2025 Robert Barbera Collegiate Forensics Invitational Tournament

California State University, Northridge - Nov 8-9 | Status: Completed

Profile Image
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

AJ Moorehead - LAVC

Time starts on your first word. Please don't do the "Time... begins... NOWIAFFRIMTHE RESOLUTION" thing. I promise I know how to use a timer.
Have been judging since 2001. Have coached some teams, have worked some camps, so I will probably understand your argument but I will not impact it for you. I believe the "perceptual debate" is real and I try not to get sucked into it.
My default is to judge the round using the standard that has been agreed upon or defended more successfully. I will make other calculations if a debater proposes and defends that I should.
I prefer to hear about the world rather than the round so please reserve procedural (theory) arguments and kritiks until you are absolutely out of things to say or until your opponent begins to observably cheat.
All judges want a clear, numbered list of voting issues at the end of your final rebuttal and so do I. Better debaters will offer such a list at the end of each and every rebuttal.

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

Abe Nesheiwat - Cypress College

I genuinely enjoy a good debate and I have judged many rounds across different events, including IPDA, Parli, and LD.

Judging Philosophy:

  • Please speak at a reasonable pace; If I say CLEAR, that means you are speaking too fast and I will miss your arguments.
  • Provide a clear structure and label your points so I can easily follow along.
  • I am fine with off-time roadmaps; just make it quick.
  • I judge based on what is said and done in the round, I will not fill in the gaps for you. If an argument is dropped on the flow, it must be explicitly pointed out to me, along with an explanation of why that dropped argument matters.
  • Make sure to give impacts and LINKS.
  • For IPDA, avoid debate jargon, anyone should be able to understand your arguments regardless of their experience.
  • Give me clear voters.
  • Please be professional.
  • Above all, be respectful to everyone in the round and have fun. I want to see all competitors grow, improve, and succeed.

Agatha Attridge - ASU

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.



Angel Morales - CSUN

n/a

Angela Alfaro - CSUN

n/a

Annika Fisk - CSULB

I am primarily a speech judge but I have debate experience and I can follow debate. I appreciate strong arguments specifically be very clear about claims and warrents and signpost very clearly. I do not like speeding or spreading when it makes me hard for me to follow the debate. I generally do not like Kritiks and Topicality unless it is done very clearly, and if I cannot follow it I will not vote for you. It is your job to tell me why you won the debate and tell me why your arguments are stronger than your opponents. Please self time and have fun!!

Ariel-Elizabeth Arti - CSUN

n/a

Ashton Poindexter - Utah

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

I'm okay with whatever arguments you want to run so long as you do clear warranted analysis, argument comparison, and evidence comparison. A couple of key considerations are:
I have a higher threshold for theory if you don't collapse to it.

Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.
I'll default to topicality/theory being apriori, so if you want me to evaluate something else first you need to make the arguments.
You can't win just because your advocacy could also solve the issue if you haven't linked them to offense.
I'm good with speed, though there's two reservations. First, I often flow electronically now so I need a bit extra time between page transitions. Second, if your opponents ask you to slow I expect you to slow. If you need someone to slow, you should say slow and not clear, clarity I expect them to bite their pallet while still going quick.
In general - I like good arguments, I don't like bad arguments. Pleasemake good arguments and be a good human being while you do it.

Athena Zhang - UCSB

n/a

August Jones - RioRunners

n/a

Ben Mason - El Camino

TLDR: Run whatever you want, I'll vote on the flow and whatever fw you want me to evaluate. I'm a 4th year undergrad at CSULB studying Communications. I debated for El Camino College in NPDA / IPDA / Limited Prep Speeches / Interps for 2 years. If there are any questions or preferences let me know. Communication: Communication with your partner in any manner is fine, but I will only flow whatever the present speaker says. Be respectful to your opponents and your partner. Speed: I don't mind speed, just speak clearly and concisely. I won't call clear or slow because it's your time and you can use it however you want, but I may give nonverbals to indicate you are going too fast or are being unclear. Kritiks: Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear fw for evaluation, a K without fw is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I primarily ran anthro when I was competiting so I may be a little more critical if thats what you run, but I don't pretend to be an expert or anything. Identity tix are cool and fun arguments are beneficial to debate and individual agency, however, they can also easily be used to bully, silence, or provoke reactions from other teams when weaponized incorrectly. I won't tell you how to run identity arguments but know that it's somewhat of a grey area for me as far as voting. Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as that it's properly structured (interp viol stds voters). I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is clearly just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). MG theory is fine, should be fleshed out though. I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory. RVIS: I don't hate RVI's or IVI's but it's not the most compelling argument. If a team is reading 7 blipped out T shells and 3 blipped out specs then yeah run an RVI but other than that, all instances of spec T and other theory are not cause for debate collapse or abuse. Signposting: Please have brief taglines for your arguments, I can't vote on an argument if I don't know what to call it, where it fits, or why it matters. Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but be sure to make sure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

Bennett Beltramo - SDSU

Experience:
Ive been involved in speech and debate for several years as both a competitor and a coach, working across platform, limited prep, and NFA-LD. I love this activity because it teaches clear thinking, persuasive speaking, and respectful discourse.

Ideal Round:

My ideal round is professional, respectful, and engaging. Debate should be competitive but not combativeso keep it civil and make me want to listen. Personal attacks or rude behavior will result in drops for conduct.

In IPDA, treat me like a well-informed lay judge. Keep jargon to a minimum and focus on clear, conversational persuasionlike were talking around a dinner table about an issue that matters.

For NPDA/LD:

Im a stock issues traditionalist. I appreciate organized, well-tagged debates with clear clash and strong analysis. I welcome topicality, but make it airtightdefine, violate, explain, impact. Im not big on Kritiks, but Ill evaluate them if clearly linked to the resolution.

Signposting and structure are everything. I only flow whats explicitly said, so connect your arguments and give me clean voters.

Delivery:

Your presence matters. I value clarity, pacing, posture, and tonedebate is about communication, not speed for its own sake. Sound confident, not mechanical.

I time everything (yes, even roadmaps), so keep things concise.

Final Thought:

Be organized, persuasive, and respectful. Make the round enjoyablefor both of usand Ill be happy to reward strong, clear argumentation.

Brenda Araiza - CSUN

n/a

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

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



BG:

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

Impacts:

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

Case Debate:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Counterplans:

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

Conditionality:

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

Kritiks:

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

Identity Arguments:

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

Theory:

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

Speed

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

Defending the Topic:

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

Speaker Points:

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

Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

Christian Curtiss - Utah

In my ~10 years being involved in Debate, I've come to understand debate as competitive storytelling. In a round, you're essentially telling me a story about the resolution: who is effected by the res, what happens when we adopt the res, and why that matters. Whichever side best articulates a world post resolution - as well as telling me why that world is good or bad in comparison to the other side's world - wins the ballot.

I want to do the least amount of work possible when making my decision. Your voter speech should make it clear to me what arguments I am voting on, and how I am weighing them in the round. The more that you leave the judge in the dark, the higher the chance the round is just a coin toss. Don't let that happen, make it crystal clear why you win. I don't want to have to sift through the flow to find your winning argument.

Generally, I'm fine with whatever arguments you want to run (Kritiks, CPs, Theory) in any format, as long as you justify that argument well enough. Love me some critical arguments, but please don't just drop "hyperreal" or some equally obscure term and expect your judges and opponents to know what that is.

Any questions before or after round, just ask!

Christian Gutierrez - ULV

n/a

Claudia Ogarrio - CSUN

n/a

Cody Hagemeier - El Camino

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P_kjcw4S3vbKWv15VlVvgDXz7vGEGmQWBz770deGNdw/edit?tab=t.0

Damian Estrada - Cerritos

n/a

Dana Dana Kopyshko - CSUN

n/a

Dara Kemeberly Calderon Delgad - CSUN

n/a

Darleene Rocha - CSUN

n/a

Darrin Sahagon - PCC

I'm primarily an IE coach so please treat me like a lay judge and adjust accordingly.

David Zhand - Moorpark

n/a

Deborah Perez - CSUN

n/a

Dillon Brouwer - UNLV

For cases we use speechdrop. - I don't shake hands.

Me: Current Assistant Coach at UNLV. NFA nationally ranked. Com instructor at UNLV. Theater undergrad. 9+ years debate experience

Ive competed in a everything, but primarily college NFA-LD (1 person policy)

TLDR: Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

- I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

- I can handle about a 7/10 with speed. I'll vote on anything but make sure the K makes sense.

(I keep getting questions on speed, what I mean is I can handle spreading, however if you are going so fast that you must pause mid speech and take a puff of your inhaler, you are going too fast)

Debate is as much much as a performative game as it is a argumentation game

Argumentation

Prefer standard Advantage v Disad debate but I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

For HS debate (LD specifically) I believe that fundamentally

1) Good FW is an ultimate truth and is the most important thing of the round.

2) It is the debaters job to prove a general principal.

3) The proof is in the logic, plans cant be proven and so use your skills to explain it to me with logical lines of thinking. Go over the line by line, give me good overviews and explain where your winning and why.

Safety

If you feel as though you cannot continue the round for any reason and have the ability to knock on the table 3 times please do so and the round will end immediately and a discussion can occur about where to go from there. (I get it, my anxiety attacks freeze me up entirely)

Drew denDulk - CSUN

n/a

Duane Smith - LAVC

I neither did, nor have I ever coached debate. I am all about the individual events. So, performance value is very important to me. Don't speak at me. Speak with me. The easier, more clearly, I can follow your flow, the better you will do.

I also want to enjoy myself. Even though its debate - ITS STILL A PERFORMANCE, and A BATTLE OF WITS. So dont just try and out argue the other team - but also seek to be clever, and have a good time, so that those observing everyone in the round enjoys themselves, while also learning something!

Duncan Stewart - Utah

n/a

Eleni Klostrakis - El Camino

n/a

Elizabeth Talavera - CSUN

n/a

Emma Murdock - Utah

Theory/T: I think that theory is a legitimate check for abuse and prefer if you're running it strategically. Make sure that your voters are terminalized. I don't want just to be told to "vote for education and fairness," tell me why those matter.

K- I don't like them but am familiar with the literature; if you are going to run it, you need to run it well, and it needs to be explained well because it creates better debate about the method of the alternative.

Tell me which impact calc evaluation I should care most about.
Debate should be fun, don't be a dick.

Emma Fernandez - UCLA

n/a

Eric Cervantes - UCSB

n/a

Ernesto Perez - UCLA

n/a

Erwin Monterroso - CSUN

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. :/

Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.

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

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

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

Grant Angeles - CSUN

n/a

Hannah Sutton - UCSB

n/a

Hayden Fong - UCSB

n/a

Heather platon - CSUN

n/a

IS Beltran JR - CSULB

Please treat me as a lay judge.

I value Pathos, Logos, and Ethos in that order. All 3 are important, but I do favor Pathos a tad bit more than Ethos. If you can get me to care, you will have an edge in the round.

****Please regard the following notes as tentative guidelines rather than strict rules for my paradigm. After completing a course on equity in education, I became more aware of how implicit biases can undermine equitable assessments. Consequently, I now make a conscious effort to remain open-minded and as felixible as possible.****

+DEBATE:

Please do NOT run a "fact round."

Although this will NOT affect your score, the patterns typical of "fact rounds" tend to be less effective for me, and competitors who use alternative framing usually avoid these patterns. In the interest of equitable assessment, I recognize that some competitors are trained to use this format, so you will not be penalized. However, those who adopt different framing approaches often gain an advantage in my rounds.

Additionally, while I understand the strategy behind speed reading and spreading (regardless of whether you distinguish between the two), I ask that you slow down. If I can NOT follow your arguments, it will not be beneficial. Always treat me as a lay judge. I primarily focus on elocution in debate (i.e. how well you present your arguments often matters more to me than what the arguments are). I've found that focusing on delivery helps me minimize personal bias and evaluate rounds more fairly.

+Interpretation Events:

I subscribe to Nietzsche's claim that everything we know is metaphor.

For me, interpretation events (IEs) are far more art than arithmetic. While I can articulate what I value, there is no inherently right or wrong way to interpret a piece of literature. What matters most is how well your performance aligns with the argument you are trying to make.

I view IEs through an argumentative lens. An argument must include: claim, evidence, warrant. Your Intro serves as your CLAIM. Your EVIDENCE is the literature you find to support your claim. Your performance functions as your WARRANT it gives form to your interpretation and bridges your message with the text you've chosen. A compelling performance, in my view, is one where emotional, intellectual, and aesthetic choices all support the message you are advocating.

Again, I see IEs as artistic expression, not a technical formula. The round often comes down to what moves me most. I understand this can feel nebulous or even frustrating to read, but I encourage you to perform with conviction and purpose. You may not always win the round, but you will always have a platform and an audience that is required to listen.


+Limited Prep:

Like with debate and IE's, I intend to primarily focus on elocution. Because time signals are a personal weakness of mine, I tend NOT to judge speakers harshly on time management alone. Think of time allocation skills as bonus points: if you manage your time well, it can boost your score, but if you struggle with time allocation, it will not affect your overall score.

+Public Address/Platform:

If youve skipped or scanned until this point, heres the one word you need: DELIVERY. If you've read everything thank you.

Public Address (PA) is, admittedly, the trickiest category for me to judge. Unlike interpretation events, many PA subcategories have structural and strategic expectations that are less open to personal interpretation. That said, elocution remains the core of how I judge all speeches. How well you deliver your message matters as much as, if not more than, the message itself.

Persuasive (PERS):

This is the one event where I judge almost entirely on how well you persuade the audience. I'm looking for both effectiveness and rhetorical strategy. Arguably, every event in speech and debate is a form of persuasion, but in PERS, that expectation is front and center. Your goal is to convince, and I weigh your delivery heavily in determining how well you achieve that.

Informative (INFO):

I approach INFO similarly to PERS, but theres one key distinction: NO CALLS TO ACTION. If your speech includes an explicit call to action, you will lose points. I understand the temptation to advocate. It often happens unintentionally, but I encourage you to let your audience arrive at their own conclusions. Think of an INFO speech as an ENTHYMEME: an argument thats implied, not overtly stated. Your job is to inform, not persuade. There is a key difference.

Rhetorical Criticism / Communication Analysis (RC/CA):

Ah, CA or RC or both. Regardless of how you label it, I judge this event with one primary lens: I want to be taught something. I'm interested in your artifact, your application of scholarship, and your critical judgement.

That said, my criteria remain consistent with other categories: elocution drives everything. I'm focused on how you present your analysis just as much as the content of that analysis. The more clearly and compellingly you communicate your insights, the more likely I am to be persuaded by your presentation.

I hope this is insightful and helpful.

Apologies in advance if I am the squirrel judge in your round. I am notorious for being the squirrel, unfortunately.

Isaac Ramnani - CSULB

n/a

Jack Zhan - UCSB

n/a

Jacob Eredia - El Camino

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!

Jen Page - Cypress College

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

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

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

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

John Loo - SDSU

Background:

  • I've coached speech events for about 12 years and NFA-LD for 6 years.

Philosophy:

  • I evaluate rounds tabula rasa: if it's said and extended, I'll consider it true unless refuted. Dropped arguments can be decisive, especially framework or round-defining claims.
  • I do not assume anythingimpacts must be explained (e.g., why climate change, nuclear war, etc. matter). Debate is not a search for truth; it is a competitive game.

Exceptions:

  • I won't vote on arguments that require me to insert my personal beliefs (use the ballot as a tool, etc.).
  • I won't reward dishonesty. In LD, I read cards and will not vote for debaters who misrepresent evidence.
  • Excessive rudeness or bullying will result in very low speaker points and likely a loss.

Ks and Theory:

  • I am largely tired of kritiks in their traditional forms. You can win one in front of me, but it needs to be distinct, well-applied, and not a generic recycling of the same arguments I've heard for years.

Other Notes:

  • Speed is fine if clear, but only flow what I can understand.
  • Framing and weighing are essential: tell me what matters most.
  • Above all, debate should be competitive, respectful, and fun.

Speech Events

  • Clarity of Story/Argument: Clear throughline guiding the audience.
  • Organization: Clear structure and logical flow.
  • Depth & Research: Strong analysis, evidence, and reasoning.
  • Purposeful Blocking: Movement enhances performance, not just for show.
  • Polish & Professionalism: Well-prepared, confident, smooth execution.
  • Audience Impact: Voice, expression, and connection elevate the piece.

Overall: Prioritize clarity, organization/depth/research second, thoughtful blocking third, and polish/impact last.

Jordan King Henry - CSUN

n/a

Joseph Evans - El Camino

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josie Jose - COC

n/a

Julia Sidley - UNLV

n/a

Justin Perkins - Cypress College

My name is Justin Perkins, I am the Co-DOF at Cypress College, where I am primarily responsible for Debate events including Parliamentary Debate, IPDA, and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically/intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 50 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in a subtly similar yet beautifully different ways.

Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game, and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. However, I am persuaded by debaters exercising and explaining what they know that I know that they know, you know? That means explain everything to the point of redundancy. My brain is mush by the end of a long tournament. I like criteria based arguments, meaning that all warrants should frame the data supporting your claim in the context of the criteria agreed upon in round.

With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round.

This leads to the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, its your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out clear for you to speak more clearly, Speed to speak more slowly, and Signpost if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't pull through incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.

I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and dont really recognize reverse voters for numerous reasons. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. I don't discourage the practice of fact and value debate, in fact, I consider the degree of difficulty in running those cases to be higher. I will entertain as many points of order as you call. You may state your point, and I will entertain a response from the other side, before finally giving you a brutally honest decision to the best of my ability and will encourage my fellow judges on panels to rule on important, big round arguments in rebuttals at their discretion. It is a team activity, but I will only weigh arguments made by the speaker, feel free to repeat partner prompts or pass notes. Give me your best and have fun, I'll be giving you my best and ensuring we have an ordered and fair round.

Kelly Hutchison - Cypress College

Experience-

Hey there you all, my name is Kelly Hutchison and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Cypress College. I recieved my master's at the University of the Pacific in Communication. I have two years of competitive experience at the community college level. I continued my parliamentary debate career at the four year level at CSULB where I was ranked top 13 in the nation prior to national. I then went on to compete in individual events at CSULB qualifying limited prep events (extemporaneous speaking and impromptu) at AFA. After my competitive career, I have been coaching and judging for several years. Now that you know a little about my involvement as a competitor and a judge, let's discuss how I view debate!

Pedagogy-

I view this activity as a unique place to hone advocacy skills and to learn about current events that are going on in the world around us. This activity is the perfect storm of education, competition, strategy, and community. I find it helpful to remember that all of us were once novices in this space and should create spaces for everyone and anyone interested in the activity.

Speed-

I can most assuredly keep up with your speed, if I can't I have no problem "clearing" or "slowing" in round. Although I think speed can increase the competitive nature of the activity, I feel that rounds should be inclusive to all debaters. Therefore, if a team requests debaters to slow down for equity purposes, you should.

The Topic-

I think the affirming the topic is the burden of the affirmative. I believe that switch side debate checks back for rejecting the topic at large. Although I have voted on positions that do so. I do not think that affirming the topic necessarily means that you as a debater are upholding the implicit undertones of the resolution. Basically, you are not a bad person for saying the state is good. On the other hand, I acknowledge that rhetoric and one's position do matter.

K-

I think that kritiks are a great tool for questioning the methods of the affirmative. I am more persuaded by alternatives that attempt to solve the aff. I am highly persuaded by the arguments that rethink and reject alternatives are artificially competitive. I prefer Ks that have strong/unique links to the affirmative action. I have a very low threshold for generic links or links of omission.

Theory-

I like theory positions and have voted on them. I prefer well flushed out theory positions that the debater can collapse to, as opposed to "blippy"/ unwarranted theory that does not have argumentative precedent. I don't know how to resolve trigger warning theory, disclosure theory, or exclusionary framework theory. I am not saying don't run these positions, but I am not sure how to resolve them. TDLR, I am probably listening to your T, condo, vagueness shells, but not "you must read a plan text in the first three minutes of your speech" theory positions. In terms of dispo theory, I think that the negative always has access to the status quo. The status quo is presumed and not an advocacy.

Concessions-

If you drop an argument, it is dropped. I protect the flow, but please call points of order. I am persuaded by crafty arguments rooted in fact. I have a very high BS meteor and a low threshold for you to refute claims that are not true. I try and not vote for arguments that are explicitly false. Please don't make things up to justify your arguments, this affects your ethos in round.

Remember debate is fun and a great place to make friends (across team lines) and learn things about the world!

Lilianna Huynh - PCC

I have more of an IE background. Please keep this in mind and avoid spreading and using jargon that a layman judge would not understand. My main focus will be on signposting, logical flow, and organization of the argument, but as speakers - understand that delivery is also important. I expect things to be civil and happy debating!

Lizbeth Garcia - ULV

n/a

Mary Joseph - ASU

n/a

Michael Shurance - CUI

TLDR: Run whatever you want. Dont be afraid to run heterodox arguments in front of me. I welcome diverse perspectives and unique clash. Generally tech over true (as tech is the best method to prove/disprove something as true and I honestly don't know how or why they're portrayed as in competition with each other, but I digress).

Framework:

* Debate is a game (but games are important).

*I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently discriminatory in a way that makes debate inaccessible. ACCESSIBILITY: I believe access to the debate space is the clearest bright line for whether an argument warrants judge intervention. Examples of unacceptable arguments include white supremacy, Nazism/racial superiority, or ad hominem attacks on individual identity. I will drop anyone advocating for these positions or using these tactics. We all deserve respect and fairness, and this may be the only place we can truly get it.

* I aim to be the least interventionist judge you'll ever have. That said, I believe debate has become too ideologically limited. Most debaters have critical, leftist, or neoliberal frameworks in real life, which is fine, but this can create ideological bubbles that limit potential clash against ideas we might all agree on. For example, I hear debaters collapse to fascism bad arguments, but in all my years of debating, I've never heard a clear explanation of what fascism is or why its bad (I personally believe its a horrible political framework, but thats not the point). I don't want to grant framework concessions because I agree or disagree with them. I want clash about the various frameworks humanity uses in the real world (e.g., socialism good/bad, Marxism good/bad, capitalism good/bad, state good/bad) that are inherent to the status quo, as this generates the best education. This is especially true for survival strategies in an increasingly strange and chaotic world. Without this education, we cant properly define or differentiate ideologies in the real world, which allows dog-whistling or mischaracterization of ideologies due to surface similarities. This limits our ability to clash with harmful ideologies.

* I want fleshed-out rhetorical or philosophical impacts and analysis for political theory (K-level or case) and frameworks in general. For example, tell me WHAT fascism IS (historically or in the context of the status quo) and why its bad! (It should be easy, but do the work!) I dont want to intervene with my belief system, as I believe its largely irrelevant to the technicality of the debate and is the fairest approach. If you dont impact or explain your arguments and they're conceded, then cest la vie.

* TLDR Terminalize all impacts, not just material impacts.

Theory:

* Theory is cool.

* I ran it often as a debater because its a smart strategy for protecting against abusive affirmatives and spreading out your opponents outs in their speeches. I will vote on good theory. Use your standards as links to your voters. Explain why ground is lost, for example, and how that impacts fairness or education.

* I generally dont think theory operates a priori in the meta sense unless it addresses specific, "proven" abuse (which btw there's no such thing as proven abuse, that's why the theory needs to be run in order for YOU to prove abuse). My point here being you should have to defend all parts of your theory. However, if you claim it's a priori and its undisputed, then its a priori. Im open to hearing why this particular theory should be a priori or why theory ought to operate a priori, but I need more than rules of the game come before the game (the games already started, so too late?), i.e explain how your standards prove this must operate a priori. The a priori status is up for debate, and I need particularized reasons why your specific theory operates a priori in the context of the round (e.g., it was impossible to generate clash due to the cases format). If a priori is not defended or won, then its a normal off-case position arguing for different rules and standards that my vote would promote for better education/fairness, weighed against the affirmatives fiat education for running the case as they did.

* I default to competing interpretations, as I believe its the most reasonable judging method.

* Reasonability works if the theory isnt well-run or impacted out.

*More than three theories are probably excessive, but I won't police this, the other team should just point this out. If there's abuse, run a theory; if you want to enforce an interpretation, run a theory. If you want to throw your opponents off their game, or beat them to death with legal speak, run a theory. Do what you want!

Ks (In General):

* I like Ks.

* I like well-warranted and explained Ks much better. The K must operate in a way that makes the judges background and knowledge of the literature base irrelevant. Im familiar with many critical arguments, but that doesnt mean I'll do the work for you on framework or solvency.

*Contextualize the K within the broader context of the debate or the resolution. Explain your criticism! I especially like Ks with historical analysis and an education focus. To win my ballot, the K should link to the affirmatives solvency, plan text, or the squo itself in a fundamental way. I want strong, warranted framework arguments, link arguments, and solvency arguments. The alternative/advocacy must exist, and you need to explain why I shouldnt buy a permutation.

*A K without an alternative is just a harsh judgment of the status quo, which the affirmative likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that voting for the affirmative prevents, its just a try-or-die for the affirmative I feel (again do what you want I won't police).

*Advocacies aren't conditional in an ideal world, but kicking an advocacy is fine for strategic reasons. I'm more skeptical of affirmatives breaking procedural fairness, and I think T is a decent check back against this, but that just means that both teams have access to ground, and i'm agnostic on which comes first (y'all need to tell me which comes first and WHY). Again do what you want, just be strategic.

Performance Ks:

* Im fine with performance Ks, but I need clear solvency and education impact analysis.

* Clash is the internal link to education in debate, and the personal nature of performance Ks can make sometimes make clash inaccessible or too personal for me to judge objectively.

* I also don't really like how some performance K's try to bait the other team into saying something offensive and bascially make a bet that they won't want to clash with the K due to its personal nature. I will just say that due to the nature of debate, being offended is likely inevitable, but you should all do your best ALWAYS to be respectful and treat each other with dignity.

Aff Ks:

*The same rules apply for winning my ballot with an affirmative K.

* However, to run a K on the affirmative, you must prove a justified reason to reject the topic and show that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by your solvency or by avoiding defending the resolution.

* Im fine with rejections but need warrants for why its permissible. Im biased toward fairness-good/outweighs arguments from theory, so youll need to resolve some of this offense to win my ballot.

Speed:

* Im comfortable with speed and will keep up. However, if youre slowed or asked to be clearer, please comply. I think access is very important.

Ballot:

* The flow is critical to how I judge. How well your opponent attacks your position or argument weighs heavily. Key arguments are more important than quantity, but I'll weigh all arguments. I love clash, so seek it out, and you'll be rewarded.

Impact Calc:

* For case I want you to do impact calc anyways and weighing. Be specific and clear in sequencing, magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

* It's a personal preference, but I like well warranted analysis about how impacts are more likely to actually occur. I'm semi skeptical of weak links between for high magnitude impacts. I will vote on them, and again if its dropped it's always true for the sake of the round, but if you're going for magnitude, or any of these impacts, warrant them out.

Nathan Wensko - Clovis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partner Communication should not be disruptive to the speaker.

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

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

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.

Nicoleta Enciu - Cerritos

n/a

Oli Loeffler - SDSU

(they/them/theirs)

  • Coach for IPDA, NPDA, Impromptu, and Extemporaneous Speaking
  • Competed nationally and internationally in the same events
  • 10 years of coaching experience (K-12 and college-level)
  • Competed for three years on the community college circuit

Judging Philosophy:

  • I prioritize access and education in debate rounds. Please provide clear organization in your initial constructive speechesthis sets up the framework for the round. At the end of the day, debate is about you having a fun, competitive outlet. If this means heavy tech and theory, great! If this means straight-up policy, also great! Just tell me how to evaluate the round.
  • I judge primarily off the flow. If you're going faster, maintain clarity. If youre responding to arguments, tagline as much as possible so things dont get lost.

Argument Preferences:

  • Theory: Im fine with most theory, but strategic moves shouldnt be uniquely abusiveIll do my best to engage with it.
  • Framework: Please give me a clear framework for evaluating the round.
  • Policy vs. Kritiks: Ill evaluate bothjust signpost well and make sure I understand how to weigh your arguments.
  • Speed: Totally fine, clarity is key.

IPDA & Other Formats:

  • My IPDA philosophy is nearly identical to my NPDA philosophyso just apply accordingly.

Other Notes:

  • Speaker points: Based on clarity, strategy, and round engagement.
  • No preference on sitting/standing do what makes you comfortable!
  • I will do my best to protect, but call your POOs to be safe.
  • Taglining is your best friend.

Patricia Hughes - RioRunners

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

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

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

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

 

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

Rhiannon Lewis - CSULB

I am primarily a speech judge, however I can and will flow the debate. I teach public speaking and argumentation, so I like when you speak with clarity and provide clear warrants for your claims. Explain to me why your argument is stronger than your opponents'. Don't mumble, and don't speed. It is your job to tell me who I should vote for and why. If you choose to not engage with certain arguments, please make sure you make it clear to me why you are doing so. Organization and verbal signposting will make my job easier too, and it is your job as the speaker to ensure I understand you.

Please time yourselves, and have fun!

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.

Shayan Saadat - El Camino

Sierra Hart - Clovis

n/a

Sophia Dornberg - El Camino

n/a

Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF

n/a

Steven Suarez - Moorpark

My background is primarily in IE. I value clarity of argumentation and overall presentation to preserve the education value of the event. If I can't understand the argument due to speed or lack of clarity, it will not end up on my flow and may not track. I encourage debaters to speak at a conversational pace and articulate their points with purpose and precision rather than attempting to overwhelm with sheer volume of arguments.

Its not just about what you say, but how you communicate it. I value clear organization language. I greatly appreciate it when speakers clearly label their arguments, with roadmaps and signposting throughout the round. One dropped argument doesnt win the round for me, but make sure to clearly call attention to your voters.

Be sure to treat your competitors with respect, anything that would be considerd innapropriate classroom behavior/rhetoric hurts the integrity of the event in my eyes and may result in a loss.

Sydney Harrison - Clovis

n/a

Tiffany Beam - Moorpark

n/a

Umar Saleem - PCC

PROBABILITY > MAGNITUDE: I WILL NOT BUY HUGE LEAPS IN ARGUMENTATION SUCH AS NUCLEAR WAR IN MOST CASES

I am primarily a debater, and as such, I hold the utmost conviction that debate should be largely universal, meaning the principles I judge upon do not really vary from event to event even though the styles may vary. Specifically, I will always look for clean, well-structured arguments, specific evidence that links in to your resolution and good clash between the debaters. That being said, you are welcome to run with whatever style or argumentation strategy you would like to as long as you are clear and intentional with it.

I do not care what your structure so as long as you have it: if I ever lose what part of your debate you are within, don't expect me to flow it properly so don't expect me to vote on it. I am all for arguments on theory, even within IPDA if you truly desire it, but don't run several low quality ones just for the sake of running them: while time-wasting is a strategy, it needs to be kept in moderation or you risk me buying none of them.

Impacts matter. Links matter even more than that. If you don't link me to your impacts, I don't know how they actually happen so I don't know how to weight them: especially if they have some insane magnitude like nuclear war or the death of democracy, be sure to have an equally insane link or else I will side with any arguments against probability.

I think spreading is fine in LD, but in IPDA/NPDA, if I physically cannot understand you, I will not properly flow you. Speed in general is fine and encouraged in most cases if you have many good arguments.

Key things to keep in mind:

  • Signpost. Always. I can't properly flow you otherwise.
  • Drops will always matter.
  • If you run procedurals, they're easier to vote for on actual abuse rather than potential.
  • Impact calculus.
  • Debate is about showing me that you YOURSELF believe in your arguments, even if it's just for that round: as such, carry the appropriate energy and conviction in your words.
  • LINKS LINKS LINKS LINKS LINKS LINKS
  • If you want intervention for new arguments, call a point of order.
  • You can be assertive, don't take that assertiveness into rudeness. Remain respectful to your opponent. This includes not spreading if the opponent isn't comfortable with it.
  • No puppeteering.

Vahagn Tovmasian - RioRunners

n/a

Vahe Tovmasian - CSUN

n/a

Valerie Giovanini - LAVC

n/a

Victoria Tailanian - RioRunners

n/a

William Carmona - UCSB

n/a

Yancy Duncan - LAVC

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

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

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

Yesenia Echaves - CSUN

n/a

Yolanda Cabada - RioRunners

n/a