Adrienne Fong - DVC

n/a

---

Alia Khan - Dark Horse

n/a

---

Ameya Puranik - LPC

n/a

---

Anna Wolde - LPC

n/a

---

Annie Koruga - SJSU

n/a

---

Anthony Tolosa - Skyline

n/a

---

Arley Rodriguez - Fresno State

Interp coach with debate experience. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.

---

Ashan Herath - Dark Horse

n/a

---

Ben Brogger - Dark Horse

n/a

---

Branden Sandner - LPC

n/a

---

Brandon Reis - MJC

To me, the most important thing in any debate round is everyone being respectful. If someone is being rude, petty, or condescending then there are almost no circumstances where I will vote for them even if they are "winning" the debate. Debate is meant to be educational and fun, rudeness accomplishes neither.

Roadmaps are appreciated and can be done off time. I don't mind the use of jargon; however I don't like speed. I believe it is the debater's job to effectively communicate their arguments and if you speak too fast, don't articulate your points, or jump around a lot I will miss things and that could affect how I vote. I will default to net benefits if a weighing mechanism isn't provided in a round. I will follow the flow to a point. It won't win my vote if one side attempts to run a hundred different arguments in an attempt to bury their opponent and then only focus on the arguments that were "dropped." Have fun with your round and maybe we'll all learn something new!

---

Cyndle Hillis - MJC

---

Daisy Guerreo - Solano CC

n/a

---

Dan Scott - FCC

Former Policy Competitor and Coach. 

---

Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY..DOUG FRALEIGH FRESNO STATE (he/him/his)

Background

Co-Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Co-Director, Fresno State Prison Debate Program. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Also coached and judged NPDA, IPDA, LD, and individual events. For the past two years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.

Overview about debate genres

My judging philosophy originated as a policy debate paradigm. It applies equally well to LD. Based on the NPDA rounds that I have judged post-COVID, it is my belief that NPDA has evolved into policy debate with a new topic every round. And every team had evidence, so it seems that the community has performatively overturned the "no evidence rule.

I think it would be nifty if IPDA remained an alternative for students who are new to debate or would rather debate in a format where there is less emphasis on speed and the arguments are more real world, especially given that there are plenty of policy-like options for students who would prefer that type of debate. In IPDA rounds (especially novice) I will give more weight to delivery and be less flow-centric than in other genres of debate. That said, I have not judged an IPDA round east of Reno, so it will be an adventure to see how IPDA is developing across the country.

What Should You Know About How I Judge?

1. I am not opposed to any genre of argument. In IPDA, there is less time for constructive speeches (and only a single constructive in one-on-one debates), so arguments that require extensive development may not be the best choice. I will judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round, rather than my general familiarity with a position.
2. I flow debates and the line-by-line arguments are important. However, I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. T is an RVI, fairness), even if it is dropped.
3. I am not looking for speed in IPDA. It could benefit you to briefly explain the story of your argument, especially if it is a major position you plan to go for in rebuttals.
4. Theory arguments are ok, but I do not look forward to them with the enthusiasm that some of my colleagues do.

What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?

1. Clash with your opponents arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.
2. Although debaters are not supposed to read evidence in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
3. Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. For example, instead of just saying you are on the case or the disad and mashing all your arguments together, identify the specific argument you are rebutting or extending. If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.
4. Good delivery is a plus. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit and emphasize the most essential arguments in final speeches, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.
5. Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner (in team IPDA anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege; have fun and enjoy the journey.

Procedural Considerations

1. Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument in the next speech and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.
2. I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.

Policy Resolutions

1. For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff a 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.
2. On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in your last rebuttal) and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than their opponents.
3. Counterplans can be a very good strategy, but they should be explained in the same detail as an affirmative plan. (Affirmative permutations also need the same detail, dont string together three or four permutations without analysis or explanation.) Your CP needs to be non-topical and competitive.

Fact and Value Resolutions

1. The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
2. The negative is welcome to dispute the affirmatives classification and/or criteria. My default is that non-policy resolutions which contain a subjective term like best or more important are value resolutions not fact.
3. In neither side clearly wins the resolutional analysis issues, my default method for resolving the conflict is which teams vision for the round promotes a more educational and equitable debate.

---

Eric Fletcher - FCC

Former policy competitor and coach. 

---

Fabian Silva - LPC

n/a

---

Fatima Anasse - CCSF

n/a

---

Frida Torres - Solano CC

n/a

---

J. Edward Stevenson - JSCC

n/a

---

Jack Howard - FCC

n/a

---

Jacky Gandara - MJC

n/a

---

James Baird - Solano CC

n/a

---

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

---

Josh Turnbull - Dark Horse

n/a

---

Ki Singh - SFSU

n/a

---

Kirsten Lofgren - SFSU

Hi I’m Kirsten, I’m a graduate student and assistant coach at SFSU. 

 

Parli: 

Any arguments go: case, theory, critique.  I want to hear what you have to say; I don’t want you to tell me what you think I want to hear. 

 

affirmative must meet burden of Harms/Uniqueness, Inherently, Plan, Solvency. Make sure to number your impacts for me, especially in novice. 

 

I will protect the flow. I don’t flow new arguments in the rebuttals even if a point of order wasn’t called. 

 

Spreading: 

Feel free to spread if that makes you the most comfortable, but I will evaluate slower, common sense arguments above a  fast but confusing argument, especially when it comes to Ks. Making yourself clear  should be your number one priority. 

 

Critiques: 

I love a critique, but you must be organized and the thesis / alternative must be clearly stated and make sense.  At least some links or impacts should be contextual to the resolution.  

 

Novices:

If you’re in novice and you don’t use all your speech time, wait 15 seconds or so, don’t be afraid to think quietly about your arguments, make sure you’re not missing anything before giving up the rest of your time. There is no standard in novice parli to be able to think of every little thing off the top of your head. I’d rather hear a round with pauses than a round that the student didn’t get the time they need to carefully think through their argument. 

 

Counter plan in novice:

Please, please take two seconds to make sure your counterplan in actually mutually exclusive. 

 

Topicality in novice:

I have very low expectations for topicality / other theory in novice.  This is because some novices are at their first tournament and have never heard it before.  Topicality must have all four parts Interpretations, Violation, Standards, Voters.  Novices, if you skip standards don’t expect me to vote if your T.  Affirmative, pretty much any basic response: “counter interpretation” or “we meet” will fly for me. 

 

Topicality in Open:

I typically prefer Ts that can prove in round abuse, rather than Ts for pure strategy. 

I will vote on reverse voting issues or any other offensive on T, feel free to make these arguments.  

 

---

Kristen Cabrales - SJSU

n/a

---

Kylie Duncan - MJC

---

Leah Anonuevo - LPC

n/a

---

Leonce Tang - CCSF

n/a

---

Mackenzie McDonald - LPC

n/a

---

Natalie Cavallero - Fresno State

Debaters: Please don't spread. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.

---

Orion Steele - SFSU

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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.

---

Ryan Mak - USFCA

n/a

---

Sarah McMurry - SJSU

n/a

---

Sarah Campi - Solano CC

n/a

---

Sean McGrory - LPC

n/a

---

Shane Upshaw - Chabot

n/a

---

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

---

Shavon Odom - Solano CC

n/a

---

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! :)

---

Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba College

n/a

---

Sylvia Ho - Chabot

add me to the chain smhpoppy@gmail.com, tech>truth, i'm down for anything, ask me in round if you have questions. so:

respect your opponents, pronouns, preferred labels/lack of them, all that jazz. That said, be as aggressive as you want! I lean towards nonintervention, but if you're getting uncomfortable or if there's just something you don't feel like having to justify (queer v lgbtq+, identity first language, anything!) just let me know!

if you ask me to gut check nothing will happen. Dont rely on reasonability; spell out your competing interps and impacts. I'm tabula rasa the rest of this paradigm is just my defaults

Speed: cool, but if you can't do it well, like. please don't. speed is good, spreading not so much. If you do spread, have a case drop ready for me to access.

K/Theory: Love! I default theory>kritik=case, but obviously subject to change if you argue otherwise. I will consider anything and everything and will likewise happily drop arguments if the other team points out frivolity/bigotry. and go for the fun alts! solvency arguments against "reject res" are gonna convince me pretty easily. i will not disclose what lit i'm most familiar with because if you cant eli5 it i assume your opponents won't be able to understand either. If and only if you check in with your opponents before round and confirm they're familiar with what you're running will I vote for not clearly explained Ks.

Signpost.

i dont care what your strat is, give me a clear path to the ballot. I do really mean this because I think debate is fundamentally what competitors make of it, whether that means having a substantive case debate, a tricks game, or a round of mariokart. i will judge however competitors tell me to and i will and have judged IErs who just ran their speeches during round instead of debating res. it is genuinely up to you how you want the round to go.

I also take tabula rasa very literally! if someone says something like "vote aff because aff is the coolest team in round," i need some sort of response on the flow, even if it's just "neg cooler than aff" bc otherwise i will buy whatever i hear, though obv IPDA is mostly exempt from this.

speaks start 25, but go ahead with theory! Swearing won't drop your speaks, jokes will raise em, if ur reading this far add a mention of tax fraud, cats (2019), or baguettes in your speech and i'll raise. I don't care about clothes, but if you wear a halloween costume or smth and i'll add a couple points

tldr: do literally anything as long as you do it well, you dont have to be polite but be kind, and whatever i say in this flow doesnt matter as long as you can justify it.

---

Tony Escalante - Sacramento

n/a

---

Tristan Ceja - MJC

---

Vanessa Birrueta-Hernandez - JSCC

n/a

---

Zac Furber-Dobson - LPC

n/a

---

Zahra Samim - Chabot

I am a Chabot student (history major) and a limited prep-event competitor (IPDA, Parli, Impromptu, Extemp). First, I want to say good job!Youre doing the most important first step which is checking the judging philosophies :D

Make sure to have fun and hydrate throughout the tournament. Pleasedoyourbestostayhealthy

Here is what you need to know for whichever event youre in

Forensics is really cool because you have so much autonomy within each round. Make sure to use your time to the best of your ability from slowing down/pausing to emphasize things or speeding up (not spreading) to quickly get to a more important point that is an art of itself. It is also important to be mindful and friendly to everyone; treat people with respect. It's also a personalized thing,do the things that you're most comfortable with.Feel free to ask questions before/after rounds, I would be more than happy to answer them.

Debate

Parli and IPDA are different events; please dont treat IPDA as solo parli.

Good argumentation requires clear organization. Make sure to signpost as much as possible but dont worry too much about saying internal links or claim/data/warrant, focus on your argument and present it in a structure that you understand best. At the end of the day, I will always vote for who got their points across coherently and made an effort to clash the most, while using the flow to weigh the round using the FW/WM/voters stated. Other than that, treat me like a lay judge; debate should be accessible to everyone; if I cant understand your arguments, I am probably not going to vote for them.

For any type of policy round, I would rather have a clear and unique plan rather than just passing the res UNLESS you have very strong harms/contentions/solvency points pick and choose your battles for each round, dont try to fully flesh out each and every point. If possible, please avoid creating a top heavy round, especially if you arent familiar with the argumentation.

I treat fact and value rounds as different things as value rounds could have fun FW/WM arguments. If you define the round as a value one, make sure to state a value for me to vote on. I also prefer having thorough arguments compared to a long list of sources/evidence dont let the data speak for itself, make the argument!

I love performance debates!! Have fun with your events :D

IPDA specific: Take your time when talking. Make an effort to impact the round, step by step (aka do not blurt out WWIII, Nuclear War!!, THE PLANET WILL EXPLODE out of nowhere). Make use of your cross-ex, ask meaningful questions. Also, please do not be rude during that time.

Parli specific: I do not like speed; if I cant keep up, it wont go on the flow. I will only flow whatever the designated speaker will say. Not a huge fan of Ks, mostly because they can feel awkward in a round but if you are familiar with it go for it! Pretty much, tell me why the alts matter/ a world after the K. Unlike IPDA, I do appreciate parli for its magnitude with its impacts, have fun with it but make it make sense! I also appreciate time in between rounds to be used for both flex and cross ex work with your partner and ask questions, it shows great camaraderie.

TL;DR:Run arguments that you're most comfortable with and have fun. I am a blank slate for each round so make sure that you make clear arguments.

---