Judge Philosophies
Adeja Powell - SDSU
If you're reading this, that's already a good start. You should continue to do so until there are no words left. I debated in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.
Before I get into any specifics, I want to avoid what I assume most of your coaches or veteran debaters on your team will tell you about my time as a debater. Was I fond of the K? Yes. More accurately, I was fond of winning and a good chunk of the time, I found the K to be the best way to do so. With that being said, I would by no means describe my career as being a "K debater." I won just as many debates reading a topical policy aff as I did reading a K aff. In the same vein, our neg strat was a one off K just as often as it was a DA/CP combo or sometimes just straight up case turns against the aff. I did it all, and I consider myself to be a judge that can evaluate any kind of debate you put in front of me because, well, I used every tool at my disposable to win debates. I think you should as well. I pride myself on having been an incredibly versatile debater so please, for the love of god, do not high pref me for your "k teams" and low pref me for your "non-K teams" because you think that's the kind of debate I wanna hear/am best positioned to evaluate. I will get tired of hearing Ks every round very quickly, then I'll get annoyed, and then I won't be a good judge for anyone because I'll want to go home. Do not make me want to go home (chances are I already want to by no fault of yours so like, don't pile it on).
Max Groznik recommended I add these quotes from a conversation between the two of us. I dont know why I am, but Im not sure any of this means anything anyway:
Ah, my life is a series of baubles that I must sort. Both real and fabricated for me to have something to do. Cest la vie. - Me, 2020
I think everyone is stupid except for me. It actually makes me care more. Ill steer them in the right direction. - also Me, 2020
In general, I think debate is a technical game and I evaluate it as such. I'm not easily swayed by positions that rely on some other metric that's not a net-benefits paradigm where my role is to weigh impacts and evaluate the arguments on the flow. That being said, I did dabble in this kind of non-traditional debate during my career. I think it's interesting, and I'm all for arguments that lightly poke and push at the limits of parli debate, I'm just not at all sure how I evaluate these arguments as a judge. If that's your thing, my advice is to proceed with caution and keep in mind that at my core, I'm a technical debater and that's where I'm comfortable. If you want me to throw tech out the window in favor of something else, you'll have to be fairly convincing and exceptionally clear on what exactly this means. This in no way means I'm unwilling to listen to a less technical argument. I definitely will, I just don't have a concrete framework for how I evaluate these arguments, so I think it's important that you make this clear for me so that I don't end up making a decision that misses the point entirely.
I also think I should address MG theory here. If you've read Alyson Escalante's philosophy, I pretty much agree 100% with her about the direction this activity is going and what's causing it. The proliferation of nonsense MG theory is definitely up there for me in terms of something that's threatening this activity, and you will be hard pressed to get me to vote on it. The only legitimate MG theory in my mind is CP theory (PiCs bad, multiple actor CPs bad, floating PiCs bad, Delay bad, for the most part) and Condo bad. These are debates that I will listen to, and that for the most part, I don't have a huge bias for voting one way or the other (maybe Condo, but read my later section on that). Any other silly MG theory about passing texts or reading the plan text in 30 seconds or whatever is becoming increasingly annoying to me. I don't even want to listen to these debates, so your speaker points will reflect my annoyance if these are even apart of the MG order. Beyond that, you likely will not get a ballot out of me that even references the MG theory as a part of my decision. My threshold for abuse on these sheets is very high, and absent an incredibly legitimate abuse claim, I will find any small defensive argument possible to make this sheet of paper go away, and your speaker points will suffer the more you press the issue. Please keep this in mind if you have me as a judge.
Read whatever you want on the aff. I truly don't care, and I'll evaluate the debate that happens in front of me. Just a few specifics though:
1. I need texts read twice and slowly.
2. Don't try to be faster than you are. It's probably my biggest pet peeve in this activity. Clarity is just as important as speed, and I won't be nice with your speaker points if your inability to be honest with yourself about your own skills means we all have to suffer through a speech that's unclear.
3. I love a non-topical aff - in theory. In practice, I find myself begging for just one or two arguments that clearly explain why you ought to be non-topical. If I get those, I'll be far more enthusiastic about whatever your k aff is. Also, referencing the topic on your link page and giving a lackluster warrant as to its connection to whatever your k aff is about does not make you "topical" and I will vote on framework 99% of the time in these cases.
As far as negative strats go, I also pretty much think you should do whatever you want, but as for specific thoughts:
1. I assume all negative advocacies are conditional unless specified otherwise. As a person, I think you should say most things with your chest, which would naturally mean I think condo is bad. BUT, as someone that understands how the activity works and would like it to keep working that way, I think condo is good and I don't think there are many scenarios where I would vote for condo bad unless it's an egregious abuse of condo.
2. I love a T debate - in theory. I don't think many judges or debaters really agree on how a T debate ought to be evaluated, which is why most of the time every judge in the room ends up sighing, groaning, and shaking their heads through a T debate and then punishing debaters for committing any number of "sins" that are entirely based on their personal views on T and not some agreed upon community norm. So, here are my thoughts: I think of interps similarly to counterplans. It's a specific text (that defines a certain word in the resolution), with "net-benefits" (or standards) that resolve or cause certain negative or positive impacts (that discuss an effect on debate as an activity). Although the interp usually defines a singular word, it's defining that word in the context of the resolution, not in a vacuum. The violation describes this context. That's typically how words work, alongside other words or groups of words. I evaluate topicality in this way. If you don't win a standard on your interp, then there's not reason for me to vote for it instead defaulting to the PMC (just like there's no reason for me to vote for a counter-plan if it doesn't have a net benefit. I would just vote for the aff). If both interps win a standard, then I need impact weighing to compare offense and determine which interp solves the most. We-meets can be terminal defense, if they sufficiently resolve the offense gone for in the context of the violation. Just like in any other debate, if the defense isn't enough to outweigh the offense gone for in the MO, I can still vote on the offense. For example, if you read defense against one link on the disad but not the other, I can still vote on the offense triggered by the second link. This goes for T as well. These are just my thoughts, but if you keep them in mind, I will not groan through your MO/PMR on T. I think T is fun and more people should go for it.
3. Please...collapse...in the block...
4. Whatever your nonsense k is, please explain it to me as if I did not pay attention in my intro ethics class (I did not). This threshold is much higher for D&G (I just don't get it. I'm sorry).
Finally, I was pretty deep in the anti-blackness literature as a debater, I mostly debated pess, but I also dipped into futurism/nihilism/etc. I mean like, 5 years and lots of books and research and readings by lots of different authors deep. This is a topic area that I have a lot of knowledge on because I did a lot of work to accumulate this knowledge. I like these arguments, and I don't think parli has even scratched the surface of this lit base and the type of arguments that can come from it. That being said, I have zero respect for debaters that think they don't need to do any of this work and that they can formulate an argument based entirely on their own (albeit real and highly valuable) cultural knowledge. This isn't twitter, (although if you're funny and often talk about your cultural experiences as a Black there, I might follow you) but there's a reason tweets have a character limit, this activity does not. Luckily, there are a ton of Black authors that have just as much cultural knowledge, paired with years of academic research and writing that contains well thought out and explained theories regarding the Black experience and anti-Blackness generally. Please give them their clout, read their books/essays, and use them as at least the basis for your argument. Otherwise, you're not engaging in this activity in the way that it's designed to be engaged in and I won't be the judge that rewards you for it.
Also, I have opinions about speaker points. Mainly, that a 30 ought to be virtually unattainable and given only to those that are truly exceptional - not just in a given round, but compared to the rest of the field. I will almost never give one, and my average range is somewhere between a 27.7 and a 29.7. If youre on either side of that range it means you were particularly impressive (either negatively or positively). Judges that give these out like candy or debaters that explicitly ask for them when theyve not given a speech that constitutes a 30 generally tend to make speaker awards not reflective of the actual ranking of debaters at the tournament. Im pretty committed to not contributing to that, so if you receive a 30 from me just know it was well deserved. If you ask for a 30, I probably will not respond nicely with how many speaker points I end up giving you. 30s ought to be earned; and, if the 2020 NPDA is any indication, when people explicitly ask for them and judges give them, people who actually earned their 30s end up not getting rewarded for it.
TLDR; say whatever you want, I'm a good judge for any of it. Condo is good. Books are fun and you should read them. There's someone out there that has spent years researching whatever thought you think you came up with all on your own, I promise.
Alan Fishman - PLNU
I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. Tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and don't care about delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.
Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com.
Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.
CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat. Slow down a little on analytics not in the doc though. Also, while I am fine with tricks and spikes, I think you should put them in the doc for the sake of accessibility.
TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have.
TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event.
TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. Also, I love good vagueness shells but I am tired of the generic vagueness shell that cites the rules and doesn't say how specific the aff needs to be - if you run vagueness, give me a brightline.
TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways
CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.
SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. I mostly follow Lila Lavender's position on speed theory, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should have a genuine accessibility need for your opponents to slow down (such as having a disability that impacts auditory processing or being entered in novice at a tournament with collapsed divisions) and you should be able to prove objectively that engagement is not possible. Otherwise I am very likely to vote on the we meet. I think that while there are instances where speed theory is necessary, there are also times when it is weaponized and commodified to win ballots by people who could engage with speed. However, I do think you should slow down when asked, I would really prefer if I don't have to evaluate speed theory
THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.
I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against an RVI if you win it on the flow. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another.
I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.
Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.
COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.
IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).
KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.
IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I understand why people read these arguments, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity or lived experience, I will be more willing to vote on theory. The only way I know how to evaluate the debate is the flow of what happens in round, and I have trouble evaluating frameworks that ask me to look at something other than the flow.
REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.
PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I do not mind voting for them if you win them.
SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group.
If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.
PARLI ONLY:
If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.
I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.
PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:
I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.
Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.
POLICY ONLY:
I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech
NFA-LD ONLY:
I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.
I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.
I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.
Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".
Alex Tseng - PLNU
Alexander Cadena - RioRunners
Background Information:
I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. I have experience judging policy while I was in graduate school. This is my third year of coaching forensics. I enjoy the spirit of this event and I am hoping to do so for more years to come.
How I evaluate rounds:
I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like filled and completed arguments. Do you have Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? I would like Plan texts and CPs to be stated twice. In the rebuttals, tell me what arguments to vote on and why they have greater importance than your opponent's arguments.
If you are running a K, please state the Roll of the Ballot and Alternative twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. For the times when it is K v.s. K debates, (I will question my life choices) I will try to vote on the most articulated position that is flushed out in the rebuttals. I am not a fan of spread. If competitors ask how I feel about spread, I will say Its hurts my head.
Topicality Theory Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. Do not expect me to fill in the blips of your standards and impacts. Im not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Ive been persuaded by a compelling RVI against that tactic in the past. (They made pretty smart argument which had no response.)
Some other comments:
Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to win a ballot. If you dont care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POIs are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals.
P.S. Flex-Time is NOT a designated CX period. There are still POI allowed in speech time, I am not a fan of this social norm where questions are only allowed in-between speeches! Also if you have time before your speeches, you should be pretty close to speaking by the time FLEX ends!
Alexandra Jacobsen - UCSD
n/a
Alexandre Some - USAFA
n/a
Amy Gong - UCSD
n/a
Anabelle Chen - UCSD
n/a
Ananya Jain - Pepperdine
n/a
Andrew LaRocca - BP Hired
n/a
Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa
Debate is about persuading your judge. Having said that, please talk to me, not at me. For all types of debate, let's have some clash? Call points of order in the rebuttal, I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive (I know this will look different in a remote setting but the concept still applies), I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments please just be sure that they are warranted and fully explained. Structure is vital to a clear case. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you donât want to leave it up to me. PS-all road maps are in time.
IPDA:
  This event is not Parli lite. The best way I have heard it explained is that it is dueling extemp speeches. There should be clash, clear arguments, and clear reasons to vote for you.
NFA-LD:
I prefer a conversational rate and a speaker who engages with their audience rather than just reading their cards. I have only judged 2-3 rounds of LD all year, if you run the round like I know the topic as well as you, you may lose my ballot.
Remember to have fun!
Anjali Jakasania - UCSD
n/a
Anthony Fasano - UCSD
n/a
Aris Sanders - Pepperdine
n/a
Audrey Neukomm - USAFA
n/a
Averie Vockel - Utah
I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...
DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.
DON'T be rude.
DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.
DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.
DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.
DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.
DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.
DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.
DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.
Avik Ghosh - UCSD
n/a
Blake Longfellow - CUI
I am primarily an IE coach and very much approach forensics (including debate) as a communication/persuasive activity. I approach debate with the mindset that all stories are arguments and all arguments are stories. With that said, the story which is the most internally cohesive (narrative probability) and that lines up across the debate (narrative fidelity) is likely to win my ballot.
Here is a list of things Paul Villa thinks you should know about debating in front of me:
-Truth over tech: Blake isn't flowing the debate like this is the national circuit, he is going to take minimal notes, you aren't going to win by pointing out some drop on the flow or technical analysis of the round.
-Don't spread. Like, at all. However fast you are thinking will be fine I'd go slower than that.
-Reading theory is a non-starter, if the other team isn't topical just tell Blake they aren't topical and explain why that means they should lose the debate without getting all technical.
- Blake would probably vote on a K, especially a performance one, assuming it made sense to him in the round.
- Less is more, the more simple the path to the ballot for you the more likely Blake is to vote for you.
Blake Togerson - PLNU
n/a
Brandan Whearty - Palomar
Brandan Whearty
Palomar College
Short Version: You Talk, I'll Listen
Long Version: I tend to view debate as a negotiation between the government and opposition over what will happen during the 45 minutes of engagement. This means that whatever parameters both teams agree on are ok. I will listen to fast technical debate, slow rhetorical debate, and alternate forms such as performance with equal interest. I will listen to Topicality, C/Kritiks, Vagueness, Value Objections, Resolutionality, etc. Remember that just because its a procedural issue it doesnt mean tags will suffice. Asking me to drop a team on procedural violation requires a warrant or two, and I'm happy to listen to procedural level offense from the Affirmative as well.
YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT I HAVE REPETITIVE STRESS INJURIES TO MY HANDS AND SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING, WHICH MEANS A TOP-LEVEL TEAM CAN SPEAK FASTER THAN I CAN FLOW. I CAN KEEP UP WITH 70%-75% OF TOP SPEED, PROVIDED THAT THE SPEAKER'S ARTICULATION IS EXCELLENT (SO I CAN CHEAT A LITTLE BY READING LIPS) AND THAT THE SPEAKER'S STRUCTURE IS PERFECT. IF NEITHER OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE TRUE, YOU MAY NEED TO SLOW DOWN MORE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU. Later in the tournament, I may need you to slow down even more as my hands fail. If you're losing me, you'll know immediately and loudly. Also, please avoid strategies that require me to fill sheets of paper with arguments that we all know will be discarded in the next speech. If there are more than 10-13 pages per debate, the burning in my hands starts to drown out your arguments.
Though I consider myself a flow critic, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by laundry lists of taglines filling in for substantial, warranted analysis. I think that the words, because and for example are important, and you should probably use them a lot.
Please call important points of order in both rebuttals, in order to save me from guessing which arguments you want me to intervene and discard. If both teams want me to intervene and throw out arguments I see as new, mention it in the round and I will defer to your collective judgment. Abusing Points of Order will destroy your speaker points and compromise your tournament seeding.
I collect ACTUAL TURNS. People use the word turn a lot in parliamentary debate. This confuses me, because it is usually followed by an argument like, They dont solve enough, other bad things will still happen, or is not. If you make an actual turn, I will probably pound happily on the table to let you know.
I appreciate lighthearted jabs, and heckling is fine as long as it is funny rather than rude. If you have ever wanted to run an extreme or bizarre advocacy, I may be your best chance to pick up on it. Enjoy yourselves,be nice, and speaks will be high.
A few more preferences that may help you win my ballot:
* Explain your perms and provide a clear text for each one. Otherwise, you may accidentally win the argument that your side should lose.
* It is way easier for me to vote for your procedural with demonstrated abuse in round. Potential abuse is almost impossible for me to evaluate without wondering about potential answers and potential turns.
* I am getting bored with delay/politics strategies. If you're going to run them in front of me, engage my interest with an amazing demonstration of this strategy's power and legitimacy. If you have a choice between delay/politics and a kritik debate, please choose the latter.
* Please make sure I understand what you're saying. If you want me to cast my ballot because "...durable fiat is instantaneous," you should probably make sure I know what you mean. I can *guess* at what you mean, but that's no good for either of us.
Carolyn Fisher - PLNU
n/a
Cassy Molina - RioRunners
n/a
Chloe Prieto - UCSD
n/a
Chris Leland - PLNU
n/a
Connor Rude - USAFA
n/a
Cristina De La Torre - UCSD
n/a
Damon Mitchell - SDSU
n/a
Dane Sprague - USC
n/a
David Worth - RIce
David Worth – Rice
D.O.F., Rice University
Parli Judging Philosophy
Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.
I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.
I prefer debates that are related to the topic.
I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.
I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.
Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.
Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.
You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.
Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.
Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.
Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.
Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.
If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.
You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.
Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.
My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.
Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.
Destinee Sior - Maricopa
Destinee Yepez - RioRunners
n/a
Dewi Hokett - Palomar
n/a
Eddie Ramirez - PLNU
n/a
Edward Minasyan - RioRunners
When evaluating debate rounds I find that I look for structure and clarity of all arguments made. An argument without proper taglines or a response without signposting ends up being a thought thrown out with the hope that the judge or opponent flows it in the proper place.
I like to see topical affs who engage with the resolution, regardless of debate format, and negs who engage with the aff through DA, CP, T, and other arguments on case. Stock issues are extremely important to me in both Parli and NFA-LD. If you don't meet those burdens as an aff you will lose if the neg points it out. Fairness should be a priority for everyone, so take questions and be courteous to all.
NFA-LD specific things:You should come prepared to the rounds. That means making sure everyone has access to your case and any cards you read. It doesn't matter if it's a paper copy or on speechdrop.net. I believe that the rules matter, are important, and are the guidelines to competitors and judges in this event. That means stock issues are the most important voting issues, neg should have logically consistent arguments, and excessive speed will mean a loss.
General Notes:I like straight up debates and will almost never vote for K's just run without a truly justified reason. I think spread delivery actively hurts the competition of debate, so just don't do it in front of me if you want my ballot. Don't run excessive or abusive theory just to win a ballot in front of me. Try not to run apocolyptic impacts because they're never explained enough or convincing enough to be realistic. Probability > Magnitude. Don't lie or cheat.
Be nice, have fun.
Elena Bonmati - CofI
n/a
Elizabeth Wong - UCSD
n/a
Elizabeth Luchinski - UCSD
n/a
Emerson Kettler - USAFA
n/a
Ever Rodriguez - CUI
n/a
Fiker Tesfaye - Mercer
Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.
I'm Fiker (pronounced like snicker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters and was acing Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.
I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so dont let that be you, too. I dont understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.
Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?
Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.
DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).
Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please dont go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or dont and dont go for theory if theres no proven abuse or if youre not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?
Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. Use of the state is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your use of the state specifically is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?
Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me on social media (probably facebook most easily) or you can email me at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com
Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.
Gabriel Robles - PLNU
n/a
Gary Rybold - PLNU
n/a
Genevieve Dietz - UCSD
I have both speech and debate experience and have been judging the PSCFA circuit for 3 years.
Please clearly signpost and give me reasons to vote in your last speech.
I'd prefer no spreading.
and have fun! :)
George Li - UCSD
n/a
Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA
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.
Haidyn Christoffel - CUI
Hi there! I am the Assistant Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. My partner and I were 3rd at NPDA my senior year.
NPDA:
Kriticisms: I read a lot of Kriticisms as a competitor, but just because I might understand some of your lit base, does not mean I will do the work for you when it comes to evaluating the flow. Also, I might not understand your specific K, so please explain it and what it does in the alt and solvency clearly. I am not voting on arguments I do not understand. I also really like specific links on neg K's, as I think they can function as independent offense on the aff if done correctly. In regards to non-topical affirmatives, I would like to see some justification for rejecting the topic to show that your aff actually does something or sets a norm in the debate space.
Theory: I am not so sure how I feel about frivolous theory, as I feel that it literally defeats the entire point of theory in the first place, which is to preserve fairness and education in debate. Examples of frivolous theory I would most likely not vote on are (but not limited to): must pass texts in the speech (just do it after your speech or in flex) and disclosure (I don't know how that even works in parli). Otherwise, I enjoy a good theory debate! MG theory is cool, again, don't make it frivolous.I default to competing interps over reasonability if no voters tell me otherwise. Please be specific and give me a bright line if you would like me to evaluate a theory sheet using reasonability.
Case: Case debate is always fun. If this is what you are the most comfortable defending, go for it!
Speed: I am personally okay with speed. Please be clear. Please read important tags like all advocacies, ROB's, and interps twice or slow down so I make sure I have them flowed correctly. I will audibly slow or clear you if I cannot keep up. I would encourage you to do the same if you cannot keep up with your opponents and vise versa.
Impact calculus: Without impact calc, I feel that the round is infinitely harder for me to weigh. Please do this in the rebuttals, even if you collapse to theory. I will most likely default to valuing the highest magnitude impact if not told to weigh the round otherwise.
Lastly, please do not make morally reprehensible arguments.
LD:
I have no preferences other than I really would like to not have to evaluate disclosure theory (on the aff or neg). Otherwise, most of my parli paradigm can be applied here.
IPDA only:
My ballot will mainly be decided on the way arguments interact with each other rather than how well of a speaker the competitors are.I will not flow cross-ex, so if you want me to flow an argument, please make it in your speech.I think the definitions debate is the highest layer in the round, and I will evaluate that before I look to the other arguments. I enjoy strong impact calculus. So if the round permits, please tell me why your impacts matter the most and why I should care. I think sometimes burdens in IPDA become unclear. I think the aff should defend the topic, even if it is in some fun and creative way that I was not expecting.I think the neg's burden is to disprove the aff or offer reasons as to why the aff causes something bad to happen, don't just negate the topic alone.
Lastly, I think debate is a game and we can all gain something from every round. I want to encourage you all to be kind to one another and have fun with the event. Feel free to ask me any other questions in person! Good luck and have fun! :)
Hailea Stone - SDSU
n/a
Holland Smith - Palomar
n/a
Huaming Wu - UCSD
n/a
Hugo Kittel - USC
n/a
Jackson Long - USAFA
n/a
Jacob Kirksey - CC
I am a former CX debater (high school) and IE competitor
(high school and college). Im a Ph.D. candidate in education policy, and I got
my B.A. in economics. In general, I prefer a policymaking framework for
debates. Im open to being convinced otherwise in a round.
Speed: Im okay with moderate speed. While I can listen to
spreading, I dont find it necessary in parli. If were in an out round and the
other two judges are fine with it, Ill turn on my CX ears.
Impacts: After debating for four years and listening to
debates for over a decade, Im over nuclear war and extinction impacts.
Controversial as it may be, Im not going to weigh these impacts. Dehum is
fine, but I want empirical examples. Everything else is fair game.
DAs: Absolutely necessary.
Ks: Ran a lot. Listened to a lot. No longer like them. Ks
ask me to insert my own subjectivity into a round, and Im not here for that.
CPs: Not a fan of conditional CPs; otherwise, love.
T: Only when theres clear abuse. Again, not a fan of
conditional Ts.
Partner work: Ive seen partners work well when using each
others flow, and Ive seen complete disasters. You choose.
Other notes: I do not intervene on the flow. I love
intentional clash. You represent yourself in and out of rounds. Be nice.
James Laky - PLNU
n/a
James Deiotte - UCSD
n/a
Jared Barrett - USAFA
n/a
Jasmine Moheb - UCSD
Hey everyone, my name is Jasmine (she/her/her's) and I come from four yeas of high school experience mainly in Congressional Debate (I competed at district and national level, CHSSA state, and was a finalist at the 2018 TOC) and am now entering my third year in collegiate debate. In college, I compete in the NPDA (parliamentary debate with more tech)/IPDA/BP formats so I am well-versed in everything from technical debate to more lay, rhetoric-heavy debate. I have been coaching debate for six years now and judging for three years, most recently at the 2020 NSDA nationals. I do not like/cannot follow *extreme* spreading, so please avoid doing that if I am judging a policy round. Overall, I look for well-articulated arguments with clear and coherent links as well as concrete impacts. Unique contentions are always a plus. It is very important in Congress to show to me that you are interacting with the round if you are one of the later speakers; clash is appreciated. In other debates, I would consider myself to be a flow judge, so organization and clarity is critical. I am also familiar with and have judged all speech events and there is less of a paradigm I can give for that because everyone is so different, just enjoy your time in speech and debate and performing! Best of luck to everyone!
Jasper Wu - UCSD
n/a
Jeannie Hunt - Utah
TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.
FLEX TIME - stop stealing flex and adding several minutes to each round. You should have a plan text, alt, CP text, interpretation - anything you know the opposition is going to want a copy of - written and ready to go. And flow, ask for it to be repeated when they say it, or let them know before the round starts what you will want in writing. I will not wait more than 30 seconds for you to write it out before I start flex.
I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:
You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.
I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything (except stealing flex).
I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.
I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.
Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.
Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.
Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.
Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.
Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing, I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is just you saying think you should have won on that argument.
Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.
I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.
Jeff Toney - Dark Horse
I feel like an OG debate judge, even though several others have been around longer than me. However, I think it is only fair that I acknowledge that I have been a squirrel in several round in the past 5 years. In other words, your rep means as much to me as a Stark in Game of Thrones. With that being said here are my positions.
Counterplan - I do not have a silly disposition on them. However, that doesn't mean I will not vote for good condo bad theory.
Theory - I hate potential abuse - I got pulled over 21 times in one year and received two fix-it tix so... If you are going to run theory I need to know the specific ground lost. Tell me what positions you couldn't run, or what links you cannot logically gain access to because of whatever the other team is doing.
Weighing - I tend to prefer bigger magnitudes over smaller more probable impacts. If you are going to go small then framing probably should accompany your position. In addition, weigh through your framing!
In general, I look for the most straightforward way out of the debate. When I was a new judge, I used to do the most, looking at every sheet 3 or 4 times only to come up with the same decision I had 20 minutes prior. Now, I let yall point me in the right direction. If you want me to vote for you, walk me down the path. I put a lot of weight on rebuttals. So, during your impact framing keep that in mind.
Jen Montgomery - CSUF
My Experience:
2.5 years of college individual events for OCC and CSUF (NFA/AFA)
INFO, POE, POI, IMP, PROS
3 years coaching elementary, middle school, high school and college-level forensics
- Coached and judged all IE events as well as Parli, POFO, IPDA, and a bit of LD
Tldr; I'm looking for logical, respectful, and fair debates where you show confidence in your arguments and sources. Fun debates are welcome as long as any sassiness, jokes, etc. are made in good fun maintain respect, and everyone is clear on this. Focus building YOUR argument most of all.
What are the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate?
I'm looking for solid arguments that are backed by sources and can be defended against your opponent's questions and counter-arguments. Confidence in your argument makes a huge difference as well; if you don't believe your own arguments, how do you expect me to?
I appreciate a slower, clear, emphasis on your main contentions so that I am clear on what I am judging and where points are dropped. It's extra helpful however, fo you to call out any dropped arguments as it (1) helps me catch any I missed and (2) shows me that you caught it and are critically analyzing your opponent's arguments.
What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?
Courtesy above all else. This usually isn't a problem, but I have seen some eye rolls, face-making, and rude remarks made mid-debate. I don't mind a friendly banter amongst competitors (in fact, I LOVE a witty and fun debate) but please make that clear at the end with some good sportsmanship. Overall I don't want to see any lines crossed in terms of respect. Keep ad hominem at the door, we are a community and should treat each other as such.
I also love to see your personalities pop in a debate and love to see any personal ties to your arguments. You are a unique human being so play to your strengths as a speaker, I will adapt to you.
What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?
I want you to make a strong argument for YOUR point and not just focus on dismantling your opponent's points (especially neg). Even if you manage to poke holes in your opponent's arguments or plans, if they're the only ones who gave me a solid plan to go off of, they will still get my vote. Do not simply tell me to vote for you, let your arguments convince me of that.
How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?
If your opponent is fine with these aspects so am, however, I am also aware of the many arguments against spreading so if this is brought up mid-round that is something I will take into consideration against anyone spreading who did not check in with their opponents (& me) beforehand. In short, your opponent needs to be able to follow along with your arguments in order for this debate to be fair.
Most importantly: Have fun! :)
Jennifer Hibberts - UCSD
n/a
Jeremy Johnson - DU
n/a
Joey Nicolai - PLNU
n/a
John Schultz - Alaska
n/a
Jonathan Bollinger-Benson - USC
n/a
Josh Congelese - PLNU
n/a
Justine Kesary - UCSD
Hi competitors, Im Justine Kesary. I've been judging Speech & Debate for about 5 years now and I competed for a short time in highschool.
Debate: First off I prefer truth over tech. I believe that in a debate round the importance of it is to be clear, concise and persuasive. These are ideals that cannot be achieved with spreading or excessively fast talking. I will take any argument into consideration as long as it is backed up by logic or evidence. My favorite part about debate is the clash of arguments so you can't win on evidence alone you have to counter every point made by the opposing competitor. A Kritique could work but give me some clear justification for why you believe "Blank'' is bad. Same with a topicality give me some form of justification. To give clear justification you might have to break the format a little bit but its important for enhancing the debate space. I dislike critiques and topicalities that are just made to exclude another team from competing in the round. If the other team is uncomfortable with theory please dont use it. Above all else the most important thing to do to win my ballot is to prove the resolution as the affirmative or to disprove the resolution as the negative. Those are the best debates. Also just for my own notes I prefer if you signpost or give me a clear indication of what contention or point you're addressing in the round.
Speech: For speech I judge on content and performance.
Katie Na - Claremont
n/a
Kenneth Lorenzana - ULV
n/a
Kharee Hoggs - USC
n/a
Konrad Hack - CUI
Kristina Sanville - CSU Chico
Kyle Cheesewright - CofI
This is my most recent judging philosopy. If you want to see a collection of them, with information that is more or less relevant, Net Benefits has an interesting archive.
“All that you touch
You Change.
All that you Change
Changes you.
The only lasting truth
Is Change.
God Is Change.”
–Octavia Butler, “Parable of the Sower.”
Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.
I love debate. It’s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren’t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:
1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That’s what I got.
2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.
Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don’t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.
I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy—for both sides of the debate.
At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.
Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.
On specific issues: I don’t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say “Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,” I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say “Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,” I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.
I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.
Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn’t matter. Watch out for arguments that don’t matter, they’re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.
Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.
This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I’ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round—but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.
I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.
For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It’s where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don’t understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I’m more than happy to share. But I’ll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we’re just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.
“[Y]ou can’t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it’s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it’s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.”
-David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”
Kyle Pryor-Landman - SDSU
Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am the Director of Debate at SDSU. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.
FAQs:
- What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
- Can I spread?: Sure, just dont be abusive.
- Can I reject the topic?: Probably! Do you know your own K? (If you cannot give an enthusiastic YES! To this question, think twice)
- What do you want to see?: In order from most to least enjoyable for me to judge:
- Topical Aff vs. Disads/CP/T
- Topical Aff vs. K
- K aff vs. FW-T
- K aff vs. K (everyone understands their K)
- K aff vs K (no one understands their K) (I am the wrong judge to break your new K aff in front of)
- Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
- Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
- Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
- Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
- Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
- What about LD?: The same rules apply from parli but give me a little bit more pen time because I am still figuring out how I feel.
- How do you feel about IPDA?: Poorly. The closer it is to NPDA the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am. Do with that what you will.
- How do you feel about TPDA? Please reject the topic and spread as fast as you can. The faster we can get TPDA to collapse, the better.
- Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge?: I like to have fun silly goofy time in debate rounds. I also have carpal tunnel, so my written RFDs are going to be shorter than they used to be. Email me after the tournament if you want more written feedback, but you should also be writing down your oral feedback anyway.
- If I ask you what your paradigm is before round, what will you say?: This exact sentence: Its on ForensicsTournament if you wanna check it out.
Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell
TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.
Speaks: 26-30 unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard all year, 26 being you did not include significant portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you.
Kyler Kroll - PLNU
n/a
Larra Hoelscher - USAFA
n/a
Layal Alashmoni - UCSD
n/a
Malaika Wauters - UCSD
n/a
Marc Ouimet - Palomar
WHO AM I?
Marc Ouimet
What to call me: Marc
Pronouns: He/They
Where I coach: Palomar
Experience: Cumulatively 11 years mostly, with Palomar, grad coach at Beach, some time with SDSU and filled in minor commitments for Point Loma and UCSD in the before times. Ive also coached some high school and middle school students but not long-term. For debate, my primary focus for a long-time was NPDA, now its IPDA, but Ive also done policy and NFA-LD.
TL:DR
Be a presence in the round. I want to leave with an impression of you as a person, not just some rando on a ballot. Be good citizens and good to each other. Feel free to question anything, but back it up. Be more rigorous and more strategic.
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
Overview: I want you to have a good time. I want to have a good time.
Basic structural concern: I have routinely asked debaters of all skill levels and debate events the past few years to talk more explicitly about solvency and impact calculus. If you are not doing these things, I think you are missing a basic component of how you construct your arguments and how they operate in the round. So, please develop your arguments with consideration of both in mind.
Accommodations / Speed: If you have additional needs from me or the tournament, more than happy to accommodate. If someone asks clear, speed, or pen time, please make the effort to include them in the round.
Procedurals / Burdens: I think debating the norms and supposed rules of a debate are a basic part of the debate. I will still hold them to a higher level of scrutiny than other arguments because I understand them as asking me to intervene which I am hesitant but not unwilling to do. I generally do not vote for teams just because they out-debate another team on a procedural, so plan the rest of your strategy accordingly. I dont find RVIs practically or theoretically compelling.
IPDA specific: I read the IPDA bylaws, IPDA best practices guidelines, and the tournament invite before writing this. I dont know where the community norm of not having a plan text or advocacy statement for policy rounds comes from, but it is not in the rules that such things are disallowed. I have seen too many rounds that are basically a planless policy, with no solvency claims, and the various burdens get muddled and would have been much more productive as either a value or if the Negative had clearer access to things like links and counterplans or alternative advocacies. I can respect the desire to maintain IPDA as stylistically different and less technically-oriented than other styles of debate, but I am tired of seeing bad debates of this fashion, and struggle to see their value pedagogically. So please, have advocacy statements if its a policy round.
Fact Resolutions: While I do think there are good fact rounds. In practice, Ive seen very few Ive enjoyed or that werent outright framed as tautologies by the Affirmative. Dont do that, I want to see a debate, not a logic chain of truth claims that go in a circle. If youre on the Negative and you think this applies, this is a glaring exception to my high threshold on procedural or burden arguments.
THINGS I AM MOST OFTEN ASKED ABOUT THAT I THINK ARE LESS IMPORTANT
Off-time road maps: I dont care, and think its a normal organizational heads-up. Off, then on does not make me feel like youre stealing time or whatever. Ideally, though, give me the order of the sheets youre addressing.
Partner communication: Cool. Ideally, no puppeting - youre not Jim Henson. I will only be flowing the speaker that Im giving notes to on the ballot, though.
THINGS THAT KIND OF ANNOY ME (AND YOU SHOULDNT DO ANYWAY)
Stealing prep: I get that some debaters have less experience and are not as routinized with the time constraints of their debate events, fine. However, dont waste our time finishing writing answers either after prep is over or between flex/c-x when that time is done, please.
Insincere Thank Yous: Sincere thanks, cool. If its a generic introduction, find a better, routinized way to start your speech.
Not Writing Down Feedback: If theres time and the tournament is allowing it, I am telling you how to win debate rounds and do better. Im here because I want to help your learn, Im not doing it just to hear myself talk. I dont know how this stopped being a community norm, because I think writing down judge feedback was insanely useful for me as a competitor and coach.
Aggressive Affect: Being passionate is cool. Sometimes being angry at the status quo is part of the speech, I get that. Havent seen it too much this year and Im glad, but if youre looking to rip your opponents head off at the end of every round, please chill and learn to approach rounds in a healthier, more productive manner.
Ignoring Preferred Pronouns: Havent really seen it at all this year, which is great. I think not knowing and getting it wrong once through assuming incorrectly is sorta shitty but excusable. Repeating the mistake is uncool.
Cross-Applications / Flowing Instructions: Dont just tell me to identify drops (Flow this through / This is conceded.) Tell me what that means for the argument and how it operates in the round.
Points of Order: Before anything else, prompt the speaker to stop time rather than just making your objection in the middle of their speech time. Otherwise, fine to call them. I think sometimes debaters call them too often and are not trying to gauge my impressions on the round. I also find most points of order to be irrelevant, but I will generally offer whether the point is well taken or not. Even on a panel, I think its fair to offer my impressions on a point of order to not waste the debaters time one way or the other.
THINGS I AM NOT OFTEN ASKED ABOUT BUT I WISH I WAS (WHAT WOULD I LIKE TO SEE)
Style: I am getting very little of debaters having a sense of style lately. Everyone feels the same. Not everyone needs to try to be funny, passionate, or flashy. There are tons of different ways to be expressive, but Im feeling like more debaters than usual in a given competitive year are going through rounds like its a job and not like they have any real interest in being there. Even just getting creative with tagging your contentions, please.
Getting Weird: To expand on the style point, I havent seen debaters question, alter, or break the format in a long time. Kritiks, if any, are usually now a framework versus policymaking discussion exclusively after the position is introduced which is definitely part of it, I get that, but also the most boring part. I never forced any of my students to debate like I did, and maybe your coaches will tell you to steer clear of this approach with bringing it up. But I danced, read poetry, employed sock puppets, claimed fairytale solvency, got theatrical in-round, and I miss seeing someone approach debates with the same idea that it could be anything. I miss it in my bones.
Weighing: I want more than just bigger body counts or likelihoods compared. Timeframe, particularly sequencing, I think is often underutilized. I also think the ability to weigh different types of calculus against one another is tremendously underutilized. It doesnt all have to be structural impacts but I find the construction of most flashpoint scenarios to be really poorly constructed, so at minimum give me a brink. Per my point at the top about basic structure, Im not seeing enough consideration of link and solvency differentials.
Counterplan Theory: I understand counterplans as needing to compete with the plan. I dont know where the old theory of the Negative being unable to affirm the resolution came back from, but I understand those ideas as outdated. PICs are smart and good, I have rarely found them abusive.
Permutation Theory: I have too many thoughts right now about perms that have been awakened and are probably not going to be relevant to any of the debates I see at CCCFA or Phi Rho Pi. Multiple perms are probably bad. I miss seeing perms as anything other than test of competition, but I also admittedly read a lot of bad, unstrategic perms when that was the case. My threshold for theory probably also dips a little bit lower on perms that are intrinsic or sever.
Framework / Kritiks: Postmodern bingo doesnt lead to class consciousness. Im going to be annoyed when your framework sheet leads to loose links or doesnt line up with the link sheet at all. Clarity and continuity in the concepts youre employing will take you farther than jamming in as five dollar words as possible. Build complexity in after youve established a solid base. Apply my aforementioned concerns about solvency here as well, re: your alt. If none of this seems like a concern and you arent trying to read any authors who serve better as memes than citations, I look forward to your arguments. Floating PIKs are bad, have solvency in the shell if thats what youre doing.
Positionality: Condo is fine in policy, but any other format, Id prefer dispo.
Marc Clark - PLNU
n/a
Mark Faaita - CSU Chico
In all forms of debate I prefer arguments that are well reasoned and have supporting evidence. I am open to just about any kind of argument, but I think that more abstract/philosophical arguments typically run the risk of being easily leveraged against the team deploying them in the round. There are few to no arguments that I think will hear in a round and immediately disregard. i vote for arguments I don't like/disagree with all of the time. Please, please, please do not be rude to your opponents. It's just not a good look and creates a tension in the room that doesn't need to be there.
Masaki Mendoza - UCSD
n/a
Mateo McCullough - UCSD
n/a
Matthew Schaupp - ULV
n/a
Maya Kurkhill - Claremont
n/a
Mehri Sadri - UCSD
n/a
Michael McHan - Grossmont
I'll try to keep this as brief and simple as possible.
For Parliamentary Debate:
- Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
- Structure, structure, structure.
- The PMC speech should contain a clear and fair resolutional analysis. Be very clear when providing the voting criterion (V/C) and articulating how the judge should weigh the round. *Remember, if the Gov. team fails to offer a V/C then the Opp. has the right to do so for them.
- Please make sure you are signposting and clearly labeling your arguments.
- Not a fan of Ks.
- Okay with Ts, but not when levied as a strategy to take up time.
- Both sides should have clear, numbered voters in their final speeches. Don't just summarize existing arguments but TELL me why you should get my vote.
- Ultimately, I like to hear a clean debate, with ample clash, and arguments properly linked and warranted.
For IPDA Debate:
Since IPDA was created for a lay audience it is important that debaters keep their cases as simple and clear as possible.
- Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
- Very important to speak with a clear and calm pace.
- Signposting and labeling your arguments is a necessity.
- Please do not get too fancy with the voting criterion.
- Avoid technical debate jargon.
- Offer numbered voters (reasons why you won the debate) in final speeches.
- Be kind and respectful to each other.
- Smile and have fun!
For other Speaking Events:
- One of the elements I notice first is delivery - I tend to focus first on verbal and nonverbal variety, then command of gestures, then how well you engage your audience (if appropriate for your speech).
- Second, content. How well does your content flow, how organized is it, and how much do you enjoy /belief what you are saying.
- Third, have fun and entertain me! Typically, at any given tournament, I am observing 10-20 debates/speeches, and I like to be entertained by what I am judging. Have fun!
If you have questions about something that was not mentioned in my judging philosophy please do not hesitate to ask me before the round begins!
Michael Harvey - USAFA
The most important thing to me is a debate where both teams treat each other with respect. I will try and flow everything, but if you're going really fast and see me put down my pen, take that as a sign! I am not fond of Ks but will judge them on how they are presented. Answer (at least briefly) all things on the flow and don't make me fill in the blanks on incomplete arguments. Good luck!
Miranda Zigler - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Natasha Shivere - Pepperdine
n/a
Nathan Glonek - UCSD
n/a
Nathaniel Alpern - Pepperdine
n/a
Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU
I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!
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.
Philip Sharp - Nevada
Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno
Prabhjyot Singh Sodhi - UCSD
n/a
Renon Gracie - UCSD
n/a
Rob Margesson - Regis U
n/a
Robert Campbell - UCSD
Head Coach, University of California Speech & Debate. Former member of the national championship teams at the University of Kansas. An ideal debate round involves organization of case and arguments, clarity, and clash (direct argumentation). I despise "spreading" (no auctioneer ever won an argument) and any Affirmative "K"s (debate the resolution).
Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont
Background: I am the Director of Forensics at Grossmont College, for the past 30 years. I have been judging and coaching Parli for at least 20 years, and coaching and judging IPDA for about 10 years, or since southern California started competing in this event. I am not an NFA/LD coach or judge.
Educational Activity: I believe that debate is an educational activity that teaches some very important skills from the areas of argumentation and public speaking. I want to hear clear, well structured, arguments. I want the speaker to label their points/sign posting throughout. I need a road map, throughout the speech, not just at the top of the speech. I want to hear arguments that have claims, with reasoning/evidence. I still believe that this is a speaking event, and using some clear structure to you debate is important to me.
Regional Differences: At a state or national tournament, I know that there are different terms/jargon that have developed from individual regions. Therefore, dont assume that everyone should know the same terms. If you use a term, quickly explain it, the first time you use it. I welcome an opposing team to ask the other team for explanations of their terms. I do not expect that team to respond with something like, everyone should know this term. If that is true, give us the definition. I see far too many debaters misusing and miscommunication about jargon.
Topicality/Spreading/Ks: Of course, I expect to occasionally hear a topicality argument, when warranted. I dont want to hear a kritik for the sake of using it, or because you have nothing else to offer. However, if warranted, I may be open to one.
I believe there is no place for spreading/speed in Parli or IPDA. Everyone who continues to encourage or allow spreading is encouraging poor communication skills, defeating the purpose of Parli/IPDA debate. It isnt about my ability to flow, it is about your ability to communicate logical, argumentation to any audience.
During rebuttals I am looking for very clear voters, to tell me why your team wins the debate.
IPDA specifically: I have watched the progression from CEDA to Parli and now IPDA. I would like judges to follow the guidelines for IPDA, which says that there should be lay judges for IPDA. This means that even though I am a Parli judge, I should listen without expecting to hear jargon. I do think a well structure speech is required to be successful.
Having said all that, I love judging Parli debates. I am excited to hear your well structured, lively, debates.
Ruben Flores - USC
n/a
Ruhaan Bajaj - UCSD
n/a
Sage Margesson - Regis U
n/a
Sam Jones - PLNU
?
Samantha Franz - ULV
n/a
Samantha Chan - UCSD
n/a
Samantha Potter - BP Hired
n/a
Sarah Walker - NAU
Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University
Altogether,
I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a
competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary
Debate.
I have a strong
background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I
can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed,
technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however,
I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my
paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been
centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can
clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a
long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier
judge.
Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c)
Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like
specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the
aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about
judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a
workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate
constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less
experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge
this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need
warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make
your arguments clear.
2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items
(a)
I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be
acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I
understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography
or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there
should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am
concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or
hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy,
not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b)
When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of
making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I
am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a
roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more
impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly
technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in
favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those
dropped args.
(d) Evidence is
evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good
debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard
for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are
rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat.
Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to
do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better
debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan,
rather than simply insisting that it can be done.
3) Clipping
Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a
decision after the review. While I understand why other people
proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of
it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a
few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an
automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.
4)
Topicality debates: If
you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly
cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I
am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will
get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the
interpretations of the T.
5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should
time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing
when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.
Saria Markes - UCSD
n/a
Sean Thai - UOP
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.
Theory/Framework/Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations, unless reasonability is won hard. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.
Policy:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - 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. Don't cheat. 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.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.
Tech = truth
Flex time questions are binding.
Sean Reilly - PLNU
n/a
Shawna Majidansari - UCSD
n/a
Sheri Strothers - PLNU
n/a
Sherilyn Salas-Herger - UOP
n/a
Skylar Robinson - USC
n/a
Sloane Robertson - PLNU
n/a
Soby Haidari - UCSD
n/a
Spencer Lin - UCSD
n/a
Stephen Hosmer - PLNU
?
Steve Johnson - Alaska
n/a
Steve Farias - Dark Horse
(March 2022) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):
Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.
I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Societies and nations have excisted without structures of oppression in the past which means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. I borrow here because I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.
I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct. Theory is distinct from T. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then they presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.
I think that parli debate is a unique format and that format allows meaningful engagement. While these are things I think the AFF and NEG should do, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY
TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.
Section 1: General Information-
While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.
I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.
Section 2: Specific Arguments
The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.
In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.
For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.
I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.
Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.
In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.
Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.
With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.
Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.
LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY
Section 1 General Information
Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)
General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.
As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.
In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.
Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"
Section 2 Specific Inquiries
1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?
I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.
2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?
I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.
3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:
Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.
4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue
Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.
5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?
Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.
6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months
Yes
7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?
I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.
8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?
No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.
9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?
You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.
10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?
My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.
Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!
Tanner Long - BP Hired
n/a
Tanvi Jain - UCSD
n/a
Tanvi Nurredula - UCSD
n/a
Thomas Sanderson - PLNU
n/a
Tierra Smithson - UOP
Hi there! My names Tierra. I competed in LD for 4 years in high school, then did LD and Parli for 4 years at the University of the Pacific. This is my second year coaching for UoP as a graduate assistant coach. Below are some of the things that might help you understand the way I think about debate and how I evaluate certain positions.
Affs:
I think the affirmative should ideally be topical. I think critical affirmatives can be achieved without outright rejecting the topic. For AFFs that decide to forgo this and decide to reject the topic, I need clear explanations for why you are doing so, why it is necessary, etc.
Topicality/Theory:
I understand topicality as how individual words in the resolution ought to be interpreted for the best debate.
The negative should have a clear definition/interpretation, and the affirmative should make sure to make we meet arguments and offer competing definitions/interpretations. For theory, I have a higher threshold for frivolous theory, especially when its used as an exclusionary tool or a time suck, but I am receptive to theory that seems warranted given the nature of the topic i.e. PICs Bad, No PIC on a whole law, condo bad, etc.
This means that I tend to default to competing interpretations over reasonability, even if I think the aff might be good in some way for the debate (ie reasonability). This means that having arguments like why competing interps is bad or why reasonability is good are strategic.
CP/Ks:
CPs or Ks should be unconditional, and I can be persuaded by condo bad arguments. That being said, I still expect these to be warranted out and WEIGHED, which means I dont just auto drop teams that are condo. I also think that when the negative has read either a CP/K, they have the burden of proving why their alternative choice is preferable, and thus for me, presumption would flip Aff.
I like policy debate, and think counterplan-disad debates can be really interesting, but often underutilized. I ran Ks when I competed, but Im probably not deep in the critical literature youre reading. This means you can run your K but if I dont understand how to evaluate it compared to the Aff or reasons why the alternative is preferable, Im likely to be persuaded by the perm (if one is made) and the aff leveraging their advantages. I think perms need to be explained, and Im not a fan of vague perm: do both arguments without any additional explanation of how its possible or what that means.
Speed/Clarity:
I dont think speed should be used to exclude anyone from the round and that you should slow or clear if someone says slow or clear. Im a fast talker, and might be able to keep up, but you at your top speed is probably too fast for me. If you want me to get your arguments, you should slow down a touch and try to punch your tags.
Also for funsies, here is a list of my previous debate partners who probably were better than I was. Do with that information what you will: Arshita Sandhiparthi, Jonathan Reyes, Ravi Prasad, Marlu Reyes.
If you have any questions, dont hesitate to reach out! My email ist_smithson@u.pacific.edu
Tim Seavey - SDSU
Tim Kerr - UCSD
n/a
Tim Farmer - PLNU
n/a
Toni Nielson - Fullerton College
Toni Nielson
Co-Director of Debate, Fullerton College (2017 - forever I suspect)
Executive Director - Bay Area Urban Debate League (2013-2017)
Co-Director of Debate at CSU, Fullerton for 7 years (2005-2012)
Debated in College for 5 years
Debated in High School for 3 years
Rounds on the Topic: less than 5
Email Chain: commftownnielson@gmail.com
I just want to see you do what you are good at. I like any debater who convinces me the know what they are talking about.
Heres what I think helps make a debater successful
1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and dont make me guess about it I hate guessing because it feels like intervention. I'm trying to let the debaters have the debate.
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I aint the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best which was a while ago. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner.
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldnt see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you arent debating in a vacuum see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way.
Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate.
Now you are asking,
Can I read an aff without a plan? I lean rather in the direction of a topical plan, instrumentally implemented these days. This is a big change in my previous thoughts and the result of years of working with young, beginning debate. I appreciate policy discussion and believe the ground it provides is a preferable locus for debate. So I am somewhat prone to vote neg on framework must implement a plan.
Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. As far as literature, I lean slightly more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate are more basic than my history of K debate.
Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative (if they have a plan) in most instances. I lean neg on K framework which strikes me as fair negative ground of a topical plan of action.
Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of tech. Debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the tech is not a declaration to abandon reality. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones that are at the core of the debate. Gigantic caveat, I will struggle to vote on an argument just because it is dropped. The concession must be relevant and compelling to the debate. I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.
Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.
Good luck!.
Toni Rutledge - PLNU
n/a
Wes Burns - UCSD
n/a
Will White - Parli at Berkeley
They/Them
For email chains:
williamewhite275@gmail.com
Background: competed with Parliamentary Debate @ Berkeley. I got 5th place at NPTE with 9th top Speaker and Sems at NPDA as 2nd top speaker. I did NFA-LD as a side hobby lol.
Conflicts:Piedmont, Evergreen/Papaya Valley, DebateDrills, and Campolindo
TL/DR:I will keep my decision focused on arguments made on the flow. I can hang with speed go as fast as you want. Also, I'm cool with frivolous theory. Tech>truth.
Quick pref sheet guide based on what I'm most comfortable with judging. However, I'm happy to evaluate anything and if you get me in the back you should stick to what you're comfortable with since you'll know how to explain it better.
K - 1
Theory - 1
Tricks - 1/2
LARP - 3/4 (I just really dont like most case debate anymore lol)
Phil - 4 (I just haven't judge a whole lot of Phil rounds but they're cool)
General:
- **I will never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. For example: capitalism good, neoliberalism good, hegemony, good, imperialist war good, fascism good, and bourgeois (like US) nationalism**
- Almost never voting on speed bad
- In uncarded events I think a warrant + empirical example tends to hold more weight to me than just a warrant that justifies something in the abstract.
- I try not to read cards unless told to and you should make it loud and clear what you're asking me to evaluate when you're doing evidence comparison otherwise I either won't grant it to you or I'll read the evidence maybe but I can't guarantee I'll interpret the ev in your favor. That being said Ill probably have opinions and thoughts that might affect my RFD if the evidence is cut unethically bad.
- I can hang with speed but go slower and give me pen time if you're going on to analytics that aren't in the doc and try to number your responses if the analytics you're reading are like a page long *I honestly think just having analytics in the doc is the easiest way to fix this problem though in which case you can go top speed and idc still*
- Dont care about condo but that also means Im down to vote on condo bad
- Extension threshold is kinda high. I dont need you to extend every argument piece one by one but I would say the minimum is an overview of the arguments youre going for, why, and what their technical implication is
- Default to epistemic confidence
- Also, absent any weighing I default to strength of link>magnitude>timeframe
Ks:Back when I competed I read a lot of postmodernism. I read Ableism, Anthro, Bifo, Bataille, Buddhism, Edelman, Set Col and other lit bases rooted in bourgeois non-sense. These days my politics reflect proletarian class struggle under MLM. However, this does not mean Ill hack for revisionist positions by authors like Zizek, Dean, Prashad, or other related authors that might have someone forward incoherent positions about epistemology with some lip service to MLM or Marx more broadly. However, this does mean that when a team forwards the proletarian line that I probably have a much higher threshold for voting on postmodernism.
- I'm down for ROB first claims to frame out offense but I need implications to why that matters otherwise I default to assuming its a sort of thesis claim for your framing
- Absent any sort of layering or specific indicts to fiat and policy-making I think I currently default to the aff getting to weigh the plan vs the alt
- Spikes to perms need substantive framing. For example, I don't know what no perm in a methods debate means or why everything isn't a methods debate, why the perm or 1AC is not performance, or why links are DAs to the perm
- Frame outs are a valid path to the ballot
- I think links of omission are a bit of an uphill battle for my ballot but I will not just ignore the K if only links of omission are read.
- I default to perms being tests of competition not an advocacy unless told otherwise
- Don't need a link to the topic assuming you have framing on why we ought to focus on something else
T/Theory:
- Absent a voting paradigm I default to competing interps. Need a bright line for reasonability otherwise I will hack for competing interps.
- I also default to text of the interp over the spirit of the interp absent any reason to evaluate one over the other.
- Absent framing claims out of the 1AR/2AC I default to T coming before 1AR/2AC theory
- I default to drop the debater until told otherwise
- I have a lower threshold on disclosure theory for evidence debate but can be convinced otherwise but I have a high threshold for it in parli given it would be non-verifiable.
- I view we meets as a link take outs but think that folks can go for a risk of a violation depending on the arguments made
- I probably have a higher threshold for framework. Would prefer a strict collapse to either fairness skews evaluation of the aff or learning about the state being the i/l to aff solvency.
- I default to Theory coming before the K but am pretty receptive to the K coming first/ out weighing.
- Dont care about core generics and such arguments in a vacuum so I need a little more substantive justification for such a claim
- I default to no RVIs unless told otherwise. I understand RVIs as framing claims for theory i.e., if you lose the standards level debate or the we meet you should lose because of reciprocal consequences. That being said I need the warrants for fairness and/or education to justify an RVI not just "oh no they were a time suck" or else Im not picking up your RVI
Case:
- Fiat is durable
- Kicking planks on counter plans is fine
- Default to no judge kick
- Reading your uniqueness in the wrong direction means Im not voting on your advantage/disadvantage
Rebuttals:
- I tend to think in the 2AR/2NR you can do weighing against the positions even if it was not done in the 2AC/1NR but I think reasons why it would function as a link take out would not do it for me
- shadow extensions are new arguments
William Jin - UCSD
n/a
Wren Xu - UCSD
n/a
Xander Hepburn - PLNU
n/a
Yevin Chon - UCSD
n/a
Yuning Ou - UCSD
n/a
Zigi Kaiser - USC
n/a
Zihua Ma - UCSD
n/a
Zoe Solomon - UCSD
n/a
shijia chen - UCSD
n/a