FTN - Judge Philosophies

Tournament Time: 6:05 AM Pacific

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Break List eBallots Results

Judge Philosophies

AJ Moorehead - LAVC

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

AJ Edwards - UCSD

n/a

AJ Khim - UCSB

n/a

Aava Ghorbanian - UCSD

n/a

Abdul Aburwein - Triton U

n/a

Adam Lehot - UCSD

n/a

Adam Messer - Hired

n/a

Adam Messer - HJ

n/a

Aiko Iguchi - Triton U

n/a

Alexandra Sullivan - UCSD

n/a

Ali sina Nazeri - Triton U

n/a

Amanda Mrotek - UCSD

n/a

Andie Rustad - UCSD

n/a

Andrea Baeza - UCSD

n/a

Andrew Jassick - Grossmont

Angelina Hwang - UCSD

n/a

Angelina Larosa - UCSD

n/a

Anna Osman - SD Mesa

n/a

Annalisa Cervantes - SDSU

n/a

Arianna McCall - UCSD

n/a

Audrey Gonzalez - UCSB

n/a

Ayden Reams - HJ

n/a

Ben Krueger - Nevada

Ben Krueger (he/him/his)

University of Nevada, Reno

I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.

General Debate Views and Preferences

1. I come from a traditional policymaking background, but I'm open to multiple frameworks and interpretations of debate. It's up to you to defend and justify your framework choices in the round.

2. I don't do well with speed. The faster you spread, the more likely it is that I'll miss arguments on the flow and make a decision you won't like.

3. Structure is good and I appreciate signposting, but remember that it's not a replacement for substantive argument. Having a catchy tagline is not the same thing as having a well-developed warrant that supports your claim.

4. Rebuttal speeches should "zoom out" and give me a big picture overview of what's going on in the round. When the rebuttal is simply a line-by-line analysis, I inevitably have to do more work to weigh the issues myself.

5. I viscerally dislike "gut check" arguments and won't vote for them. Instead, give me more specific analytic reasons why I shouldn't believe a specific claim (for example, it doesn't have a clear source, it's based on a post hoc fallacy, it's based on a faulty analogy, etc).

6. Don't be jerks. It is possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity.

My views on Parli

I rarely judge Parli anymore, but in case you encounter me in a Parli round, there are a few things to be aware of about how I approach the event: (1) I hate stupid T arguments and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards unless there's something really wonky going on. (2) K's absolutely must have clear links and clear alt-solvency that I can weigh against the plan. If they don't, I will have a low threshold for accepting any plausible-sounding answer to them. (3) I will not vote for poorly-explained technical arguments just because they're on the flow if they aren't properly weighed or impacted out.

My views of IPDA

IPDA is NOT parli-lite! If you treat the round that way, I will at minimum tank your speaker points.

I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon as much as possible. I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like top-of-case and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory or witty comebacks alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of definitions reasons to prefer a specific criterion.

Although uncommon, I find myself giving more low-point wins in IPDA than I did in Parli. If I give you a low-point win, it typically means one of two things happened: (1) you clearly won on flow, but there was a major issue with your delivery/presentation style, (2) you weren't winning on flow, but your opponent collapsed to the wrong voting issues or made some major strategic blunder in rebuttals that led me to buy your voting issues instead.

A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)

In light of recent developments in national politics, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man. Please be mindful that resolutions about legal rights of specific groups (such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or racial minorities) can be triggering to competitors and judges when framed as a binary either/or choice between maintaining civil rights or eliminating them. In such rounds, I will grant leeway to both affirmative and negative teams to frame their arguments in ways that avoid a morally problematic division of ground. If you find yourself on the "bad" side of such a resolution, some ideas for you how might reframe include: state-level counterplans, constitutional amendments, constitutional convention, secession, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, etc.

Benjamin Zapf - CUI

n/a

Bennett Beltramo - SDSU

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

Ideal Round:

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

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

For NPDA/LD:

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

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

Delivery:

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

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

Final Thought:

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

Bryan Garbanda - SDSU

n/a

Bryan Malinis - SD Mesa

What is your experience with speech and debate?

I have coached and judged 2-year and 4-year speech and debate since 2011. I coach all events: oral interpretation, platform, limited preparation, NPDA, and IPDA.

What does your ideal debate round look like?

An ideal debate round is one in which debaters perform with professionalism and respect. I do not condone distasteful or disparaging remarks made against opponents, nor insulting nonverbal behavior. Such behavior tarnishes your own credibility as a persuasive speaker. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Insults will result in me dropping you or your team. Above all, make me happy to be in your presence. Have a good time and I will, too!
For IPDA, treat me as a lay judge. I firmly believe IPDA is different from all other debate formats in that IPDA is intended for anyone. Do not treat this event like a Parli or LD round. Eliminate jargon. This is pure persuasion, as if we are all sitting at a dining table and each of you is trying to persuade me to take your side.

Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?

For NPDA/LD:
- I am stock issues all the way! I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-articulated by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. I am not a fan of Kritiks.
- Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate effectively. I have dropped teams in the past due to their lack of a CLEAR structure. Do not simply tell me that legalizing marijuana leads to dying children. Provide links, internal links, and impacts. Do not assume that I will make the argument/connection for you in my head. I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. Most important, give me clear voters.
For all debate types:
- Your delivery skills are unequivocally tied to my perception of your credibility and competence as a speaker. I pay close attention to your speech rate (breathe like a human), volume, pitch, gestures, posture, eye contact, etc. Since nonverbal communication comprises up to 90% of what we communicate, you must be mindful of all the aforementioned elements during your speaking time. I am comfortable with jargon and technical elements, though I am partial to a more straightforward, narrative debate style.
- I time everything: roadmaps, thanks, etc.

In alignment with recent PSCFA initiatives, I support efforts to return debate to a more educational and accessible format. While I am open to all forms of arguments, I do not reward excessive speed, generic arguments detached from the specific wording of the topic, or behavior that undermines the collegial spirit of academic competition. Debaters should aim to engage the resolution directly, present well-developed and topic-specific arguments, and maintain courtesy throughout the round. My ballot will favor teams that make debate accessible, enjoyable, comprehensible, and instructive for both participants and observers. Ultimately, I strive to make decisions that uphold debate as a space for learning, growth, and mutual respect.

Camille Cappello - UCSD

n/a

Caroline Dergazarian - Mt. SAC

n/a

Cauanny Calatayud - UCSD

n/a

Chaz Wyche - RUN

n/a

Christopher Armenta - Triton U

n/a

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

Courtney Meissner - SDSU

Hi Everyone!

I primarily enjoy I.E. but occasionally judge debate. I teach public speaking alongside a world of other Communication courses and am very fond of international education and topics, as well as interp events specifically!

ADS and Duo are my favorite, but I am always impressed with how compeitors can bring these skills to other events as well! I focus a lot on the speaker's abililty to evoke and illicit emotion from their audience as well as hone their nonverbal skills (gestures, movement, vocalics, etc.).

I would also much rather see speakers perform confidently rather than speedy. Organizing your speech with a clear structure and pattern will brighten my day as well! But most importantly, I want to see the contestants having a good time and learning from one another in these competitions.

On that note, I wish everyone a great tournament!

Cristopher Huang - SDSU

n/a

Daman Seth - Triton U

n/a

Dan Langin - UCSB

I do not have the most experience judging NPDA debate. You should absolutely avoid running Ks with me and if you're going to run theory it should be clearly explained at every step. I'll do my best to keep up with the flow, but putting too much jargon into the round might lead to me losing track of what you're talking about. Please be very clear about your signposting and organizing throughout the entire round. Speaking quality will be more heavily reflected in my awarding of speaker points.

Daniel Boyle - CUI

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt. SAC

I view debate as, first and foremost, an educational activity designed to help students develop their argumentation, critical thinking, and public speaking skills. Debate offers a unique environment for learning through structured advocacy, listening, and respectful engagement with opposing ideas. While competitive success can motivate excellence, I believe the primary value of debate lies in its ability to foster intellectual growth, civic engagement, and effective and appropriate communication. I reward debaters who demonstrate clear organization, sound reasoning, effective persuasion, and professionalism in delivery. Decorum, clarity, and responsiveness are essential elements of successful debating.
In alignment with recent PSCFA initiatives, I support efforts to return debate to a more educational and accessible format. While I am open to all forms of arguments, I do not reward excessive speed, generic arguments detached from the specific wording of the topic, or behavior that undermines the collegial spirit of academic competition. Debaters should aim to engage the resolution directly, present well-developed and topic-specific arguments, and maintain courtesy throughout the round. My ballot will favor teams that make debate accessible, enjoyable, comprehensible, and instructive for both participants and observers. Ultimately, I strive to make decisions that uphold debate as a space for learning, growth, and mutual respect.

David Zahnd - HJ

n/a

Delancey Yan - UCSD

n/a

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Though I am known as a dreaded "communication judge" which is code for "she has no idea about debate and wouldn't know a kritik if it dropped on her head".....I actually love debate, and have judged it over the years. I appreciate well-read teams: meaning I am up on current events. Speed doesn't win my ballot, unless it is executed in such a fashion that the speaker isn't stumbling over themselves to spread their opponent out of the room with ten off case positions. I appreciate clarity, labeling, and solid argumentation. I am judging only IPDA now, which means, this debate should be run before a lay judge without the demonstration of debate jargon, technical prowess, or extreme speed necessary/popular to win a parli debate. I appreciate competitors that are professional both in round towards their opponent, and out of round post debate. You will win my ballot on both content and presentational style. I am a firm believer that the competitor not only represents themselves, but their entire team and coaches that put heavy instructional time into them. In essence, make this round count. I will be most appreciative of your efforts.

Edilson Mendez - UCSB

n/a

Efrain Godinez - UCSB

I have 3 years of college parli experience with a lot of experience running theory and experience running Ks as well. I like technical parli debate but don't necessarily appreciate spreading. I'm open to any type of argumentation but don't assume I know you lit base for any Ks you may be wanting to run, make sure you thoroughly explain all the parts of your K if you are going to run one.

I will still tend to prioritize the flow in IPDA rounds as long as the argumentation and jargon remains theorhetically lay accessible

Eli Durepo - PLNU

n/a

Eliana Clerie - CUI

n/a

Ellis Walsh - Hired

n/a

Ellis Walsh - HJ

n/a

Emily Bianchi - SDSU

n/a

Eric Li - UCSD

n/a

Eric Chen - UCSD

n/a

Eric Zheng - UCSD

n/a

Ethan Parsons - UCSD

n/a

Ethan Gates - UCSD

n/a

Fatima Bahreldin - UCSD

n/a

Felip Gerdes - UCSD

n/a

Firas Fouad Bahrawi - UCSD

n/a

Gianna Banducci - PLNU

n/a

Greg Gorham - GCU

Hailey Snyder - PLNU

n/a

Hannah Nelson - CUI

n/a

Helen Huang - Mt. SAC

n/a

Hudson Palmer - UCSB

n/a

Ishika Chhawchharia - UCSD

n/a

James Saras - SDSU

n/a

Jaxon Cox - SDSU

n/a

Jayden Kennedy - GCU

n/a

Jenny Daniel - Triton U

n/a

Joel Castellaw - Grossmont

Johanna Martinez - SDSU

n/a

John Loo - SDSU

Background:

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

Philosophy:

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

Exceptions:

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

Ks and Theory:

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

Other Notes:

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

Speech Events

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

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

John Figueroa - RUN

n/a

John Figueroa - Hired

n/a

Jonathan Cook - CUI

n/a

Joshua Allen - UCSD

n/a

Joy Yomogida - UCSD

n/a

Julia Machon - UCSD

n/a

Julian Mackenzie - SDSU

Note: This is all for guidance on what I would like to see. At the end of the day, have the debate you want to have, and I will do my best to evaluate it. All sections are bolded for your ease as a reader. Do not read more than you have to, please. I know it's a lot, but I wanted to be as clear as possible.

Background: Hi my name is Julian Mackenzie, I participated in Speech and Debate for a total of 9 years as a competitor, and now I'm a Coach for SDSU.

In high school. I competed for four years in mostly Interp, Extemp, Impromptu, LD, and Pufo for Helix Charter High School. In my senior year, I was a debate captain for my high school team.
I competed for two years for the Grossmont Community College team in NPDA, IPDA, and Extemp, where I won top competitor for the 2021-2022 school year.
After that, I competed for UCSD for three years in NPDA, IPDA, Pufo, and TIPDA, and I was the President of the team.
Now I Coach and I am the Director of Debate and Limited Prep at San Diego State University.

All formats:

I like Lay debate or fast and Technical debate.
I will take any argument into consideration as long as the argument is backed up by logic or evidence.
Both teams/competitors in your last speech please give me clear voters, so that I can make an informed decision.
Have good clash
Please signpost
Please be as organized as possible tell me exactly where you are on the flow.
Please be respectful to everyone in the round.
Have Fun!

IPDA:

I prefer tech over truth, but I will not accept arguments that are a lie and do not have evidence or some truth.
Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments.
Please speak with a clear and calm pace.
Label each of your arguments.
Avoid technical debate jargon.
Keep Cases and arguments simple and clear

NPDA:

I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
I love Value and Fact rounds, so please do not define a round as policy if it does not have should in the resolution.
K's work in Policy Rounds, run Phil if it's a value round.

NFA-LD:

Run a good and sound plan
Tricks are great, but please keep them at the top of the case.
I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
Share your doc with me if you are going to spread, please.
Please have your card doc ready to show your opponent's cards

Ks: I want to start off by saying that I love ks and I think that they have a solid place in debate. Taking a critical approach to the structural systems that dominate and oppress everyday citizens is something that should be supported and not diminished. That said, I dislike when Ks are just badly structured and used as a gamey tactic instead of a real advocacy for change. Have I run bad Ks? Yes, did I win? No. I will not reward Ks that are badly structured. Please make sure your K is well-written and thought out. With solid link work that truly connects the K to the topic at hand, if your links are weak so is your K, and I have no problem rewarding the win to the opposing side if they show me the links do not connect back to the topic. Also, if an Aff K is ran T-Framework is a very strong response. Please define every word in the resolution if you are going to run a T-Framework, even words such as the or of.

Theory/Topicality: I love both theory and topicality, and often times found it to be a fantastic strategy on the neg side. I think if you are running a theory or a topicality in a round, it should be well structured, and there needs to be proven abuse. That said, I oftentimes find teams that run a theory or topicality without proving that some form of abuse has taken place, which makes it easier to vote on a wemeet or a counter interp. In those cases, it is often easy for me to be convinced by an RVI, especially time skew since it is probably going to be kicked out of in the MO. In that case, the MG must put as much offense as possible on the theory or topicality to make sure that the MO has to spend time on it. In that case, the MG will even the playing field, allowing for the debate not to be one-sided. In addition, my interpretation of a priori is that it must be evaluated first before I evaluate the debate. Thus, if I am given an argument that if I buy the theory or topicality, I must vote neg, I will. If I do not get that argument, or the aff convinces me otherwise, I will evaluate the theory or topicality, then the debate. Meaning if the Aff wins on the case even with the new theory interpretation in the round, I will vote aff. This is rare and only usually occurs when there is a challenge to values. Although I should mention that I do not throw out the case debate without a justified reason to do so.

Phil: I love Phil and feel like it is underutilized in debate. In order for me to vote on a Phil argument in debate, the literature needs to connect back to the resolution or the arguments that are being made by the aff or neg. Make sure to pick a strong value that your literature connects back to. If you need to run T to make that happen, please do so, and give me proof of abuse or reasons to prefer your value over that of the affirmative. I should mention I know a lot of phil arguments have devolved into extinction, good, and thats an argument that could work, but it often is not rooted in a solid literature base, which ends up making it a weak philosophical argument.

Trix: I think tricks are incredibly smart in debate and can be a very strong aff argument. This was my go-to argument, especially on the tech side of debate. I think while tricks are strong in NPDA & NFA-LD, they are strongest in IPDA. If you are able to convince me that you win because of X top of case reason, it makes my job evaluating an IPDA round a lot easier. If you are going to use a trick, please keep it at the top of your case. In addition, please dont just say, for example, vote for Aff on presumption; give me a reason that presumption flips to the Aff side.

Speed/Spreading: Not a fan of speed as a tactic to make debate inaccessible. Everyone needs to have equal opportunity to engage in debate, and if speed or clarity hurts someones ability to participate in this activity, it should not be used. I am ok with speed as long as both debaters/teams are comfortable with it. If I or your opponent needs to clear or slow you, please do so. If not, speaker points will be docked.

Speech:

As for speech I judge like any other speech judge on content and performance.
Please do not "can" your speech in Impromptu. If I find your "canning" I will place any off-the-cuff speech ahead of you.
I will not automatically rank you lower if your speech is shorter than 10 minutes.

Jyoti Langin - UCSB

If you have me for IPDA/TIPDA, you don't have to do as much differently. Just do treat like a lay judge is actually judging (which is the whole idea of the format)

Kai Hajir - Triton U

n/a

Kareem Caldwell - PLNU

n/a

Katie Bushelman - PLNU

n/a

Kayla Salazar - UCLA

n/a

Kevin Zhao - UCSD

n/a

Lillian Theis - UCSD

n/a

Linda Mae Aquino - SD Mesa

n/a

Linda Mae Aquino - Palomar

n/a

Logan Greenfield - SDSU

n/a

Lucas Choque-Stamm - UCSD

n/a

Lucy Lin - UCSD

n/a

Lukas Myers - UCSD

n/a

Luna Vallejo - Triton U

n/a

Léo Migliaccio - UCSD

n/a

Marcos Cortez - UCSD

n/a

Maribeth Brown - SD Mesa

n/a

Matias Blache-Fraser - UCSD

n/a

Maxwell Horgan - UCSD

n/a

Maygan Aguilar - Mt. SAC

n/a

Megan McNamara - UCSD

n/a

Melanie Ramirez-Aguilar - SDSU

n/a

Michael Shurance - CUI

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

Framework:

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

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

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

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

* TLDR Terminalize all impacts, not just material impacts.

Theory:

* Theory is cool.

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

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

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

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

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

Ks (In General):

* I like Ks.

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

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

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

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

Performance Ks:

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

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

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

Aff Ks:

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

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

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

Speed:

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

Ballot:

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

Impact Calc:

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

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

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!

Nandita Arun - UCSD

n/a

Nathan Estrick - CUI

Hey friends, not gonna make you read a treatise to understand my judging criteria. I debated six years in high school and then all four years doing primarily Parli (but also IPDA and LD). Overall, I do my best to be as tabula rasa as I can -- absent needing to intervene with a team being really racist/homophobic or verbally abusive to their opponents, I try to tie my ballot to only the arguments made in the round. On speed, I’m going to be able to keep up with you, but make sure you slow if your opponents ask you to.

That being said, here’s a little bit on how I evaluate some of the major arguments;

Policy: Though I have plenty of experience running different kinds of arguments, I do have a soft spot for a good old policy round. In evaluating policy, Impacts really are king; though generating good uniqueness and winning your link chains are important, I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to try or die arguments, and so I find good Impact framing is usually what wins over my ballot.

Counterplans: As far as counterplans go, I like them, but make sure they are at least competitive on net benefits. I tend to default to counterplans not having fiat, so the neg would need to argue to me that they do. I’m also somewhat sympathetic to PICS bad theory, so keep that in mind when writing your counterplans.

Theory: I tend to have a pretty high bar for voting on theory: if you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to collapse to it. I’m not going to vote on a theory shell that the MO extends for two minutes and then spends the rest of the block doing other things. I also will generally be unsympathetic to weird or goofy theories; they can win my ballot, but unless the connection to fairness and education are made pretty strongly, they’re gonna have trouble picking up.

The K: I like the K, and like to see different varieties run. Ultimately, I believe debate is a game and I think the K is a really strategic and interesting part of playing that game. That being said, if your K has really weak links to either the topic/the aff, I’m not going to be very interested in it, since you’re just pulling it out of a can as opposed to doing the work to contextualize it. I love K’s with good historical theory analysis and good solvency, so the more abstract the K becomes, the harder it becomes to win my ballot with it.

Nathaniel Hosmer (Mr.) - PLNU

n/a

Nidhish Balakrishnan - UCSD

n/a

Noah Nikolai - UCSB

Hello fellow Earthlings!

I suppose Im about to be judging one of your rounds (or youre just stalking paradigms I guess) so heres a few things to know about me:

-I debated 3 years in high school primarily in LD but also occasionally in PF

-Ive been debating for 1 year in college in IPDA and NPDA Parli

-My favorite color is blue, which may be very apparent from my attire

-Will tend to be a very tech judge, even in IPDA (though there is certain argumentation/jargon I wont accept without thorough explanation/couching terminology to preserve the laymans debate ethos)

-Tech>>truth except when tech is harmful (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc.)

-Yes T, yes theory, yes Ks (with IPDA caveat) but do make sure you warrant why the K is necessary to run and dont assume I know all the jargon related to your particular K

-Dont worry if Im not looking up at/reacting to you. Im voting off the flow so thats what Im focusing on. You want me to have my head down and writing during your speech

-Fine with speed but do adapt to opponents requests for speed/clarity unless unreasonable

-Please signpost effectively and be organized. Ill try a bit to figure out where to put argumentation if you dont, but if I cant figure it out it wont go on the flow and wont be evaluated

-Please weigh and terminalize for rounds where thats relevant. It makes judging easier and makes you think critically about your case in relation to your opponents (though I do love some good line-by-line refutations)

-Be kind and respectful to one another, but I do like CX/POI that goes after case/evidence/etc. and to have some clash there. Thats the best (and most entertaining) way to use time. That being said I wont flow anything said in CX unless brought up in a later speech so make sure to do that if you want me to evaluate it

-I hope you have a fun time while debating and are able to learn something new in this round :)

Noah Mami - HJ

n/a

Nomar Villa - Mt. SAC

n/a

Olivia Choe - PLNU

n/a

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

I have been a DOF for 15 years. I have coached national champions in a number of different formats. I really enjoy good argumentation and strong clash. A good debate will include two sides being respectful of each other and the audience while battling over the resolution provided. While your delivery and decorum are important aspects of persuasion, your arguments will be the center of my evaluation. I like it when debaters guide me to the decision they want to read on the ballot rather than being mad that I didn't vote the way the wanted me to. Focus on the criteria dn do ballotwork in the debate, especially in the last speeches.

Pranav Nanda - UCSD

n/a

Rachel Kwak - Mt. SAC

n/a

Rachel Sandoval - UCLA

n/a

Ray Alarcon - Mt. SAC

n/a

Rea Reissner - PLNU

n/a

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

Rex Zhang - UCSD

n/a

Roman Galardi - UCSB

n/a

Ryan Van Mouwerik - PLNU

n/a

Sam Rothstein - UCSB

n/a

Samantha Bush - UCSD

n/a

Sebastian Escudero - SDSU

n/a

Seth Paap - CUI

n/a

Shangchen Li - UCSD

n/a

Shijia Bai - UCSD

n/a

Shiloh Tamir - SD Mesa

1. Logical Argumentation: I prioritize clear and logical reasoning over jargon-heavy rhetoric. Arguments should be accessible and straightforward, allowing for a fair assessment based on their merit rather than specialized terminology. 2. Rejection of Spreading: I do not tolerate spreading. Speeches should be delivered at a pace that allows for comprehension and engagement. Clarity is key; if I cannot understand your argument, I cannot evaluate it. 3. Emotional Appeals: While emotional appeals can have their place in debate, I believe that reliance on themsuch as yelling or other high-energy tacticsindicates a weakness in logical argumentation. If you resort to these tactics, it suggests that your case lacks sufficient evidence or reasoning to stand on its own. 4. Fairness and Respect: I expect all participants to treat each other with respect and to engage in a fair and constructive manner. Debate should foster a positive environment for exchanging ideas.

Siyuan Tan - UCSD

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

Skip Rutledge Point Loma Nazarene University

40 + years judging debate (revised March, 2024)

6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate

Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer. Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995 and have added NFA LD, IPDA TPDA and BP. In addition to coaching my teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas. I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.

Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills. I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others defense. That probably makes me more of a big picture kind of critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. But I recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I dont hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15-20 minutes without direct access to very much research. Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical.

Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy. Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them. While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims, like 200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS do not become true just because it might be dropped. I think your word is your bond. If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true. If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner. The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. Sources should referenced.

I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . . I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up. I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points. It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins. Strong speakers are capable of logical errors that can sink their case.

I also think it is the debaters job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear. If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such. Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate. As such, I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo. They certainly should if the resolution requires it but may not have to if it does not. I think the resolution is key to the debate.

Having said that I do have some a priori biases. Since I believe the resolution is what is being debated, that has implications on counter plans. My a priori belief is that they should not be topical and should be competitive. Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even better way than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am certainly open to good theory debates, but in fairness, you should know my beginning base of understanding on this issue.

Finally, here is the core of my belief about debate in general: Debate is a zero sum game with a winner and a loser in competitive ballot terms. So I use this template to help be decide rounds:

Debate is focused clash on the resolution.
The Resolution is an argumentative statement that fairly divides the Affirmative ground from the Negative ground.
The Affirmative has the burden of proof
The Negative has the burden of refutation, rebuttal or rejoinder.
The Affirmative case should be a fair test of the validity of the resolution.

Stephanie Yeh - UCSD

n/a

Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF

n/a

Stephen King - UCSD

n/a

Syed Aayan Mustafa - UCSD

n/a

Taha Amir - HJ

n/a

Tessa Dart - UCSD

n/a

Traci Schmidley (She/Her) - MA

n/a

Veronica Ornelas - UCSD

n/a

Vivian Flores - UCSB

n/a

Wesley Kerns - PLNU

n/a

William Wang - UCSD

n/a

Willie Johnson - RUN

n/a

Xikun Wan - UCSD

n/a

Xitlali Valadez Lopez - UCSD

n/a

Yanghe Liu - UCSD

n/a

Yaxin Xiao - UCSD

n/a

2026 Sunset Cliffs Classic