MO blowups of blippy LOC tags. The most important thing to know is that I am lazy by nature so whoever gives me simplest route to the ballot will probably win.

Delivery:

I should be able to handle speed just fine so long as you remain clear, and if I have trouble following then I will call "speed" or "clear". Just make sure everyone has access to the round and you will be fine. For online tournaments please just bring down the speed a notch or two, spreading over zoom calls tends to sound like static over the line and that is just annoying.

Advantages and Disadvantages:

Be sure your tags are clear and number your arguments as much as possible as it makes it much easier to flow. That applies to all of the stuff below. DA debate is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch, especially when the scenarios are very specific to the topic and the aff. Offense is great but 100% loses to better warranted defense. I dont have a default preference for certain impacts over another but high magnitude impacts do make the the decision take less thought when teams dont do their own impact comparison.

Theory:

I always enjoyed debating theory. My threshold on T is fairly low, this means I don't need proven abuse but if you do give me proven abuse you basically have my ballot. Spec is mostly just used to waste people's time but if you have reasons why specification is key for ground on the resolution or specific plan then I am on board. Reasonability can mean a lot of things, you should tell me what it means to you so I know how to evaluate it. Any theory about reading the plan in the first X minutes will make me upset, that is a bad argument and you should feel bad for running it. In my mind the team answering theory needs some kind of counter interp, if you just read offense against T or framework without one I will just default to "the only game in town" rule.

Counter Plans:

Parli - Conditional advocacies are bad.

Other events - I am sympathetic to condo bad but have a higher threshold on the condo bad shell but you should justify why it is good/bad in the specific debate format you are in. I will vote for cheater CPs (states, consult, delay), but I am also very willing to vote on theory against them. The neg will be more likely to win these theory arguments if you show me how the CP is an important issue in the topic lit. For delay, the neg will have to win solid probability on their DA to convince me their is a net benefit to the CP. I generally think of perms as a test of competition if you want to make it an advocacy, you need to debate it out in round. In general I believe introducing a negative advocacy also flips presumption to the affirmative.

K's:

Ks are great, I just may need more explanation of what the alt actually does and will be annoyed if the neg refuses to explain the K until the MO. I dont think that Ks need frameworks to be competitive but probably still need to solve or outweigh the aff then. The Alt should provide some mechanism to solve what you are critiquing, if it is just reject I am going to need some specific framing or historical example where rejecting has been successful in fighting what you are critiquing. My wheelhouse has generally been neolib, Agamben, death denialism (not death drive), ableism, and security. Don't be afraid to go outside of those examples but be sure to explain it well for me.

K affs:

Aff Ks are fine but I still prefer you to be topical and actually affirm the resolution. If you negate or just ignore the resolution on the aff then we are gonna have some problems. You don't necessarily have to defend fiat but be sure to defend why your framework provides for equitable debate (I.E. you probably shouldn't force the neg to defend racism as their only ground). Performance Ks can be a bit confusing if not explained well so be sure to tell me how your performance solves and give me framework so I know how to evaluate it.

Evidence:

I think disclosure in evidence based debate is generally good. Please dont be stingy on sharing evidence with your opponents. I follow along with evidence read in round but I will only read it in depth if I am told to or need to resolve an issue. I dont totally disregard good analytics but evidence is generally preferred if possible.

Speaker Points:

I generally start at 29 and then rank down at a difference of about .5 points. If someone does something really interesting or funny I'll put them at a 30. I may alter the scale if you spread out a novice team.

---

Dr. Taleyna Morris - GCC

n/a

---

Elyssa Hulse-Schultheiss - Saddleback

n/a

---

Felitxa Zaragoza - El Camino

n/a

---

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

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

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

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

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

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

---

Gayathri Donepudi - UCSD

n/a

---

Greg Gorham - GCU

---

Heather Nagle - OCC

n/a

---

Heather Gilmore-Dooley - MSJC

n/a

---

Ilinca Slabu - LCC

n/a

---

Jack Walsh - UCSD

n/a

---

Jackie Zucker - UCSD

n/a

---

Jacqueline Yu - PCC

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

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

For partner communication in parli, be careful of puppeteering. 

Please do not spread. Breathe! 

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

---

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Moorpark

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

---

Jasmine Moheb - UCSD

Hey everyone, my name is Jasmine (she/her/her's) and I come from four yeas of high school experience mainly in Congressional Debate (I competed at district and national level, CHSSA state, and was a finalist at the 2018 TOC) and am now entering my third year in collegiate debate. In college, I compete in the NPDA (parliamentary debate with more tech)/IPDA/BP formats so I am well-versed in everything from technical debate to more lay, rhetoric-heavy debate. I have been coaching debate for six years now and judging for three years, most recently at the 2020 NSDA nationals. I do not like/cannot follow *extreme* spreading, so please avoid doing that if I am judging a policy round. Overall, I look for well-articulated arguments with clear and coherent links as well as concrete impacts. Unique contentions are always a plus. It is very important in Congress to show to me that you are interacting with the round if you are one of the later speakers; clash is appreciated. In other debates, I would consider myself to be a flow judge, so organization and clarity is critical. I am also familiar with and have judged all speech events and there is less of a paradigm I can give for that because everyone is so different, just enjoy your time in speech and debate and performing! Best of luck to everyone!

---

Jason Foster - UCSD

n/a

---

Jeff Samano - Fullerton College

n/a

---

Jenifer Montgomery - SCC

My Experience:

 

2.5 years of college individual events for OCC and CSUF (NFA/AFA)

INFO, POE, POI, IMP, PROS

 

3 years coaching elementary, middle school, high school and college-level forensics

- Coached and judged all IE events as well as Parli, POFO, IPDA, and a bit of LD

 

Tldr; I'm looking for logical, respectful, and fair debates where you show confidence in your arguments and sources. Fun debates are welcome as long as any sassiness, jokes, etc. are made in good fun maintain respect, and everyone is clear on this. Focus building YOUR argument most of all.

 

What are the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate?

 

I'm looking for solid arguments that are backed by sources and can be defended against your opponent's questions and counter-arguments. Confidence in your argument makes a huge difference as well; if you don't believe your own arguments, how do you expect me to?

 

I appreciate a slower, clear, emphasis on your main contentions so that I am clear on what I am judging and where points are dropped. It's extra helpful however, fo you to call out any dropped arguments as it (1) helps me catch any I missed and (2) shows me that you caught it and are critically analyzing your opponent's arguments.

 

What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?

 

Courtesy above all else. This usually isn't a problem, but I have seen some eye rolls, face-making, and rude remarks made mid-debate. I don't mind a friendly banter amongst competitors (in fact, I LOVE a witty and fun debate) but please make that clear at the end with some good sportsmanship. Overall I don't want to see any lines crossed in terms of respect. Keep ad hominem at the door, we are a community and should treat each other as such.

 

I also love to see your personalities pop in a debate and love to see any personal ties to your arguments. You are a unique human being so play to your strengths as a speaker, I will adapt to you.

 

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

 

I want you to make a strong argument for YOUR point and not just focus on dismantling your opponent's points (especially neg). Even if you manage to poke holes in your opponent's arguments or plans, if they're the only ones who gave me a solid plan to go off of, they will still get my vote. Do not simply tell me to vote for you, let your arguments convince me of that.

 

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

 

If your opponent is fine with these aspects so am, however, I am also aware of the many arguments against spreading so if this is brought up mid-round that is something I will take into consideration against anyone spreading who did not check in with their opponents (& me) beforehand. In short, your opponent needs to be able to follow along with your arguments in order for this debate to be fair.

 

Most importantly: Have fun! 

---

Jennifer Baney - MSJC

My judging paradigm is a policymaker. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot.

Tips for the neg team: I will vote heavily on disadvantages and counter plans. I find that the chance for students to build their neg case in relation to those items makes for a debate round that is both entertaining and educational therefore easier to judge. However, something that I do not value in a debate is arguments used to fill time rather than which appears to be the overall use of Topicality. Specifically, unless someone is clearly not topical I think it just fills time in debate and removes any educational value so don't run it just to run it. Additionally, my paradigm solves so there should be no need to have a topicality. K's are okay but again unless there is a blatant obvious or necessary it removes the educational value from the debate. To clarify K's are awesome when if you want to sip on some coffee and talk about all sorts of theories, please send me an invitation. However, in a debate round.

Tips for aff: you should make sure that you are calling the neg for these items. It is your job to shape the round fairly and to hold a lasting impact. Do not remove education by making the round too restrictive and please include advantages as well as impacts that are unique. The simplest way to view the debate and remove bias is weighing affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages because it allows for impacts to decide the ballot. Impacts win my ballot 9/10 times but this does not mean claiming the biggest impact wins but rather the most logical impact carries the most amount of weight. 

General tips: I like clear speed but you have to create the most inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. If you are competing against someone who cannot handle your speed it is your responsibility to become inclusive. I flow on a laptop so that means that I need labels to be explicit regardless if you spread or not. I refuse to take "outside gossip" as a role on my ballot and if you decide slander is your game, best of luck.

TLDR; All I really care about are impacts, however, if you want to make the round more enjoyable for me and follow the other stuff I really enjoy, sounds good. 

---

Jessica Kwack - LACC

n/a

---

Jimmy Gomez - OCC

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

---

Joel Salcedo - Fullerton College

n/a

---

Jordan Kay - SDSU

---

Joseph Evans - El Camino

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Josh Vannoy - GCU

Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. 6 years of coaching at GCU, one as ADOD (Assistant Director of Debate) and five as DOD (Director of Debate). I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood, Bear Saulet, and Amanda Ozaki-Laughon have all been large influences in my debate career.

General:

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

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

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

- Be friendly

Theory:

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

Case:

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

Performance:

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

The K:

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

Non-topical Affirmatives:

I am open to nontopical Affs but need a solid link/reason for the topic being rejected. I will be very open to FW ran well against a non topical aff.

CP Theory:

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

Never run delay.

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

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

Permutations:

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

Speaker Points:

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

---

Joshua Green - Prairie State

In terms of debate I'm looking for well evidenced argumentation. Clearly defined adherence to structure and flow. Reasoned logical argumentation. Civility in terms of tone and delivery.

---

Kaden Meyers - OCC

n/a

---

Kaitlyn Gleeson - CUI

Background: I did debate for like 11 years, I debated at Concordia for 4 years, and I was a tech debater for most of those years.

TLDR: I am willing to vote for anything, if you can justify it. I will not do the work for you, I will not fill in personal knowledge to make an argument work. I prefer you go in depth to articulate an argument rather than drop a one-liner and expect me to give it a lot of weight in the debate.

Speed - I was a tech debater and could keep up fairly well, however, I am not as fast as I once was, so I doubt I can keep up with top speed. That being said, I am not afraid to say "slow" if I can't keep up, so don't be afraid to go as fast as you need to.

Policy - I love policy debates. Military policy and economics were some of my favorite topics. If you are "cross-applying" something, actually tell me the warrant and how that warrant applies in the cross application. I am willing to vote for any type of counterplan and in the same way am willing to vote for theory saying those counterplans are bad. See the theory paragraph to know how I weigh theory.

The Kritik - Overall I don't care what kritiks you run. On the neg, make sure they link. On the aff, it is important to note that I view the debate in a series of layers. When it comes to a kritical aff that is topical, I know very well and am willing to listen to both sides of whether policy or kritical is more important on the aff. However, when a non-topical kritical aff and theory are in contention with each other, I see theory as a layer above kriticisms. What this means is that you cannot weigh the "content" of a k aff against a theory until you have won the right to run that aff. This means that for me, substantive impact turns to topicality or other theory must have a theoretical justification to be run in the first place. In K on K debates, those usually get convoluted, but if you are clear and warrant out why your framing and impacts are a prerequisite to the other teams, or perhaps are just more important, then it will make my job easier.

Theory - I think that theory should be warranted. I have run the short-shelled arguments and will listen, but the minimal amount of effort that is put into a short theory will be what I expect your opponent to respond with. Interps should be competitive. Violations should be explained. Standards should have impacts and if the debate becomes a theory debate, explain how they interact with each other and which one matters most and why. On voters, simply saying "fairness and education" is not a terminalized impact and you should explain more. If there are multiple theories on the flow, and you are choosing one theory, explanation and framing arguments that layer the debate for me show higher levels of engagement with the content of debate.

I am open to any questions if there are other inquiries.

---

Katie Lin - UCSD

n/a

---

Katya Azzam - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Katya Azzaam - (PSCFA)

n/a

---

Kitrina Baumgartner - (PSCFA)

n/a

---

Kristina Sanville - CSU Chico

---

Kyle Duffy - COC

---

Lauren Sherman - OCC

n/a

---

Laurie Cicotello - OCC

n/a

---

Lizeth Chimal - Mt. SAC

Hi! My Name is Lizeth Chimal.

When judging, I want a clear reason on why I should be voting for you. (Make it easy for me) I should not have to fill in the holes. Logic in arguments is very important. The more you break down an argument the more enticed I will be to vote for you. Have fun! No spreading.

---

Lucy Giusto - Contra Costa

I have over 30 years of experience in speech and debate. It is important to sign-post in all events so that I know where to apply arguments. Debate events such as IPDA and Parlimentary debate require explanation of the debaters arguments using analogies and examples and some evidence. Debate events like policy debate require evidence and a rationale for the evidence. Please provide a rationale along with a tag.

---

Malcolm Gamble - Cerritos

Generally:

I believe that the debate round is yours and think you should be able to advocate for the ballot in any (reasonable) way that you choose. I will try hard to evaluate your arguments based on the framework that you present and will default to a criterion of net benefits unless you tell me otherwise. If your interpretation is particularly creative, extra emphasis on how it functions within the round is helpful to me.

Evaluation:

I will try to vote on the flow, based on the arguments you make. The more structure you use, the better chance I have of putting your arguments where they go. I pay attention to your impact calculus, so you should too. If you dont explain how arguments interact, I must decide for myself, which is harder for me and less predictable for you.

---

Mark Faaita - CSU Chico

In all forms of debate I prefer arguments that are well reasoned and have supporting evidence. I am open to just about any kind of argument, but I think that more abstract/philosophical arguments typically run the risk of being easily leveraged against the team deploying them in the round. There are few to no arguments that I think will hear in a round and immediately disregard. i vote for arguments I don't like/disagree with all of the time. Please, please, please do not be rude to your opponents. It's just not a good look and creates a tension in the room that doesn't need to be there.

---

Matthew Alingog - CSUF

n/a

---

Matthew Shoop - PCC

I'm basically a lay judge when it comes to debate.�????????�???????�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�  I've seen a lot of IPDA and very much enjoy the event but I'm not versed in much of the terminology of debate.�????????�???????�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�  My decisions come down to the strength of arguments.�????????�???????�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�  Please signpost whenever you can to help me follow your arguments.�????????�???????�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�  Other than that just be clear!�????????�???????�??????�?????�????�???�??�?� 

---

Meghan Gleeson - CUI

I view debate as a game and I will reward the teams who play the game better based solely on the round and arguments that are made. To help clarify there are some other thoughts teams might want to know about my views on certain arguments. 

---

Michael Dvorak - GCU

---

Michael Starzynski - (PSCFA)

n/a

---

Michael Williams - PCC

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

---

Mitchell Levy - LCC

n/a

---

Mohamad Almouazzen - (PSCFA)

n/a

---

Monica Flores-Garcia - PCC

I'm an IE judge/coach! I'm open to any style and strategy as long as students stick to the following:

• No Spreading:Speed won't add clarity to your arguments or make them more persuasive. Please avoid speaking too quickly. I want to be able to catch every word you say.
• Parli and LD Jargon: Avoid using this kind of jargon especially when you're competing in IPDA. Your speeches should be accessible to any/all judges watching in terms of clarity. (If I'm seeing you in parli then its totally fine!)
• Be Respectful: Attack your opponent's contentions, not them. Please avoid fighting/arguing with your partner. Be nice to everyone in the round!

Please do the following:

• Cameras On: Please turn on your camera! You miss out on several communication tools (eye contact, hand gestures, facial expressions) when we can't see you!
• Stay Organized: Good conversational speed, transition phrases, signal words, roadmaps etc. will alllow me to follow you better and more easily.
• Use Sources: Utilize sources to build your case! Analyze and explain why they support your claims along with why we need to know this information. Don't assume I know how you'd like me to interpret this evidence and move forward without connecting the citation back to your argument.

---

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

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

---

Nicholas Thomas - Palomar

n/a

---

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

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

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 conducive 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. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.
   
   
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 don'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: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
   - Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...
   
   
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 don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

---

Nika Nikoubin - (PSCFA)

n/a

---

Noelle Anderson - Moorpark

I judge IPDA based on the arguments made in the round and how each debater adapts while listening to their opponent. Additionally, I take into account delivery and camaraderie. Please avoid debate jargon or talking so fast that the audience cannot follow along. 

---

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. 

---

Oliver Tripp - (PSCFA)

n/a

---

Orion Steele - SFSU

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

---

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: September 2023

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isnt what I mean. I dont think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical completely fair to an equally mythical completely unfair. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to completely unfair. Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didnt especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

---

Pedro Ribeiro - OCC

n/a

---

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

---

Priscilla Chin - UCSD

n/a

---

Raffaela Baker - Saddleback

Keep it conversational

Let me know how to evaluate the debate (i.e., provide a voting criteria)

No spreading please.

Have fun!

---

Rebecca Pickner - LCC

n/a

---

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

---

Robert Montgomery - CSUF

n/a

---

Robert Hawkins - DVC

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

---

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).

---

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.

---

Ryan Corso-Gonzales - SU

Ryan Corso

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Director of Forensics at Schreiner University

Updated Fall 2021

About me

I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California, and one time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there I completed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. In my senior year, my partner Benji and I took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I recently received my master's in communication from the University of Louisville, my studies focus heavily on Rhetoric, Marxism, Neoliberalism, The Public Sphere, and Networking. I'm currently the Director of Forensics at Schreiner University, we are new to the circuit.

I owe all of my knowledge in debate and my success to my amazing coaches, mentors, and teammates that helped me through my career most significantly Amanda Ozaki-Laughon, Joe Ozaki-Laughon, Trevor Greenan, Aaron Alford, Benjamin Lange, Alyson Escalante, Josh Alpert, Will White, and Judith Teruya.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow-centric judge. Debate is a game, you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I recently read the open-source material from Trevor Greenan and I believe I can uphold the above statement at a higher level now. I'm open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, fascists args, etc) just be prepared to justify your actions, and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran policy args, just as much as I ran Kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most. I think people on the circuit would have referred to me as a K debater, yet I wouldn't have.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links, and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I am open to hearing about new positions, and I will always do my best to understand the position that you're reading to the best of my ability. So you can feel free to use me as a test for a new kritik or position in front of me, I'm open to anything. Debate is a game, and I believe in the multiple worlds paradigm, so win the game the way you like.

Policy:

As with most judges default to policy-making good framework, if both teams accept this then great, however, this doesn't mean critical arguments don't operate within that framework. Policy debates should consist of advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact structure, because I believe it provides the clearest format for debate. I am familiar with other structures for policy debates as well but I don't think they provide the same strategic framework as the prior structure. Value and Fact rounds do exist and provide unique educational and fairness aspects to them (this probably has to do with my CC background).

Counterplans are opportunity costs to the aff, I don't believe that they are advocacies. I'm fine with conditional counterplans, heck even multiple conditional counterplans. This doesn't mean I won't vote on condo bad, I just don't have a low threshold on the argument as I used to. If you want to say condo is bad, then you will need to win that argument on the flow the same as any other theory position.

Theory:

Theory is my favorite aspect to debate and in my view one of the most educational parts of debate. A good theory consist of a clear interp, and an unique violation that explains the operative nature of that interp. Standards, are not tag lines, this is the substantial aspect of theory for its how I conceptualize the offense in the round, most of the theory debate happens here and it is the most important aspect of the debate. There is a very good lecture on NPTE 14 (youtube) about how standards consist of Links, Internal links that lead to your impacts. Fairness and Education are the only two competitive impacts that I have heard in regards to theory. Do not just read tag lines on in theory debates, I will not fill in arguments for you. Each round is specific and this should be clear in your reading or responding to theoretical positions. MG theory is fine, I just think you shouldn't abuse it.

* Substantial engagement, or whatever this theory arg was called, is NOT an impact! You will not pick up a ballot from me be reading this, it is an internal link to Fairness and Education. If you decide to collapse to a theory shell with this as your only impact, you can just assume you already lost the round.

Kritiks:

Kritiks need a CLEAR link to the AFF, or the topic, for me to even consider voting for it. I will not do the work for you filing in your links. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round. You do not get to win just because you read a Kritik, you need adequate links in order to win, and an alternative or advocacy that resolves the impacts identified. (This means I'm more than willing to not vote on a kritik that has adequate forms of terminal defense against it. If I believe there isn't an adequate explanation of a link I will not vote on the K.)

If you believe your kritik is complicated, please have a thesis portion! I am a firm believer in providing a thesis for kritiks. Almost all the kritiks I wrote had an in-depth thesis. All that said, I enjoy complicated and strategic kritiks, and at the end of my career I even began to utilize Kritiks without frameworks, so I understand how a well-written kritik has the potential to operate in that manner.

Kritiks are a great method to layering the debate, it doesn't mean that all other impacts are invalid just that new framework arguments are needed to balance or relayer the debate. Please make sure your impacts are terminal and do impact comparison and make sequencing arguments in the rebuttals, even if you believe that you have out-framed your opponents.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Baudrillard, MLM, Nietzsche, Reps, and Rhetoric.

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. Therefore, I do not believe that debate is a space for you to impose or weaponize certain religions or religious, or other non-falsifiable content. For instance, I do not feel educated enough on these matters and or comfortable being put into a spot affirming or disaffirming your faith in a certain religion. I think it's also probably disingenuous to weaponize a religion that you do not believe in within the debate space.

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I don't know what these kritiks are being labeled these days, but I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person (especially at a national tournament). This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, cause I will. A clear in round link is easily verifiable, while outside aspects are almost impossible. Being able to witness the link occur is a lot more of a viable link argument, in my opinion, than one team claiming things happened outside of the round, or in the past. If have no way to validate an argument I, therefore, won't feel comfortable voting on something of the such. Please don't expect me to already "know" (I have been removed from the debate community for the most part the past two years), also please don't attempt to prove something occurred to me. Also, I feel very compelled by apologies as a method to resolve the kritik, for in most instances I've seen this run I think? I know this is probably a controversial opinion and that's ok with me, if these kritiks are viable and important strategies to you as a debater I think you're better off striking me. I'm a firm believer in the idea that people can and will change, ie rehabilitation and reeducation is good.

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, as a way to evaluate rhetorical capabilities, there's IPDA for that. I view speaker points as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. An easy way to think about this is in regards to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I value Ethos and Logos far greater than Pathos. While all are essential to argument making, I don't find pathos as compelling in the debate setting. I give speaker points based on the idea "Whoever did the best debating".

* DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents, good debate is a genuine and nice debate. The community is really important to maintain.

Side note:

I will do my best to weigh the round in the manner I think is most fair in regards to how you present them. I will try my best to vote for the team I think won... I guess that's all I can do.

If you think my decision is wrong please feel free to talk to me about it. I won't hold grudges for people defending positions they had in rounds. Debate is a very passionate event, I was a very passionate debater, and I think that's a beautiful aspect about debate! That being said there is a difference between being a passionate debater and a jerk in the round. I don't think you should belittle your opponents or judge in debate, but you can question me and potentially be upset with my decision. It is my job to vote for the team I think won, and I believe it is part of a judge's job to defend and explain their decision in the instance that occurs.

Good Luck, Have Fun! DEBATE IS A GAME! ENJOY THE RIDE, PLAY IT HOWEVER YOU WANT!

Note to Seniors: Your success in debate does not in any way correlate with your worth as a person! Debate is a GAME! This should be a fun experience and I hope you make as many friends as possible in debate and cherish every moment with your teammates and opponents. Some of the most incredible people I have ever met have come into my life because of debate and I hope that applies to you. Please try to have fun, don't hold grudges and enjoy every moment. The real world is so different than the debate world and I hope your transition from the debate world is smooth and incredible! I've realized that so much of what I thought was important and damning in debate has very little value outside of that echo chamber. That's not always for the best, but it is the reality. Stay friendly, humble, and smart moving forward in life! I wish the Best of Luck to everyone who leaves this community! Also, please bring grace back to debate, be forgiving and open planes of discourse.

---

Ryan Fobes - El Camino

n/a

---

Sage Russo - SFSU

n/a

---

Sam Jones - GCU

---

Sean Connor - OCC

I am primarily an IE Coach, however I also appreciate a good debate.

Spreading: Dont do it. It defeats the purpose of the educational nature of this activity. Speak to be heard and understood.

Organization: Be clear in your structure; show me how the arguments fit together and be sure that clash is occurring between your and your opponents arguments; roadmap your speeches and label your components,

Kritiks/Topicality: Im game as long as they make sense. Dont do it to do it. Do it because it makes sense.

IPDA: This event is meant to be distinct from Parliamentary Debate; I think about it as competing extemps; this means that style is an important component that must be utilized. You should also avoid highly technical language and treat me as a lay judge.

NPDA:You may use more technical language with me; however, this does not mean you may spread (see above).

Off-Time Roadmaps: I time roadmaps; they don't take a lot of time, so do them but include it in your time.

Partner Communication: Keep communication to a minimum while each partner debates; you may pass notes, but the person speaking is the person that needs to be the one making the arguments

If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them. Otherwise, I'm happy to give critiquesafterthe round is finished,aftermy ballot is turned in, and only if it doesn't impede with the tournament running on time. If you see me after the round, I'm happy to give you feedback then.

---

Selene Aguirre - Cerritos

As an educator, the core of my teaching and judging philosophy is empowerment and inclusion. My experiences are primarily focused on platform speaking. However, Iâ??ve taught Argumentation and Debate for the past four years and have developed a few preferences when judging IPDA, Parli, and LD. 

As a debater, I expect you to speak with clarity, a bit faster than a conversation speaking rate (but avoid speeding if the speech will be affected), and loud enough for me to hear you. I prefer off-time roadmaps for clarity, appreciate signposts throughout speeches, and praise respectfulness and good sports[person]ship. Also, I am a tabula rasa judge (consider myself a clean slate). I will allow you to guide the round and not let my preconceived ideas cloud my judgment. Therefore, I look for clear and well-supported arguments, evidence, and analysis, and lastly, let me know how you weigh your impacts and why your voters are more critical than your opponent. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm if thereâ??s no way to assess it another way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your time! 

Inclusion is not a matter of political correctness. It is the key to growth. -Jesse Jackson

---

Shauhin Davari - OCC

The debaters that win my ballot most often present clear, concise, well supported arguments. I want clash. I’m not a huge fan of K’s or any preplanned argument that doesn’t have to do with the resolution. Look up from your flow sheet, my face will tell you if I don’t get it.

---

Shayan Saadat - El Camino

---

Stephen Stohs - UCSD

Stephen Stohs  UCSD   1) What is your experience with speech and debate? I have served as a volunteer judge for the UCSD Speech and Debate Team since Fall 2019, and continued judging straight through the pandemic, including the transition to all-online judging in spring 2020. 2) What does your ideal debate round look like? a)  I appreciate well reasoned arguments communicated through a public speaking style that meets professional broadcast standards suitable for television or radio news. b)  The importance of clear communication is heightened by the extra challenges of the pandemic situation.  Under present conditions, an ideal debate round is free of technical glitches which hamper the performance of competitors or judges. 3) Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences? No extra credit will be given for faster than normal speech to cram in as many points of debate as possible. Quality of speech and clarity of expression will be rewarded over quantity or speed.

---

Steve Robertson - Contra Costa

Steve Robertson

Contra Costa College, Director of Forensics

Years competed:1 yr LD (high school), 4.5 years NDT/CEDA (college)

Years coaching: 25+ years (middle school, high school, college - LD, parli, NDT/CEDA, IPDA)

Philosophy - The round is for you to convince me why your side should win the debate. try to be as non-interventionist as I can be. I work off the flow, focusing on your claims, warrants, and evidence. Believability is also a factor. I find it very difficult to vote for arguments that I don't understand how they work or function. So be sure to explain why things are the way they are. Compare impacts, and explain why your impacts/argument outweigh or should be viewed as more important than theirs. The main point is that you need to justify your position to me: what is your argument, why is it legitimate, and why does that matter in light of the other side's arguments. If you can adequately answer those three questions better than the other side, you should win the argument.

I punish non-responsiveness - meaning that if you drop or undercover arguments, they suddenly get much more weight in the round (especially if exploited by the other team). However, if you under-develop your arguments (such as blipping out theory pre-empts without justifying them), it doesn't take much to respond to these arguments.

I also communicate through nonverbals. If you see me nodding, then that means I understand your position (not necessarily agree with it, but I get what you're saying). If you see me cocking my head to the side or scrunching up my face, it means I don't get what you're saying or I don't understand your argument or I don't see why it's relevant. If you see that face, you should either give more explanation (until you see a head nod) or cut your losses and move onto another argument. If you see my hands in the air, that means I don't know where you are on the flow. You should give me a signpost, because I'm currently not flowing you.

Here are some event-specific concerns:

Parli- Debate starts at the highest point of conflict. I will listen to arguments of trichot/type of resolution, though if the tournament identifies it as a particular type of resolution this becomes a bit more difficult.

I don't care about partner to partner communication. However, if it's done during the other team's speech, then mute yourselves from this 8x8 (e.g., chat privately, mute yourselves and talk in another venue, etc.). Don't disrupt the other speaker.

If you want to give your partner advice or arguments, that's fine as well. There are 2 things to be aware of: First, I only listen to what the speaker says. So if you tell your partner something, it doesn't reach my flow until the current speaker says it. Saying "yeah, what she said" will get onto my flow as "yeah, what she said" - not the actual argument. Second, the more you parrot or puppet your partner, the lower your speaker points will become. This is purely subjective on my part, so use at your own peril.

Finally, parli has the Point of Order. I will not protect against new arguments or other rules violations (unless specified to do so in the tournament rules). Use this if applicable. Frivolous use of it, however, will desensitize me to it.

LD- You have the obligation to provide evidence in this debate. Please do so. Referencing evidence that has not been read in the debate will carry the same weight as an assertion for me.

For me, reading the source (publication title and/or authors' last names) and date is sufficient for citations, provided that all additional information is provided on the card's citation itself. If you want to run an official rules violation on this in front of me, I will entertain it, but realize I am disinclined to vote evidence or a debater down if that information is available on the card. Doesn't mean you can't win it, just that it'll be an uphill battle.

Realize that while underlining and highlighting are acceptable ways of modifying evidence for a round, ellipses, unreadable font size, or gaps in text are unacceptable.

IPDA- IPDA is more of a communication event than a debate for me. It is NOT treated the same as parli. I do not flow, but take a very limited amount of notes. Eloquence factors into the decision for me. I think of this as a townhall meeting, closer to interactive persuasion than debate. Avoid debate jargon, extensive line by line analysis, and other more traditional debate tactics. This is about persuasion, not strict argumentation. Think of debating in front of your grandmother, not a debate judge.

Bottom line - make good arguments, offer clash, give impact calculus/comparison, and be civil to one another. Oh...and have fun! :)

---

Taylor Stickle - Saddleback

n/a

---

Tess Wolfe - OCC

I was a competitor in parli and IPDA and have coached both events for the last three years. I see the two as very different events and I'm not a fan of when certain parli habits spread into IPDA.

For parli: I'm looking for clean, clear, and easy to follow structure. I'm also looking for you to source your information. Rebuttals should focus on line-by-line refutation of both the responses to your case and to your opponent's case arguments. I'm not a big fan of theoretical arguments, like kritiks, unless they are absolutely necessary. I also like for the debate to be held at a reasonable speed, if you're going to quickly that your arguments can't be followed by an average person then you're probably losing me too, and I can't vote for arguments I couldn't catch. Just give me clear, understandable clash, please.

For IPDA: This is not parli. You should approach IPDA as more of a speaking and research-oriented event. Your speed should be understandable by a lay judge and so should your arguments. Try to stay as organized as possible and if you're going to use parli terms, explain them.

---

Tiberius Hernandez - UCSB

All debates

Any argument you want to read works. Impact weighing is an absolute must.

Policy

I know a lot people automatically are looking for how judges feel about the k. In terms of where I land on the spectrum of policy to kritikal arguments, I probably more comfortable with policy arguments but this does NOT mean I hate the k. I will vote for anything that is well explained, but a lot of times teams will rely on the judge being very familiar with their scholarship in order to get away with their tricks and skip explanations; if you do this you will lose. If at the end of the debate I'm not scratching my head about what the advocacy/alternative does and what your thesis is because you explained it well, you'll be in good shape.

Disad stories should be well explained. Don't just read a zillion 1 sentence cards; actually answer the specific warrants of the link and uniqueness claims of both sides. It's possible for there to be zero risk for something.

The counterplans can be either textually or functionally competitive. If you're reading more than 4 conditional positions I'd probably think that's abusive; but if you win condo good than hey, condo's good.

T is incredibly strategic, more teams should go for it. That being said, if the t debate just is a bunch of the classic one liner arguments being thrown by both sides, then it is incredibly difficult to evaluate. Also, in framework debates, aff should be sure to answer the 1nc warrants thoroughly and not just put 15 disads on the flow.

Impact turn debates are always a good time.

Final word: I personally can't stand excessively long overviews. Its become a trend to hide a bunch of offense in there and then go onto the line by line and answer stuff with "that was in the overview." Do your explanation and whatever you else you feel you need to do at the top, but please do the line by line on the line by line.

I start at 29.0 and work my way up. If you slip in a sports joke I'll boost you an extra 0.05. I'll tank you if you say something hella problematic.

---

Tim Seavey - SDSU

---

Turea Erwin - UCSD

n/a

---

Vanessa Stone - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Vrinda Saroha - UCSD

Hello everyone, I am Vrinda Saroha. I used to be a delegate in MUNs, trying to pass the most difficult of motions, until I turned to debating. I have been on the board of my school's BRICS forum, and I have judged a number of elocution competitions. 

---

Xavi Torres - PCC

I did mostly interp when I competed, but have been trained in debate jargon and coaching novices in the activity. For the most part, consider me a layperson for all forms of debate and adjust accordingly.

---

Zachary Dittami - OCC

n/a

---

Zihad Amin - IVC

  Judging Philosophy

 

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

---