Judge Philosophies

Brianna Morales -- San Francisco State University


Jared Anderson -- Sacramento State University


Justin Perkins -- Sacramento State University


Kim Yee -- San Jose State University


Pablo Ramirez -- San Francisco State University


Patrick Mwamba -- Chabot College


Robert Hawkins -- Diablo Valley College


Spencer Coile -- Illinois State University


Stephanie Eisenberg Todd -- Chabot College


Taure Shimp -- Modesto Junior College


Debate should foster civil discourse and honor the educational integrity of the event. I see it as my responsibility to listen to the arguments you choose to make and evaluate them as fairly as possible. However, I do have some personal preferences. The rounds I enjoy the most have a lot of clash, fewer but higher quality arguments, and clear impact analysis.


In IPDA:� The rate of speech should be conversational. I expect to hear well-structured arguments with clearly delineated sub-points. I also expect to hear source citations--you have thirty minutes of prep, so please indicate where your information came from and use it to your advantage. While I get that IPDA discourages the use of jargon, procedurals, and kritiks, I am open to hearing arguments about definitions as well as arguments that identify problematic assumptions/worldviews within the debate. However, these should be articulated in a way that remains accessible to an intelligent, informed lay audience.

In NFA-LD:� Please set up a� speechdrop.net� room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate. Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along. If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if I am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the� NFA-LD rules.

In Parli:� Faster-than-conversation is fine, but I do not like spreading in this event. For me, it decreases the quality of analysis and becomes counterproductive to the in-round education. However, I will not ask you to slow down during the round or say �¢??clear.�¢?�

Procedurals and Kritiks� can make for good debate�¢?�¦

�¢?�¦but I find� AFF Ks� are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity.

If you choose to run a Kritik� (on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. If you are unable to articulate�¢??in a concrete way�¢??how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole.

Rebuttals� are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters.

I� evaluate the round� by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages.

Etiquette:� I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don't speak that way to competitors.


Sit or stand� during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what's comfortable for you.

Partner communication� is fine with me, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches.

Tim Heisler -- Las Positas College


Tina Lim -- San Jose State University