Judge Philosophies
Adrianna McCain - Butte
Alexa Sumitra - LPC
n/a
Andrew Morgan - DVC
Updated 2/24/24 at 7:46 AM.
I view debate as an educational event. That being said, both sides need to have equal access to debate. If you run 8 off case positions against a novice because the divisions were collapsed, I will drop you. Theres no education in that debate. If you are a junior level debater and you want to run the super cool and fun K that your open teammates are running against the junior level competition, I will drop you for a few reasons:
- You are trying to skip learning the fundamentals of argumentation and debate so that you can do cool stuff
- Its abusive to your opponents
- Neither you nor your opponents are learning anything from that debate. I certainly wont be either.
My position on Ks changes in the open division. While I personally think its incredibly silly to try to explain Marx or Buddhism in 8 minutes or less, I will vote for them as long as you can link the K to the topic. If novice or junior are collapsed into open, please do not run a K against them. Please just debate the topic. If you are an open competitor, you should be totally fine without needing to spread a novice/junior debater/debate team in order to win.
Lastly, I am not a fan of potential abuse when running a topicality. I also think its weird and contradictory to run Disadvantages that clearly link to the plan but then say the plan is untopical.
Overall, I am some fine with speed as long as you are also clear. Articulation is key here. I also appreciate it when debaters are very organized throughout the round. Off time road maps are good; just signpost as you get there. My experience in debate is very limited. I almost exclusively competed in Individual Events.
Aniza Munoz - LPC
I am a lay judge with one tournament experience and 4 IPDA rounds under my belt.
I value clear communication, structure and personable delivery. It was made very clear to me that IPDA was a form of debate that a non-forensics person could watch, understand, enjoy and make a decision about.
I'm afraid if you use debate terms or "speed" I will not understand what you are doing. Let's have a cordial and clear debate. Tell me very clearly at the end (in your last speech) why you think you won.
Anna Wolde - LPC
n/a
Annaleea Wilson - USFCA
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 Mock - LPC
n/a
Bob Becker - NWC
As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.
When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.
I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.
Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.
As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.
I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Branden Sandner - LPC
n/a
Brennan Mock - LPC
I teach Non-Circuit debate to Elementary-High School Students.
I am fine with theory, K's and anything except high, high speed.
Ideal Round; Lots of Clash, less definitional unless specifically needed for round to continue, and kindness to one another.
I often will not flow much, I try to listen to each argument and find the most salient points. I do not prioritize spreading over high-quality arguments. I will not believe something has a chance of happening just because you say it does, I need evidence. Tell me how to vote, I will not find voters for you.
Dehum is my pet peeve, unless its actually relevant to your impacts.
FOR NORCAL: Philosophies I agree with; Paul Villa (DVC), Doug and Janene (Solano), Blake Longfellow (Concordia), and Ryan Guy (MJC)
Brett Butler-Camp - CSU Chico
n/a
Cindy Brown-Rosefield - LPC
n/a
Cody Funk - Butte
Former limited prep debater
David Valadez - LPC
What is your experience with Speech and Debate?
I have two years' experience in speech and debate, in both individual events and various forms of debate. I am currently in my first year of coaching a variety of events.
What does your ideal debate round look like?
Lively back-and-forth with sides able to make salient points in response to one another; both speakers showing off their stuff as rhetoricians in addition to constructing argument.
Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?
I'm a big believer in IPDA as a back-to-basics, informal-debate-over-dinner style of argumentation.
Demi Starzak - LPC
n/a
Diego Paez - Dark Horse
My experience in the debate is based on doing parli and LD for 4 years total. 2 in community college for SJDC and 2 years for the University of the Pacific. Now I'm coaching at SJDC under the wing of Jeff Toney and Steve Farias. Take that as you please on how I see the debate.
For parli, I am an ESL so speed is not my stronger suit, I can hang with the average debate speed but more than that you would lose me. I believe access to debate is more important so if your opponents ask for a slow down or a clear please do, don't be rude pretty please.
Arguments:
I love topicality debates, That was my to go strat in community college so I'm very happy with them if you know how to run them and how to win on them.
I'm familiar with most Ks in the area but I'm always open to new ones, you just need to explain it very well if you see me lost (I stop typing, that's your cue)
Impacts: I appreciate a clean impact weight in the rebottle, Tell me why you win this and how your opponent loses on their impacts. The less work I need to do the better for you
For the rest, I'm open to any type of argument and I enjoy creativity and spicing up the debate. Bring me some decol, some anti-capitalism, some imperialism, bring some flavor to the debate space.
Any other questions feel free to ask before the round.
Douglas Mungin - Solano CC
I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.
Elizabeth Chan - USFCA
n/a
Erica Chavez - MJC
n/a
Fabian Silva - LPC
n/a
Grace Gomez - LPC
n/a
Jacob Backman - MJC
n/a
Jacob Montez - LPC
n/a
Janene Whitesell - Solano CC
I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:
1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.
2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.
3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.
4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.
5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.
6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.
7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.
8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?
9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.
Janet Brehe-Johnson - LPC
n/a
Jared Anderson - Sacramento
Logistics:
1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.
2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com
3) If there is no email chain, Im going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.
4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.
5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I dont want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.
** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and dont argue about it. **
I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I started out coaching CEDA/NDT debate but I have now been coaching LD for a long time. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly and are within the rules. You can win my ballot with whatever. I dont have to agree with your argument, I dont have to be moved by your argument, I dont even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I do need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, Im familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments?other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. Its up to you. I will tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand - I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that is on you.
The rules are the rules and I will follow them. I will not intervene; you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it.Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I dont need abuse? proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this. On the current topic (2019-2020) I will probably have a pretty low threshold on Vagueness/Spec arguments. You need a clear plan. Neg arguments about why the aff needs to clearly outline how and what amount they propose investing will be met with a sympathetic ear.
Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you cant find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. Im pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so youll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVIs are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.
Jason Ames (he/him) - Chabot
Hello! Glad you are here! Forensics is awesome and I hope you are having fun and learning a lot. Those should always be the focus.
I have been in Forensics for multiple decades and have competed in, judged, and coached every event. First, I tend to vote on arguments that are well explained and impacted over arguments that are undercovered. If there's a drop on the flow, it doesn't guarantee my ballot until you tell me why it does: impact and weigh arguments, compare/contrast, and give me a reason to vote for you/your side. Second, I'm open to multiple types of arguments and will vote on multiple types of arguments if you tell me why they matter and why they outweigh the other side.
I do appreciate the distinction between different types of debate events: I hope debaters use their skills to create and debate arguments made in prep time and I prefer debates on the resolution, especially in tournaments where debaters have the option to strike topics. However, I am open to listening why that might not be the best use of the prompt/round and respect your need to define the round in the way that you see fit. If you run K's, I tend to prefer alternatives and being told what the world looks like post-K.
I'm getting older and my ability to keep up with speed is diminishing by the year, so feel free to go fast but you might find me asking you to slow down for me more than I used to. These things happen, I suppose! This probalby doesn't apply in IPDA, however. FYI, I'm fine with some debate jargon in IPDA and organization is ALWAYS valuable, but my hope is that IPDA debaters continue to keep it accessible to all.
I prefer debates where folks are kind and respectful to each other. Advocate for your position with energy and vigor, but remember that the other side isn't your enemy. Please make sure you are inclusive and respect all folks.
If you have specific questions feel free to ask me. Thanks!
Jason Irwin - LPC
n/a
Javier Salcedo - MJC
n/a
Jennie DeRose - LPC
n/a
Jessica Jatkowski - NWC
I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.
The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.
We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.
In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.
Jim Dobson - LPC
I prefer to see debate rounds as something that a lay person could watch and think was cool. Rapid delivery, technicalities, and rude people are not what I am looking for. A lively and fun debate with good attitudes is what I will want to see.
If it looks good for general public speaking it should look good for debate.
Jonathan Du - LPC
n/a
Josh Montez - LPC
n/a
Julian Stacy - Sacramento
I am in my first semester of grad school and my first semester of judging. I competed on the CSU Sacramento Debate Team for 4 semesters, primarily in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. I started as a novice, with absolutely no debate experience. I found the debate community to be a very welcoming and safe space to learn and grow along my educational journey. Thus, I would like to see that same friendly culture continue. Especially with brand new debaters. Speed is okay, but remember why we are all here. That being said, I also appreciate the competitive nature of the activity. For that reason, I pride myself on being a fair and impartial judge. I will not buy into an argument, you must convince me in the round. I will not logically fill in any gaps in your arguments. I will only evaluate what was said out loud in the round. Even if I can read it myself on your document, I will not. On that point, I would prefer we use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If for some reason we are unable to use Speechdrop.net, I would defer to email as a backup.
As a competitor, I enjoyed topicality and other theory arguments. I will vote on a priori issues first if suitable evidence has been presented. Affirmative debaters should be very clear in their response to such arguments, and answer them completely. I also recognize that an important role in the debate game is to learn about the topics we debate. I will absolutely vote on a net beneficial case that solves for the given harms. Be very clear with signposting. I am flowing the debate, but it is important to emphasize to me where your arguments belong on the flow and how they interact with each other. I wont do the work for you simply because it is obvious. Dont forget to weigh your impacts. Impacts go a long way in providing context as to what is important in the round.
Kailyn Veitch - LPC
n/a
Kelsey Paiz - Chabot
I debated for Chabot College, coached for Long Beach State, and am now coaching at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in NFA-LD, but I have also participated in/judged/coached parli and IPDA. Although I do have debate experience, I have been living in the world of IEs, so it's wise to treat me more like an IE critic than a debate one. I definitely prefer to hear discussion about the topic at hand over a critical case, but will vote on any argument (Ts, CPs, Ks, etc.) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive. Especially if you run a critical argument, as this was not my forte, make sure you clearly explain everything about it and why it is more important for us to accept your kritik and reject discussion of the resolution. It is up to you as the debater to impact everything out for me and tell me why I should be voting for you over the other team.
I am not a huge fan of speed in either LD or parli. While you do not have to speak at a "conversational" pace, if I cannot keep up with you, your arguments will not end up on my flow. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can determine a winner. Tags and impact calculus are going to be the most important things to hit, and you can speed up a bit during evidence.
I do not typically mind if you communicate with your partner during a round, but the current speaker must say the argument in order for it to end up on my flow. The current speaker should be the one doing most of the speaking during their turn. No ventriloquism.
Any transferring of files in LD (via Speechdrop, email, flash drive, etc.) should happen during prep time to keep the round moving. Plan accordingly.
Above all, keep things civil and have fun!
Kim Yee - Ohlone College
I like my debates like how I enjoy my toast in the morning, no spread and all buttery.(t-shirts coming soon!)
What this means is that I don't like having to be Robert Langdon (professor of symbology and art history at Harvard) and have to try and decipher what you're saying. But in all seriousness, I am an IE judge and I much prefer the quality of argument over quantity. I also appreciate it when delivery is engaging and tangible. In the real world, there's no point in rushing through your case if no one can understand you. Accessibility is important to me and I value it when students are able to educate and connect their arguments to me as an audience member and judge.
Other than that you know what you need to do.
May the Force be with you!
Kirsten Lofgren - SFSU
Hi I’m Kirsten, I’m a graduate student and assistant coach at SFSU.
Parli:
Any arguments go: case, theory, critique. I want to hear what you have to say; I don’t want you to tell me what you think I want to hear.
affirmative must meet burden of Harms/Uniqueness, Inherently, Plan, Solvency. Make sure to number your impacts for me, especially in novice.
I will protect the flow. I don’t flow new arguments in the rebuttals even if a point of order wasn’t called.
Spreading:
Feel free to spread if that makes you the most comfortable, but I will evaluate slower, common sense arguments above a fast but confusing argument, especially when it comes to Ks. Making yourself clear should be your number one priority.
Critiques:
I love a critique, but you must be organized and the thesis / alternative must be clearly stated and make sense. At least some links or impacts should be contextual to the resolution.
Novices:
If you’re in novice and you don’t use all your speech time, wait 15 seconds or so, don’t be afraid to think quietly about your arguments, make sure you’re not missing anything before giving up the rest of your time. There is no standard in novice parli to be able to think of every little thing off the top of your head. I’d rather hear a round with pauses than a round that the student didn’t get the time they need to carefully think through their argument.
Counter plan in novice:
Please, please take two seconds to make sure your counterplan in actually mutually exclusive.
Topicality in novice:
I have very low expectations for topicality / other theory in novice. This is because some novices are at their first tournament and have never heard it before. Topicality must have all four parts Interpretations, Violation, Standards, Voters. Novices, if you skip standards don’t expect me to vote if your T. Affirmative, pretty much any basic response: “counter interpretation” or “we meet” will fly for me.
Topicality in Open:
I typically prefer Ts that can prove in round abuse, rather than Ts for pure strategy.
I will vote on reverse voting issues or any other offensive on T, feel free to make these arguments.
Klarissa Cuenca - LPC
n/a
Leah Anonuevo - LPC
n/a
Lucy Giusto - Contra Costa
I have over 30 years of experience in speech and debate. It is important to sign-post in all events so that I know where to apply arguments. Debate events such as IPDA and Parlimentary debate require explanation of the debaters arguments using analogies and examples and some evidence. Debate events like policy debate require evidence and a rationale for the evidence. Please provide a rationale along with a tag.
Mackenzie McDonald - LPC
n/a
Manveer Singh - MJC
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.
Marybelle Uk - SJSU
n/a
Mayra Cazares - MJC
n/a
Mikayla Trujillo - LPC
I am a person from a college with one tournament of judging experience and 5 IPDA rounds under my belt.
I value clear communication, structure and personable delivery. It was made very clear to me that IPDA was a form of debate that a non-forensics person could watch, understand, enjoy and make a decision about.
I'm afraid if you use debate terms or "speed" I will not understand what you are doing. Let's have a cordial and clear debate. Tell me very clearly at the end (in your last speech) why you think you won.
Mikiah Aubert - LPC
n/a
Nandika Murugavel - USFCA
n/a
Nicole Sims - DVC
Paul Villa - DVC
Updated: September 2023
In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isnt what I mean. I dont think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.
In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical completely fair to an equally mythical completely unfair. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to completely unfair. Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:
- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)
- Untopical Affirmatives
- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)
- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)
- Obfuscating
In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:
- Refusing to slow down when spreading
- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters
- Being bigoted in any way
I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didnt especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.
Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.
Philip Sharp - Nevada
Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno
Rob Boller - USFCA
What is your experience with Speech and Debate?
20+ yrs coaching and judging; mostly BP, Civic, and Parli. 25+ yrs teaching argumentation. Former high school debater a loooong time ago. Extensive experience with coaching and judging IEs + lots of performance stuff in my background.
What does your ideal debate round look like?
Well organized. Accessible to an average educated person. If my Dad couldn't follow you, or you'd make little sense in a courtroom or city council meeting, I'm not interested. Debate for debaters only is a silly game. My ideal round avoids spreading and speed at all costs and instead focuses on well fleshed out arguments with solid evidence/examples and warrants. I love good rebuttal and good manners. Finally remind me what your big picture ethical angle is and why you won the round.
Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?
Avoid debate jargon. Be nice to judges and fellow competitors. Don't be angry when you "lose"...its just the opinion of one person. Think about how you want civil discourse to be in the world and model it in your debates.
Robert Hawkins - DVC
I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in LD and regularly judge Parli & IPDA. I am not big on complicated language. I am more impressed if a student understands the argument and can make adjustments to different judging pools. I would classify myself as LAY judge for debate, but I can hang with most rounds if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.
Samantha Becker - NWC
I have been judging debate since 2021, although this is my first year at Phi Rho Pi. I believe that as competitors, and as humans, we should be striving for excellence. This is my first judging criteria. Excellence in debate includes the absence of filler words, staying within the time limit, and strong arguments (which include factual evidence and good logic). The more excellent your presentation, the more points allotted to you.
Persuasion is my second judging criteria. Who in the debate persuaded me that their stance is correct? Persuade me by using clear and concise language, factual and credible arguments, and a respectful demeanor toward your opponent. If you are rude, or attack your opponent in any personal way, I will take points away. We are all humans trying our best to strive for excellence, so please treat your opponent the way you would like to be treated.
My last criteria is rebuttal. If you are able to acknowledge all of your opponents arguments and successfully answer them, you are likely to win the round. This means you have strong arguments and have thought your stance all the way through to the end results.
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 McGrory - LPC
n/a
Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte
I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.
I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:
-Using clear roadmapping
-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)
- Be respectful of your opponent and judges
-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff
- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me
Stephanie Eisenberg Todd - Chabot
I debated and judged at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. My competitive experience and some of my coaching is in policy debate, lately most of my coaching and judging is in parli & LD.
I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for teams who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over teams who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them.
I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply "reject the team" and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy a well applied, smart disad debate with real world scenarios and clear, coherent links to the aff. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it's an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate.
I'd say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. Iâ??m very sympathetic to â??reject the arg, not the team.â?Â
I'm fine with cross talk and partner communication so long as one partner does not dominate the conversation or consistently talk over the other. If that becomes an issue, it will certainly affect your speaker points and may affect my decision.
A note on speed: I believe that many debaters in our community would benefit from slowing down a bit, not just in rate of delivery but in overall organization of their thoughts/arguments/etc. A well explained central argument is more important than hitting every single piece of the flow or overwhelming your opponents with repetitive cards. Likewise, I believe many debaters could benefit from some sort of overview or round framing argument in their speeches, especially in the rebuttals. In debates where neither team is giving me a clear view of how I should evaluate the round, what I should prioritize or how I should weigh impacts, I will generally default to the team who I feel is most persuasive from a rhetorical perspective.
I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the "style". I look forward to watching you do your thang!
Steve Robertson - Contra Costa
Steve Robertson
Contra Costa College, Director of Forensics
Years competed:1 yr LD (high school), 4.5 years NDT/CEDA (college)
Years coaching: 25+ years (middle school, high school, college - LD, parli, NDT/CEDA, IPDA)
Philosophy - The round is for you to convince me why your side should win the debate. try to be as non-interventionist as I can be. I work off the flow, focusing on your claims, warrants, and evidence. Believability is also a factor. I find it very difficult to vote for arguments that I don't understand how they work or function. So be sure to explain why things are the way they are. Compare impacts, and explain why your impacts/argument outweigh or should be viewed as more important than theirs. The main point is that you need to justify your position to me: what is your argument, why is it legitimate, and why does that matter in light of the other side's arguments. If you can adequately answer those three questions better than the other side, you should win the argument.
I punish non-responsiveness - meaning that if you drop or undercover arguments, they suddenly get much more weight in the round (especially if exploited by the other team). However, if you under-develop your arguments (such as blipping out theory pre-empts without justifying them), it doesn't take much to respond to these arguments.
I also communicate through nonverbals. If you see me nodding, then that means I understand your position (not necessarily agree with it, but I get what you're saying). If you see me cocking my head to the side or scrunching up my face, it means I don't get what you're saying or I don't understand your argument or I don't see why it's relevant. If you see that face, you should either give more explanation (until you see a head nod) or cut your losses and move onto another argument. If you see my hands in the air, that means I don't know where you are on the flow. You should give me a signpost, because I'm currently not flowing you.
Here are some event-specific concerns:
Parli- Debate starts at the highest point of conflict. I will listen to arguments of trichot/type of resolution, though if the tournament identifies it as a particular type of resolution this becomes a bit more difficult.
I don't care about partner to partner communication. However, if it's done during the other team's speech, then mute yourselves from this 8x8 (e.g., chat privately, mute yourselves and talk in another venue, etc.). Don't disrupt the other speaker.
If you want to give your partner advice or arguments, that's fine as well. There are 2 things to be aware of: First, I only listen to what the speaker says. So if you tell your partner something, it doesn't reach my flow until the current speaker says it. Saying "yeah, what she said" will get onto my flow as "yeah, what she said" - not the actual argument. Second, the more you parrot or puppet your partner, the lower your speaker points will become. This is purely subjective on my part, so use at your own peril.
Finally, parli has the Point of Order. I will not protect against new arguments or other rules violations (unless specified to do so in the tournament rules). Use this if applicable. Frivolous use of it, however, will desensitize me to it.
LD- You have the obligation to provide evidence in this debate. Please do so. Referencing evidence that has not been read in the debate will carry the same weight as an assertion for me.
For me, reading the source (publication title and/or authors' last names) and date is sufficient for citations, provided that all additional information is provided on the card's citation itself. If you want to run an official rules violation on this in front of me, I will entertain it, but realize I am disinclined to vote evidence or a debater down if that information is available on the card. Doesn't mean you can't win it, just that it'll be an uphill battle.
Realize that while underlining and highlighting are acceptable ways of modifying evidence for a round, ellipses, unreadable font size, or gaps in text are unacceptable.
IPDA- IPDA is more of a communication event than a debate for me. It is NOT treated the same as parli. I do not flow, but take a very limited amount of notes. Eloquence factors into the decision for me. I think of this as a townhall meeting, closer to interactive persuasion than debate. Avoid debate jargon, extensive line by line analysis, and other more traditional debate tactics. This is about persuasion, not strict argumentation. Think of debating in front of your grandmother, not a debate judge.
Bottom line - make good arguments, offer clash, give impact calculus/comparison, and be civil to one another. Oh...and have fun! :)
Steven Farias - UOP
(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!
Sydney Alexander - DVC
My specialty is in individual events, and that is most of my background when it comes to forensics. But, I enjoy watching, and judging debate events. When it comes to speed, I can keep up, so that's no problem. But if I slow you then please slow. I think organization in debate events is really important. Clear signposting throughout the round is a must for me. All things considered, please respect each other and have fun.
Taryn Hunt - LPC
n/a
Taure Shimp - MJC
ALL DEBATE EVENTS
Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.
IPDA
I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.
PARLI
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.
LD
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.
Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!
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
Titian Lish - LPC
n/a
Triston Rendon - LPC
n/a
Umbreen Khan - Dark Horse
n/a
Zac Furber-Dobson - LPC
n/a