2026 SRJC Forensics Speech and Debate Festival! - DAY 1 Sat. & DAY 2 Sun.
Santa Rosa Junior College - Oct 17-18 | Status: Reg shutdown | 1:27 PM Pacific
Tournament Time: 1:27 PM Pacific
Judge Philosophies
AC Panella - Hired Judges
n/a
Abigail Conrado Sabido - Hired Judges
n/a
Alex Christenson - CSULB
n/a
Alex Paez - DVC
n/a
Alexis Bloom - Hired Judges
n/a
Andrea Galvan - UOP
n/a
Angela Ohland - Butte
I'm a fairly new judge to the forensics community. I am primarily an IE judge/coach and have limited experience with debate. As a result, please consider me a lay judge and try to use clear roadmapping and speak clearly and persuasively. I appreciate an impactful opening and a clear preview.
Fairness and respect are paramount for me. My goal is to provide constructive (primarily delivery focused feedback) that helps competitors refine their skills. I look forward to witnessing your talents on display!
Arielle White - Delta
I did forensics but did not compete in debate. I have limited experience judging debate as of Spring 2026. I try to vote on the flow but do not want to cast a vote for blatant misinformation or hate speech. I am not familiar with debate jargon so make sure to explain things to me in layman's terms and clearly weigh your impacts in your rebuttal. Please ask me questions to clarify before round if necessary. I am not comfortable with speed and prefer conversational debate, ESPECIALLY when you are not reading cards.
Arlette Rodriguez - Fresno State
n/a
Brandon Spars - Santa Rosa JC
I am open to whatever you present.
Brendan Sullivan - LPC
n/a
Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State
n/a
Douglas Mungin - Solano CC
I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.
Emma Mink - CCSF
n/a
Eric Martinez - Contra Costa
n/a
Eric Cardenas - UOP
Hello everyone!
I hope you are all doing well and feeling good about the tournament you are currently competing in.
TL;DR: Theory is always A priori. Win competing interps when running theory, win reasonability when answering. Dispo superior. Presumption flips AFF when NEG reads and maintains its advocacy throughout the entire debate. I default to no judge kick. T-FW > AFF Ks that reject res. Weighing and collapsing good. Always do those two things. Overviews in the final speech are highly appreciated also
A quick background about who I am:
I did 1 year of Public Forum at Bear Creek High School, 4 years of Parliamentary debate in total as an undergraduate student at San Joaquin Delta College (SJDC) and the University of the Pacific (UoP), and 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas debate in total as an undergraduate student at SJDC & UoP. Most of what I know about debate is mainly based on what I learned at these institutions.
Notes about me as a judge:
I try to be tabula rasa (clean slate) for the most part and judge the debate based on what I have written down on my flow, but also I won’t prioritize case debate over theory even if A priori gets dropped and I won’t vote on a reverse voting issue (RVI) if the thesis behind it is just time skew and there was only 1 theory shell read. Everything else is fair game I suppose. If the argument you're going for has impacts/voters I’ll consider it. Also please make sure to debate in good faith and give me a clear thesis as to why you clearly won the debate in your final speech.
Furthermore, speed is okay, but if you’re going to go fast please don’t sacrifice clarity. I genuinely think speaking 300 words per minute, while simultaneously being really unclear is pretty bad for the activity since there's no evidence sharing in parliamentary debate like there is in other debate platforms, so this creates unnecessary problems. I will also just go ahead and take initiative by saying the word “slow” or “clear” if I feel like my notes are getting worse and you’re spreading me out of the debate. For LD my concerns with speed and clarity are less relevant.
In regards to theory:
The first layer of the debate that I will always evaluate first when making my decision is topicality/theory.
If you're running topicality/theory please argue why competing interps is good and why your definition of the word or interpretation is better for research and clash. You should also be able to explain to me the extra offense that the other team was able to garner through the writing of their abusive plan text in clear straightforward easy-to-understand language.Predictability of an interp > Predictability (produced) from an interp.
If you’re answering topicality/theory and genuinely think that you did nothing abusive or wrong during your 25 minute preparation: Win reasonability and why your counter-definition/interpretation is either okay enough in context of theirs or better.
In regards to Kriticisms:
I think they’re fun, I probably read Nietzsche the most tbh and then Colonization in 2nd place. Can’t guarantee you that I've read about your specific K though. Fiat inevitable, so you probably don’t need to spend too much time explaining why it's good or illusory (Don't drop fiat is illusory though).
If you’re running a K you should try to win that your method (framework) excludes a policymaking FW and also that your alternative alone is better than any part of the AFF. When answering Kriticisms, I think an effective approach could be relinking/turning the K and then winning a perm. You can also just win access to your policy framework and outweigh the K using your AFF. The former is probably more effective than the latter but both work.
In regards to AFF Ks that reject the resolution specifically:
I'm not a really big fan of them. I think the impacts of any version of T-Fw probably outweighs the AFF K if debated well. Also it is technically possible to be kritical on the AFF while affirming the resolution at the same time, so this truth of debate kind of just non-uniqueness the educational value of needing to read an AFF K that rejects the resolution to begin with.
In regards to Counter-Plans:
If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof that a change is needed has shifted from the AFF to the NEG.
CP + DA is a good strat, although technically you could just win the debate on an internal net benefit of CP. Read Condo if they have more than one counter-advocacy. Dispo is superior. Read PICS Bad if they read a PIC CP. Furthermore, if you’re going to argue that I should Judge Kick the Counterplan, make sure to explain why Judge Kick is politically correct/good for debate and then Maybe I'll Judge Kick.. Also Delay CPs boring don’t read in front of me
In terms of on-case debate:
WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. Use the words timeframe, probability, and/or magnitude. Also reading more than 1 case answer is good: [(BUTTON = No brink, Nonunique, Link turn, Impact turn, Outweigh, No impact/link) (Also, uniqueness overwhelms links, status quo solves, the link has been tested, etc]
That is all.
Best regards,
Eric Cardenas
Fletcher Wingfield - Hired Judges
n/a
Gohan Huynh - CSULB
n/a
Hal Sanford - Hired Judges
n/a
James Gooler-Rogers - Hired Judges
n/a
Janice Eurgubian - Hired Judges
n/a
Jared Anderson - Sacramento
Logistics:
1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.
2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com
3) If there is no email chain, Im going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.
4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points. My timer is the official timer for the round. You should time yourselves, but check your time against mine. Also, when you are ready to begin speaking, just start speaking. I don't need any "on my first word" or countdowns.
5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I dont want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.
** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and dont argue about it. **
I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I started out coaching CEDA/NDT debate but I have now been coaching LD for a long time. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly and are within the rules. You can win my ballot with whatever. I dont have to agree with your argument, I dont have to be moved by your argument, I dont even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I do need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, Im familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments?other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. Its up to you. I will tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand - I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that is on you.
The rules are the rules and I will follow them. I will not intervene; you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it.Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I dont need abuse? proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this. On the current topic (2019-2020) I will probably have a pretty low threshold on Vagueness/Spec arguments. You need a clear plan. Neg arguments about why the aff needs to clearly outline how and what amount they propose investing will be met with a sympathetic ear.
Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you cant find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. Im pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so youll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVIs are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.
Jennifer Franco - UOP
New to speech and debate world.
Jennifer O'Mahony - Hired Judges
n/a
Jessica Briggs - Hired Judges
n/a
Joey Barrows - Delta
(Updated 3/1/26 I got added to NPDA late sorry)
Background: I have been Director of Forensics at Delta College for two years. I am not super active in coaching parli and when I do work on debate I work mostly on LD, but the majority of my time coaching is in speech, not debate. I was a graduate assistant UOP and did LD at Sac State.
General things I think would be useful to know about me judging parli:
I am okay with speed but not the fastest at any tournament. If you think you are the fastest person there you are probably too fast for me and you should definitely at least slow down for your tags. My flow is decent but not as tight as other people's.
If your opponent slows you I think you should make a noticeable effort to accommodate them. If you are going to slow someone you probably shouldn't then spread in your next speech.
I prefer case debate and I prefer when affs are topical (lol) but also to vote on topicality arguments I much more prefer proven abuse. I have a high-ish threshold on topicality. To me topicality is about the definitions of words in the topic and therefore I really like to know why the definition you're using is better than the other team's for predictability and/or education.
I generally do not find nuclear war scenarios or other extinction scenarios to be super persuasive against more probable or structural impacts.
To vote on the K I really need a good explanation of what the alternative does and how the aff links to the kritik. I am probably not super familiar with the literature/author your kritik is based on.
I think debate should be as fair as possible and I think that the purpose of debate is primarily is education. I will not vote on blatant lies.
I generally prefer your arguments to follow consistent logic, have good evidence, and be explained in a persuasive manner :)
Please ask any questions before round if you'd like
Joseph Kimple - Hired Judges
n/a
Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa JC
I am open to whatever you present.
Josue De Leon - SFSU
n/a
Karen Cornwell - Santa Rosa JC
I am open to whatever you present.
Kim Yee - Ohlone College
I like my debates like how I enjoy my toast in the morning, no spread and all buttery.(t-shirts coming soon!)
What this means is that I don't like having to be Robert Langdon (professor of symbology and art history at Harvard) and have to try and decipher what you're saying. But in all seriousness, I am an IE judge and I much prefer the quality of argument over quantity. I also appreciate it when delivery is engaging and tangible. In the real world, there's no point in rushing through your case if no one can understand you. Accessibility is important to me and I value it when students are able to educate and connect their arguments to me as an audience member and judge.
Other than that you know what you need to do.
May the Force be with you!
Kirsten Lofgren - Hired Judges
n/a
Kris Sanville - Chico State
n/a
Kyle Landrum - Chico State
n/a
Lex Pulos - Hired Judges
n/a
Libby Simas - Hired Judges
n/a
Lissa Provost - Hired Judges
n/a
Mack Sermon - Chabot
I have about 40 years experience in competition, judging and coaching, mostly in the Great Northwest. I have significant experience with IEs, NDT, CEDA, NPDA, IPDA and NFC-LD.
Debates should focus on Aristotles Big 3: ethos, pathos and logos- and keeping it fun and educational.
-Your character, ethos, is established in and out of the debate by your behavior with opponents, teammates, me and others. Please treat everyone with respect and friendship.
-Emotion, or pathos, is demonstrated by the conviction and selection of your arguments and fairness to your opponents. Your delivery should make me believe that you really care about the issue.
-To me, logos is most important. A case must be logical. This requires that you make a claim, provide proof of some sort, develop a warrant, then pull it all together for a case. Please, please, do not simply make claims and expect me to accept them as truth.
-Speed: Sure I could talk as fast as any of them, but I really dislike debaters who purposely garble their presentation. I tolerated it in policy debate because at least I could look at their evidence after the round. In NPDA, what am I supposed to look at, your flow? Also, you can be persuasive when speaking fast.
-Im fine with counterplans if you meet the requirements of a counterplan- Im bored by agent change, study, and delay counterplans. But Ill listen.
-I will listen to Topicality, procedurals or structured definition arguments but since you are basically accusing your opponents of breaking the rules, presumption is with the AFF. I sort of like Specification arguments but I dont always vote for them.
-Im not opposed to the concept of the Kritik but I only voted for them about 30-40% in true policy debate-- less in NPDA and IPDA. There just isnt enough time in the shorter forms, without substantial evidence, to perform the type of dialectic discussion that Aristotle advocates, so a Kritik is often too complex to work. However, you are welcome to give it a shot.
-Its unlikely that you will win on a single dropped subpoint- unless its really, really important. Give me a framework to evaluate the round. Show me the big picture to justify my ballot.
-I really prefer a straight up debate on the heart of the topic. Case versus Disads, impact and link comparisons. Straight refutation. Im old-school, yes, and just generally old. But, I think I am a fair judge and willing to evaluate the debate without using my preferences against you.
Madison Gillen - Chico State
n/a
Maeve Kraybill - Hired Judges
n/a
Malika Amin Mirador - Solano CC
Firstly, I put respect for other competitors and teammates above all else; I really dont like disrespect in round, whether that comes from ad hominem attacks, rude behavior, or making other people in the room feel uncomfortable. In order to make sure the debate space is as accessible and inclusive as possible, Ill drop any team/debater that does not respect the other people present.
On the actual debate stuff, Im a parli debater, so most stuff is okay with me. Ill vote on theory and procedurals (I really like good T debate), as long as everything is clear, and there is proven abuse. That being said, I also really like RVIs, and will vote on them. This is the same thing with spec and trichot, as well as aff positions like condo bad, PICs bad, etc. As long as there is a clearly articulated reason to vote on it, Ill weigh it. With K, just make sure to be extra clear. If theres no signposting, Ill probably miss most of it.
When it comes to case debate, again, please signpost or I will get lost. Im tabula rasa, and willing to hear pretty much whatever as long as 1) its not disrespectful, and 2) has a rationale behind it. I like weird arguments, econ arguments, environmental arguments, etc. I just really like case debate thats super interesting and has a lot of clash.
On speed: I really dont mind. Usually, I can keep up pretty okay, as long as you start off a bit slower than top speed so I can get used to your speaking. Overall, I see speed as a tool to get a bunch of quality arguments in BUT, if opponents call clear/speed, just make sure to slow down or clear up; sorta goes back to that whole accessibility thing again.
ALSO, I view parli and IPDA as two different kinds of debate. Im okay with most parli things being in IPDA, but I do think that running theory and procedurals, or trying to spread your opponent out of the round in IPDA is abusive. Also, because IPDA has no mechanism for actually making sure this is fair (i.e. no points of order), I dont flow new arguments in the last rebuttal speech unless it was the first opportunity to respond to it.
TLDR: Im cool with pretty much everything as long as everyone is kind to each other :))
Mark Nelson - Hired Judges
n/a
Melissa Long - Hired Judges
n/a
Michael Schoonover - UC Berkeley
n/a
Michael Andreas - Butte
I come into every debate with a curiosity and desire to see what I can learn from you, it is your job to convince me well reasoned analysis and evidence, which means I cannot and will not ignore a patently false claim, so support your arguments accordingly. While spreading may be somewhat unavoidable, replacing bulk info with well reasoned analysis would be my preference. Running topicality for topicality-sake is a sham. If you are going to make that claim, make sure there is something behind it, otherwise you waste all of our time. Show me some clash, debate hard and don’t give up, get creative, and most of all, show me you are having fun!
Michael Sullivan - LPC
n/a
Michael Eurgubian - Hired Judges
n/a
Michael Traina - Hired Judges
n/a
Michael Warshower - USFCA
n/a
Natalie Kellner - LPC
I am an Individual Event judge. I value clarity of structure, specificity of examples & illustrations, preciseness of voting criteria, and (above all else) a delivery that enables ease of understanding for the listener. Avoid "debate speak" at all costs....I will not understand you, and if I do not understand you then you can not win the ballot. Civility is also of key importance. I will look at an IPDA debate as if it were an interactive Persuasive Speaking round: be clear, be organized, be understandable, be engaging. I can't be any more clear than that I think.
Explain very specifically in your closing speech why you think you won the debate. And, please for the love of all that is good and holy, do not use debate language, jargon or terminology.
IPDA was created for and meant to be evaluated by NON-Forensic people. If we (the audience) need to be trained to simply understand what youre talking about, then, sadly, youre doing it wrong.
Looking forward to seeing/hearing what you have to say..even more looking forward to being able to understand it.
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.
Nathan Steele - CCSF
Have fun and claim the space-time of the debate round as belonging to you. Aspire to present clearly organized and supported arguments in your constructive speeches. Your general approach should be to invite dialogue over controversy and offer clear reasoning why your position is preferable. Provide criteria by which I might evaluate the arguments in the round. When inspired, embrace your creativity and wit. Share the time with your opponent during cross-examination. Use rebuttal speeches to extend arguments as you see fit. It is good practice to provide some key voting issues or summary of the competing narratives within the debate to illuminate my decision-making process (i.e., my pathway to voting for you). Delivery doesn't factor heavily into decision-making. Be yourself. Focus on conveying the arguments so your opponent and judge understand. I may comment on features of your nonverbal communication on a ballot, but you'll win the debate with the argument(s).
The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Focus on the arguments during the round. Be good to yourself too. Debate can be difficult at times. Keep bringing your best and youll get better.
Nikki Morrison-Fountain - Hired Judges
n/a
Nissi Jim Rakesh - USFCA
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 SFSU.
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.
Im 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 Im 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 wont 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 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.
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!
Rob Boller - USFCA
What is your experience with Speech and Debate?
20+ yrs coaching and judging; mostly BP, Civic, and Parli. 25+ yrs teaching argumentation. Former high school debater a loooong time ago. Extensive experience with coaching and judging IEs + lots of performance stuff in my background.
What does your ideal debate round look like?
Well organized. Accessible to an average educated person. If my Dad couldn't follow you, or you'd make little sense in a courtroom or city council meeting, I'm not interested. Debate for debaters only is a silly game. My ideal round avoids spreading and speed at all costs and instead focuses on well fleshed out arguments with solid evidence/examples and warrants. I love good rebuttal and good manners. Finally remind me what your big picture ethical angle is and why you won the round.
Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?
Avoid debate jargon. Be nice to judges and fellow competitors. Don't be angry when you "lose"...its just the opinion of one person. Think about how you want civil discourse to be in the world and model it in your debates.
Robert Hawkins - DVC
I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in high school LD and sometimes judge Parli & IPDA. I am not a technical judge in NFA-LD. 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 if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.
Ryan Wenzel - Santa Rosa JC
I am open to whatever you present. However, I am a newer judge, so make sure I can keep up.
Ryan Guy - MJC
Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!
- In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
- Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.
I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!
A Little About Me- I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
- Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
- I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.
I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.
How I See Debate 1. Sharing Material- If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
- Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
- If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.
- Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
- If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.
- Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
- If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
- I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.
- I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
- Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
- Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
- Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.
- Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
- If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
- Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
- Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.
- If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.
- Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
- If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.
- Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
- Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
- Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
- Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
- Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
- Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.
- Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
- Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
- Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
- Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.
-
File Sharing
- SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
- If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
- Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.
-
Disclosure
- I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
- If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
- Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.
-
Cardless LD
- I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.
- Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
- Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.
- Please make an honest effort to be topical.
- T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
- Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.
I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.
Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!
Sean Thai - Delta
I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE: clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.
I need clear perm texts, e.g. PDB is not a valid perm text for me. If you get called out for, I will not accept the perm.
Theory/Framework/Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations and net benefits without some other D-Rule. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.
Policy:
I will always try to use the criterion + impact framing from the round if possible. I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. This isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold.
K's:
I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.
I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.
In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.
You can take this to mean that I believe all interps are standard-setting debates.
General
Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.
Im willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.
It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.
LD:
I have trouble with implied clash, and it marks it harder to evaluate debate rounds. Please signpost clearly where you want your arguments.
Tech is a form of truth.
Flex time answers are binding.
"Email me for cites" is NOT a form of disclosure to me. If that is the extent of your disclosure, there is a much greater chance you will lose on that argument.
Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte
I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.
I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:
-Using clear roadmapping
-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)
- Be respectful of your opponent and judges
-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff
- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me
Shay Rudy - Santa Rosa JC
n/a
Soren Hagsberg - Hired Judges
n/a
Stephanie Eisenberg - Chabot
I debated and coached at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. My competitive experience and some of my coaching is in policy debate, lately most of my coaching and judging is in NPDA & IPDA.
I have been "out of the game" for the past 4 years so keep that in mind when it comes to speed, understanding current norms in your event, etc.
I am first and foremost a judge of arguments, regardless of the debate format. I value argumentation over delivery style but will also adapt to the different expectations of each debate format.
I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for teams who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over teams who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them.
I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply "reject the team" and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy a well applied, smart disad debate with real world scenarios and clear, coherent links to the aff. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it's an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate.
I'd say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. I'm very sympathetic to "reject the arg, not the team."
I'm fine with cross talk and partner communication so long as one partner does not dominate the conversation or consistently talk over the other. If that becomes an issue, it will certainly affect your speaker points and may affect my decision.
I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the "style". I look forward to watching you do your thang!
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! :)
Steven Webster - Chabot
n/a
Susan Houlihan - Hired Judges
n/a
Sydney Alexander - DVC
My specialty is in individual events, and that is most of my background when it comes to forensics. But, I enjoy watching, and judging debate events. When it comes to speed, I can keep up, so that's no problem. But if I slow you then please slow. I think organization in debate events is really important. Clear signposting throughout the round is a must for me. All things considered, please respect each other and have fun.
Tanya Prabhakar - DVC
n/a
Taure Shimp - MJC
ALL DEBATE EVENTS
Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.
IPDA
I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.
PARLI
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.
LD
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.
Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!
Tim O'Brien - Hired Judges
n/a
Tina Lim - SJSU
It's up to the debaters how I evaluate the round - you work it out; I listen. Assume that I am intelligent and knowledgeable about the world. I have no preference for how you debate except I believe that everyone should be courteous and respectful. I feel like I can keep up with most debates, if you are too fast or too mumbly, I will let you know verbally.
For evidence debates, even if you use speechdrop or some other way to give me a copy of your evidence, I believe it is your job to read the arguments in a way that I can understand without me reading along with you. I don't like having to read the arguments myself.
Tyler Sasabuchi - Solano CC
Hello! Tl;Dr at bottom for those panic checking paradigms during prep.
Longer version: I've done debate, parli + IPDA, you wont lose me with jargon or theory stuff, most likely I can keep up with your speed but make sure its still legible and actual words. If your opponents ask you to slow or clear, do. Debate needs to be accessible. I vote on T+K. On T, I prefer proven abuse, but will buy potential abuse if you can provide a very clear and solid line of thinking to the abuse. For K make sure your K is logically consistent, and use examples that actually support it. Not the biggest fan of pie-in-the-sky theory Ks (vote neg to embrace fate, out there multi-verse theory) but in rare cases... maybe. I prefer on/off case direct clash, and love weird or off-the-wall stories to get to impacts, as long as the story makes sense and has
good impacts. If you've got weird stuff you want to try, please feel free. I will be mostly tabula rasa, barring very obvious things (dont tell me the sky is purple and expect me to fully buy that without significant evidence). Love historical examples to support points. Please enjoy yourselves and have a good time, a bit of humor goes a long way in a round, but isnt necessary.
Tl;Dr seasoned debater, ok with jargon/speed, don't mind theory. T doesnt need proven abuse, but potential needs strong through-line. K is fine, but make sure It has logical consistency, and lets not get too crazy with theory. Big fan of clash, prefer it to theory, you can run whatever wild stuff you feel like as long is makes sense. Be nice and polite to each other, preferably lets have some fun so we dont go insane.
Veda Dean - Sacramento
n/a