FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adriana Hernandez - Santa Rosa

n/a

Alan Fishman - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Alex Paez - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Alexis Litzky - CCSF

I have spent many years coaching/judging/directing at San Francisco State University, University of San Francisco, and now City College of San Francisco. Notice a theme?

My threshold for argumentation is relatively low: I coach and will vote on any argument that is well supported and persuasively presented. Excellent warrants and evidence will take you farther than empty tagline and generalized debating. I like topic specific education, but I also like new interpretations of education and the topic. I love this activity because in many debates I have witnessed I learned something new about the topic and about the debaters involved.

What does this really mean for debaters?

1 - I try to let the debaters control the interpretation and framework of the debate. Try to be clear and focused about what you think the criteria or role of the ballot is/should be, and what that means for me. This is the first question I resolve whenever Iâm making a decision.

2 - You should run and go for arguments that you think are germane to the topic and politically salient for you, not what you think I want to hear. I have literally voted for every "type" or "genre" of argument, and I wish you would spend less time trying to overly adapt to my judging preferences. I take judging seriously, and you should know that I approach every debate with the same sense of importance whether it is a first-time Novice or a 2-year long competition with your favorite rival. I try to provide as much intellectual and professional integrity as one can, and I hope you do the same.

This also means that there is no specific bright line that you need to pass on theory for me to vote for it, or any kind of specific component of an argument that will help you win. There are some normative standards that always affect judges, like you need to have some sort of impact to win the debate. But I canât in good faith say that impacts are always more important that links, but link debates can be incredibly salient if the neg is making a good solvency press.

3 - I love the flow. Not in an overly fetishistic sort of way, but I definitely take the practice the seriously. My students think itâs weird, and maybe it is. But I love the satisfaction of tracking arguments throughout the debate. This does not mean that if you drop an argument itâs over for you, but you do have to tell me why you decided to spent 6 minutes on framework rather than answering another major argument the opponent is going for. Itâs also the primary tool that will help me resolve many debates. Unless, of course, you tell me why it shouldnât matter. In which case, I will probably still flow (because Iâm me) but please donât take that as an affront to you.

Some thoughts on style:

My background in CEDA/NDT debate means that Iâm fine with speed, but there is a limit to how much I actually think thatâs required. People who are trying to sound fast but actually arenât fast will not be rewarded. People who are clear, fast, and engaging with the arguments and the other team will be rewarded. People who actually use the flow and respond to specific arguments will be rewarded. Youâre also more likely to win the debate. I particularly appreciate it when debaters highlight arguments they think will become particularly key or relevant to the debate.

Other than that, I have some general love for:

New ways of understanding the same old business.
Critical interrogation.
Thought experiments.
Surprises.
Debates that inspire and challenge my sense of political engagement.
Hannah Arendt.
Jokes, smiles, and sassy attitudes. These will get you infinitely farther than rude, brutish, and hurtful debates. You have the rest of your life to be as serious as you want, use this unique space and time to enjoy yourself and learn about the topic and each other.

Enjoy yourself, and remember to have fun! Itâs the weekend and we like to be here!

Alisa Osborne - Hofstra

n/a

Aly Grever - CPH

n/a

Alyx Dickson - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Amy Furber-Dobson - LPC

n/a

Andrea Grillo - 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.

Angela Ohland - Butte

I'm a fairly new judge to the forensics community. I am primarily an IE judge/coach and have limited experience with debate. As a result, please consider me a lay judge and try to use clear roadmapping and speak clearly and persuasively. I appreciate an impactful opening and a clear preview.

Fairness and respect are paramount for me. My goal is to provide constructive (primarily delivery focused feedback) that helps competitors refine their skills. I look forward to witnessing your talents on display!

Angelica Guzman - UOP

Hello!

I competed in NPDA and LD for the University of the Pacific from 2020-2024. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for the University of the Pacific.

TLDR/Parli

I wasnt that fast when I competed, but I can generally handle speed. A debate is much simpler for me to follow if counter-advocacies are unconditional. I dont like frivolous theory, but Ill evaluate it. I think the Affirmative should be topical, but that doesnt mean I wont evaluate untopical AFFs.

Parli Specific

AFF Cases

I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy and have a lower threshold for voting on theory/framework against an AFF that didnt defend the topic, but I will still evaluate and am willing to vote on AFFs that do not. AFFs that reject the topic need to spend more time explaining and justifying why they are not defending the topic.

Theory/Topicality

Ill evaluate any theory/topicality read in the LOC, and if well explained and warranted will have a low threshold for voting on it. I have a higher threshold for theory read in the MG unless its condo is bad, which I am highly likely to vote on.

CP/Ks:

For the CP, I like them. If you run a pic, delay, or anything related to what may be perceived as an abusive CP I am willing to listen and vote on theory arguments claiming they are. I think if you run a CP, you must be able to solve the AFF otherwise, you have no reason to run a CP. I dont like vague perms, but if I dont understand how your CP solves the aff Im likely to vote on the perm.

I probably dont have a deep understanding of the lit your K is based on, but you can still read it. In the instance you decide to run a K, I would prefer a thesis. I need clear explanations of how the alt solves, otherwise I defer to my uncertainty in your alts ability to solve for the in or out of round harms you claim to solve for. For Ks, if I dont understand your alt and its ability to solve, I am likely to vote on the perm if it is well explained.

Condo

I was never conditional in Parli when I competed and now, as a judge, I prefer unconditional advocacies. This doesnt mean I will auto drop the team for being conditional, but I have a low threshold for voting on condo bad. Ill still evaluate condo bad like any theory sheet and if the neg wins that sheet then they can be condo. If you read multiple conditional advocacies, the threshold for condo bad is much lower and I am very likely to vote on condo bad.

Speed

If you were or thought you were faster than me, then you probably were. This means I need you to be a little slower than your top speed if you want to make sure I get your args.

Disclose. Read what you want.

Email

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions at a_guzman15@u.pacific.edu.

Anju Vriksha - FTC

Judging Philosophy: As a judge, I approach debate as both a competitive activity and an intellectual journey. My philosophy blends the principles of the Tabula Rasa and the Game Player, creating a framework that balances flexibility with structure. The ultimate aim is to foster an environment where both the clash between arguments and the educational value of debate are paramount. 1. Tabula Rasa: A Clean Slate for Each Round I start each round with an open mind, adhering to the principle of Tabula Rasa. I allow the debaters to define the terms and framework of the debate, ensuring that their arguments stand on their own merits. This allows for fresh, unbiased evaluation. While the government side carries the burden of proof, both teams share the responsibility of creating meaningful clash. I expect them to engage directly with each other’s arguments in a way that challenges, tests, and refines the positions being debated. Clash is central to my evaluation—without it, debate loses its depth, and the round becomes less dynamic and intellectually stimulating. 2. Game Player: Structure and Strategy Debate is a structured activity with clear rules, and as a judge, I hold both sides to these standards. The government side must justify their case with sufficient evidence and reasoning, thereby meeting their burden of proof. The opposition is not only tasked with critiquing the government’s position but could also present a well-developed counter plan, pushing the debate forward. Both sides must create strategic clash—through argumentation, evidence, and rhetorical skill—while utilizing their time effectively. The manner in which debaters use their time and structure their arguments speaks to their understanding of the game, and I reward those who demonstrate this skill. 3. Debate as an Educational Activity Beyond the competition, I see debate as an opportunity for intellectual growth and learning. I encourage debaters to treat the round as an opportunity to challenge their own ideas and expand their perspectives. Debate should be a space where ideas are not merely defended but also questioned and tested. Clash is a vital part of this process, as it enables participants to confront different viewpoints and, in doing so, foster intellectual development. The most successful rounds are those that lead debaters to reflect on their arguments and ideas in a meaningful way, both during and after the debate. 4. Personal Preferences: Language and Eloquence As an old-school debater, I have a deep appreciation for the flow and beauty of language. Clear, precise, and eloquent arguments not only convey ideas but elevate the discourse. I value the use of language to both persuade and enhance the round, especially when combined with intellectual rigor. Rhetoric should complement logic, and I reward those who skillfully weave both into their arguments. Eloquence, however, must not overshadow substance. I am most impressed when debaters use language to clarify, sharpen, and advance their case while maintaining focus on engaging with the opposing side. 5. Conclusion: A Balance of Flexibility and Structure In conclusion, my judging philosophy combines the flexibility of a Tabula Rasa with the clear structure of a Game Player. I place a strong emphasis on the importance of clash—debates that lack meaningful engagement fail to provide the intellectual rigor necessary for growth. The government holds the burden of proof, and both sides must contribute to the development of the round through strategic clash and clear, structured argumentation. Ultimately, I believe that debate should challenge participants to think critically, inspire personal growth, and serve as both a contest and a chance for deeper understanding. Through the art of strategic clash and intellectual engagement, debaters will not only compete but also grow as thinkers and communicators.

Anna Faalogoifo - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Annie Koruga - UC Berkeley

n/a

Annie Moore - LPC

n/a

Arielle White - Delta

n/a

Ben Mann - Lewis & Clark

Hi! I'm the assistant director of forensics at Lewis & Clark College. My background is over 12 years of experience in college debate, including coaching roles in NPDA, NFA-LD, IPDA, and BP. A few general principles on how I evaluate debate are below:

I view debate as comparative access to comparative impacts. Demonstrate to me that you best access the most important impacts of the debate, through framework/sequencing control, links, and an articulated impact story, and you have the easiest pathway to my ballot.
I'm a flow judge and prioritize content over delivery. Typically, I give speaks based on argument quality and strategic decisionmaking.
Yes, I'm comfortable with spreading if your opponent is. Please slow down a bit for tags and when moving between positions, and signpost clearly. If you're going too fast for me to flow, I'll say "slow." If your speaking isn't clear, regardless of your rate of delivery, I'll say "clear." Please accommodate your opponent if they can't follow you.
Yes, you can read T and other procedurals in front of me, just sequence them properly (such as a priori).
Yes, you can read Ks, critical affs, unique arguments, or even reject the resolution on the aff in front of me. However, I'm also open to framework and other responses to these arguments. The K lit needs to be in your argument: I won't fill in gaps that aren't present in your speech.
No, don't be unnecessarily disrespectful to your opponent or judges, either through in-round behavior or argument types that actively disparage marginalized populations. Who you choose to be in the round matters more than W/L, and this behavior will at minimum impact your speaker points.

I judge primarily out of tournament need and may be in different formats round-to-round. Ultimately, I'm format-agnostic and invested in the educational/skill benefits that come from different styles of debate. If you have a format-specific question for me, you can reach me at bmann@lclark.edu

Bill Lucio - Harper College

DEBATE

To me, a good debater can adapt to any style of debate and is aware of the differing styles each form of debate utilizes. For instance, I believe debate jargon has value in rounds of Parli and LD, as those are specific styles of debate that include a unique type of rhetoric and vernacular in which all speakers have learned and been coached on. On the flip side, it is my belief that a more common style of debate, like IPDA, should focus on the bare bones structure of argumentation.

IPDA should be accessible to anyone, anywhere, regardless of their experience. In face, public is in the name. The second speakers start using debate jargon in IPDA, they have already lost me as a judge. I think that one of the reasons why debate is dying, is because its getting too niche focused IPDA is an amazing gateway event that should welcome newer, first-time debaters into the family, and bringing in styles reserved for other forms of debate can be hard on beginners.

I value humanity and humility. I much prefer speakers refer to each other by their names, rather than, my opponent. I dont like aggressive questioning, passive aggressiveness, and boastful or cocky presentations. I dont appreciate speakers telling me how I will vote give me all the tools I need to make an informed decision, but dont tell me what I am going to do or not do. Remember that there is a fine line between enthusiasm and volume. Remember that there is a difference between passion and pace. Make sure you find that happy medium of ethos, pathos, and logos, as speakers who priorities one heavily over the other two will not be rewarded.

At the end of the day, I value debaters who treat the round like three friends having a conversation over coffee. Lets remain friends by the end of this thing, yea?

PLATFORM EVENTS

Regarding individual events, speakers should engage in appropriate delivery strategies when performing Platform events, such as proper pronunciation and clarity of words, a wide range of vocal variety, and natural use of gestures. While the overall delivery of a speech weighs heavily in my decision, I also tend to prioritize organization and flow, as well as creativity in topic choice. I'm a firm believer in creative content, but also respect solid and identifiable transitions. Do not go overtime.

INTERP EVENTS

In other individual events, such as Interp, I expect the speaker to fully embody their characters. Take risks, think outside of the box, and use your body and movement in ways that aren't necessarily obvious or overdone. While the argument articulated in an introduction does play a major role in my overall decision, I value a performance that takes me out of this world and puts me into a new one, so really become your character and "own" the world in which they live in. Do not go overtime.

Lastly, regarding Limited Prep events, I really respect a good, clean delivery, that utilizes all the tools of basic public speaking (organization, variety of examples/sources, confidence in speaking voice, engagement with the audience, etc.). I do not want to hear a "canned" speech, challenge yourself! If I feel like I have heard your speech before, or that the interpretation of your quotation is too much of a stretch, I will most likely reward the other speakers who placed a more creative emphasis on their speech. Students competing in LP events should be constantly reading the news and searching for examples, so i want to see some interesting things I haven't seen before. Do not go overtime, ESPECIALLY if I am giving you time signals throughout the entire speech.

Brandon Wood - COD

Did you persuade me with complete arguments? Did you make this seem like a general audience could follow and enjoy? Did you treat your opponent with respect? Did you speak passionately and compellingly? Did you not talk about the value of education? If you answer yes to all of these then you have mastered my criteria.

It is highly, highly appreciated if opponents greet each other by first or last names and I will only mark refutation on my flow if a specific name is attached to it during the constructive. Personally, I don't respond well to rhetorically being told what I have to do as a judge. This likely isn't an LD round where I'm not being shown a document of cut research that compels me have to vote for someone because of decades of debate theory. Whether it's parli or IPDA you should avoid words like, "you must", "you should strike this", "you have to vote for our side because we did this/they didn't do this", or "here is why we won". Every time I deduct 3 speaker points and will likely be unable to pay attention for approximately 30 seconds of your speech because I will be writing what I've already written here, and therefore, will not be flowing. Don't meet competitor hostility with hostility unless you want to assure a hostile ballot.

For me, arguing that something is or is not"educational" and therefore must be rejected is ultimately a weird form of hyperbole that has infected debate. Experiencing something that is unfair, like circular arguments or bad definitions, is educational. This activity makes it almost impossible to not engage in an educational experience, in the worldly sense. While I won't buy the education-has-been-removed-from-this-debate-round argument, I absolutely will accept issues regarding abusive definitions, incomplete argumentation, denial of ground, moving goal posts etc...

FAQ: Speed? = me not flowing. Jargon? = To me it creates assumed enthymemes and sloppy debate (usually). Technical elements? = will accept them as needed (in Parli). Partner communication during constructives? = Really, really dislike it now that flex time exists because it just decimates your percieved credibility in my eyes ( your ethos is the unspoken contract to accepting information at face value). Role of the judge? = Parli- Tabula Rasa , except when it comes to trichotomy. Lingusitically, resolutions come with burdens that most often are objectively implied ("should" is policy for example) as policy, value, or fact. I flow the entirety of the constructives and dropped arguments are a big deal. IPDA - I am a general audience member and enter each round with my complete knowledge as a human. I approach the resolution with an open mind and a desire to be persuaded but factual errors, fallacious argumentation, and hostile debate styles will not be flowed. I take notes that summarize the debates progress rather than the technical flow I would use for Parli/LD/CEDA.

Brendan Sullivan - LPC

n/a

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

n/a

Carson Moreland - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Charlie Burrowes - CPH

n/a

Claire Aguiar - LPC

n/a

Clay Miller - Mt. SAC

n/a

Corey Norton - LPC

n/a

Cynthia Ross - LPC

n/a

Cyril Bhooma Goud - SJSU

n/a

Dan Crawford - LPC

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.

Dasha Spivak - LPC

n/a

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.

Deborah Bauer - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Diana Navarro-Kleinschmidt - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Diego Paez - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

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.

Elana Boyd - LPC

n/a

Eric Fletcher - FCC

Many decades of CEDA/NDT/NPDA/BP and IPDA coaching. I do respect the uniqueness of each activity as well as their requirements and expectations. Feel free to ask me specific questions.

Ethan German - CPH

n/a

Ethan Stern - Deb@Davis

I believe that theory, of all types, is the aPriori issue. I will be voting next on the core argument of the round as it is based on the voters. I believe that it is not necessarily the team that speaks better that should win the round, but the team that has more merit on the issues they are trying for that will win. As a person, I prefer to see debates without huge amounts of theory, that said I will still vote on it as the aPirori issue.

Ethan Percival - Deb@Davis

n/a

Evan Moreno - CPH

n/a

Frances Hui - LPC

n/a

Garry Lee - FTC

n/a

Gemma Caruso - CPH

n/a

Hannah Branch - Nevada

n/a

Harish Rao - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Harry Schulte - EPCC

I appreciate a well structured argument with appropriate references that are relevant and dated.

I appreciate a respectful exchange between parties that respects the other's viewpoint without being condescending for effect.

Delivery of arguments in a clear and concise public speaking tone that does not sacrifice clarity for speed is key.

Isha Roy - LPC

n/a

Jackie Blair - Sacramento

Experience. I have competed for four years at California State University of Sacramento in the following events: National Forensics Association Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, Public Forum, and Impromptu.Additionally, I have participated in the Communications 111 class rookie tournament for four years as a coach and a judge.As a rookie coach, I have worked on debate evidence in the following areas: as a writing coach, case writer, rookie tournament judge, research student, and on-case and off-case writing for constructive and rebuttal speeches.Lastly, I have competed in the affirmative/negative debates at the local city council's online reading practices.

Debate Judging Philosophy.My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate round based on policy maker paradigm, critical paradigm, and/or rule-based theory.I believe that both the affirmative and negative must meet their burdens with well-developed arguments.This means that the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language and evidence.Next, I believe debates should be followed in a recognizable format and should provide greater knowledge with the use of analysis and refutation.I will evaluate the round based on advantages, disadvantages, and weighing of impacts.Speed is Okay.

Individual Events.The mechanics of speech must be observed faithfully –poise, quality, use of voice, effectiveness, ease of gesture, emphasis, variety, and enunciation. In addition, the participant must be able to interpret the full meaning of the oration and be able to carry the interpretation over to the audience.

Jacob Montez - 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. My timer is the official timer for the round. You should time yourselves, but check your time against mine. Also, when you are ready to begin speaking, just start speaking. I don't need any "on my first word" or countdowns.

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.

Jay Villanueva - Nevada

n/a

Jedi Curva - Mt. SAC

Debate should be presented in such a way that a lay audience can understand the arguments and learn something from the debate. In general, debaters should have strong public speaking, critical thinking, and argumentation. Don't rely on me to fill in the holes of arguments or assume we all know a certain theory or argument -- it is your burden to prove your arguments.

Jeff Przybylo - Harper College

Public debate should be accessible by any member of the public. To observe or adjudicate, audience members do not need to possess any special knowledge or experience in debate. IPDA is designed to be observed by the public.

In all forms of debate, eloquence in delivery is important.

I believe debaters should speak to each other with respect, enthusiasm, and a positive attitude toward debating ideas.

Debate is an exercise in presenting and supporting ideas. It is not a war.

Debates should be focused on the positive exchange of ideas. I find debates about debate utterly boring.

For individual events, I value creativity. Go ahead and break the "rules." As long as what you are doing serves the literature/topic I value what you are doing. I believe that public performance is art. Let your creativity flow!

Public address events should be well organized, well researched, creative, and eloquently delivered.

Interp events are creative performances. I do not believe that there necessarily needs to be a stated "argument." I believe that performances that portray strong characters and evoke an emotional response have great value. I value an emotional journey and entertainment over the presentation of some sort of overtly stated "argument." As I stated above, public performance is a form of art. What you make me FEEL and what I learn about the human condition is much more important to me and following through on a contrived "argument" stated in your introduction. Be artistic.

In the limited preparation events and debate, I value eloquent delivery, supported claims, and an organized message. The format or approach is less important to me. As long as what you are doing is clear and makes sense, I promise to have an open mind.

Jim Suth - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Joel Chmara - CLC

I'm primarily an IE judge, so please don't speed debate and make me judge off of technicalities. I love seeing healthy clash, respect, and composure.

Joey Barrows - Delta

I competed for three years in LD and one semester in Parliamentary debate. I was primarily a case debater and did not run many critical arguments. I try my best to vote strictly on the flow and have voted for K's even though I don't particularly like a lot of them. I have a tendency to lean towards the K not having an ability to solve whatever the harms are (if that's what is being claimed). Aside from that, I think I am pretty straightforward in most positions. I am not incredibly fast and I flow on paper, so if I say "slow" or "speed" and you do not adjust then you risk the chance of losing me. Please ask me any necessary questions before the round to clarify something you don't understand here or to address any of the things I did not mention. Thanks!

John Schultz - Tallahassee

n/a

Jonathan Du - LPC

n/a

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Josh Montez - LPC

n/a

Joshua Hevert - EPCC

n/a

Josue De Leon - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Kaitlyn White - LPC

n/a

Kanan Prashar - Ohlone College

n/a

Karen Cornwell - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Kim Yee - SJSU

I like my debates like I like my toast...no spread, all buttery (t-shirts coming soon!)

In all seriousness, I do my best to follow what I have flowed. Do your best to be clear with your arguments. I like labels and spelling things out. Be direct in labeling your arguments and stating which arguments you are refuting. Don't make me have to do the work of impacting out your arguments. Focus on extending your impacts and arguments all the way to the end. In the end, I'm looking for the person who demonstrates to me the overall importance of side and will vote for the one who does the best of it.

May the Force be with you!

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!

Kirsti Copeland - FTC

n/a

Kloe Situ - LPC

n/a

Kye McDougal - Hofstra

n/a

Kyle Barber - Bellevue College

Kyle Johnson - LPC

n/a

Kyle Landrum - Chico State

n/a

Lindsay Walsh - SJSU

I am a IE coach, so I'm looking for clear and strong arguments with evidence. Always always show impact. Why does this matter? I can infer, but lay it out.

Signposts and a clear preview of points is helpful.

I judge primarily on the strength of your arguments, but delivery and conduct with your opponent is something I consider as well. Keep things professional, courtesous, respectful, and energetic.

Mack Sermon - Chabot

n/a

Malika Amin Mirador - Solano CC

Firstly, I put respect for other competitors and teammates above all else; I really dont like disrespect in round, whether that comes from ad hominem attacks, rude behavior, or making other people in the room feel uncomfortable. In order to make sure the debate space is as accessible and inclusive as possible, Ill drop any team/debater that does not respect the other people present.

On the actual debate stuff, Im a parli debater, so most stuff is okay with me. Ill vote on theory and procedurals (I really like good T debate), as long as everything is clear, and there is proven abuse. That being said, I also really like RVIs, and will vote on them. This is the same thing with spec and trichot, as well as aff positions like condo bad, PICs bad, etc. As long as there is a clearly articulated reason to vote on it, Ill weigh it. With K, just make sure to be extra clear. If theres no signposting, Ill probably miss most of it.

When it comes to case debate, again, please signpost or I will get lost. Im tabula rasa, and willing to hear pretty much whatever as long as 1) its not disrespectful, and 2) has a rationale behind it. I like weird arguments, econ arguments, environmental arguments, etc. I just really like case debate thats super interesting and has a lot of clash.

On speed: I really dont mind. Usually, I can keep up pretty okay, as long as you start off a bit slower than top speed so I can get used to your speaking. Overall, I see speed as a tool to get a bunch of quality arguments in BUT, if opponents call clear/speed, just make sure to slow down or clear up; sorta goes back to that whole accessibility thing again.

ALSO, I view parli and IPDA as two different kinds of debate. Im okay with most parli things being in IPDA, but I do think that running theory and procedurals, or trying to spread your opponent out of the round in IPDA is abusive. Also, because IPDA has no mechanism for actually making sure this is fair (i.e. no points of order), I dont flow new arguments in the last rebuttal speech unless it was the first opportunity to respond to it.

TLDR: Im cool with pretty much everything as long as everyone is kind to each other :))

Manahil Syeda - DVC

n/a

Mark Espinosa - Sacramento

Mark is a Graduate Assistant at Sac State and is in his 3rd semester working with the team. Mark competed for 2 semesters in 2021-2022, but only ever at online tournaments. Make clear arguments, explain your evidence, and try to slow down a bit.

Mark Espinosa - Sacramento

Martin DeArcangelis - COD

n/a

Marybelle Uk - SJSU

n/a

Matthew Minnich - EPCC

I like debaters to be respectful of one another, but passionate delivery is also important.

I like roadmaps and clear arguments.

Delivery is also just as important as the arguments themselves.

Maximus Renteria - UOP

4 years HS policy

4 years NPDA/NPTE

maximusrenteria@gmail.com

While debate may be more of a technical logic puzzle rather than a truth-seeking activity, this doesn't let you invalidate people's experiences.

Judge instruction -- Tell me how and why to vote instead of making claims that are impossible to evaluate in a vacuum. That just means weigh and compare everything (impacts, warrants, etc).

Aff -- I don't have a preference between policy or kritikal affirmatives. If rejecting, give a reason why it's necessary.

T -- I would be more receptive to reasonability arguments than most. This probably means topicality arguments geared toward the plan rather than a vision of the topic are more convincing.

CP -- Aff doesn't need a theory shell to tell me why your CP is not legitimate. Tell me how a perm proves no competition rather than just tagging.

K -- I generally think Ks are research methods that determine the desire-ability of the plan. I think whoever wins framework will probably win the plan v K debate. Leverage your frameworks to exclude when you are winning it. "Theoretical" justifications for fw like moots 1ac are cop outs especially from the aff; methodological justifications are much more convincing even for reps/epistemics Ks. This probably means Ks of epistemics/justifications need implications on the endpoint of the plan (it's very easy to just say "internal link turns case") even if "justifications bad" is a legitimate reason to negate. I like plan specific links but generic res links are fine if you can still explain uniqueness. I don't think perm-double bind arguments are convincing.

Mia Rivera - CPH

n/a

Michael Sullivan - LPC

n/a

Michael Patin - LPC

n/a

Millie Springborn - LPC

n/a

Miluska Ore - LPC

n/a

Natalie Cavallero - Hartnell

n/a

Nathan Wensko - Clovis

My main focus in the area of all debates is to focus on how the debate is defined for each of its categories. I like to adhere to the guidelines presented for each format. So, Parli is Parli and has jargon, IPDA has some emphasis in delivery and sure be attempted with less jargon, NFA LD has priority of stock issues, and so on.

Beyond that, my philosophy is grounded in structure and clarity so that I can let the arguments do the work instead of myself and my perceptions.

The main focus within constructive speeches is looking at links, impacts, and solvency. I believe these to be highly persuasive elements.

In refutation, I look for the clear line drawn by the speaker from the point they are making and its relation to the point they are addressing.

In Rebuttal speeches, I do like to hear clear Voting issues and why they matter and a comparative approach to the status quo versus changing it.

Regarding Topicality and Kritik. I am open to these arguments; however, using them just to throw everything at the government is problematic for me. Essentially, there must be sound cause to introduce such arguments into the round.

Partner Communication should not be disruptive to the speaker.

Finally, I also enjoy seeing collegiality and community in rhetoric and language. I know that the heat of a debate can be invigorating and can be healthy, but if there are any ad hominem arguments, I will take this into account as a voting issue.

In any Individual Event, I am open to anything presented to me.

Nathan Steele - CCSF

Have fun and claim the space-time of the debate round as belonging to you. Aspire to present clearly organized and supported arguments in your constructive speeches. Your general approach should be to invite dialogue over controversy and offer clear reasoning why your position is preferable. Provide criteria by which I might evaluate the arguments in the round. When inspired, embrace your creativity and wit. Share the time with your opponent during cross-examination. Use rebuttal speeches to extend arguments as you see fit. It is good practice to provide some key voting issues or summary of the competing narratives within the debate to illuminate my decision-making process (i.e., my pathway to voting for you). Delivery doesn't factor heavily into decision-making. Be yourself. Focus on conveying the arguments so your opponent and judge understand. I may comment on features of your nonverbal communication on a ballot, but you'll win the debate with the argument(s).

The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Focus on the arguments during the round. Be good to yourself too. Debate can be difficult at times. Keep bringing your best and youll get better.

Nathan Carter - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Nicholas Adair - UOP

Parli/LD

I am an old school flow judge (pen and paper) so if you spread me out of the round, I will drop arguments because I cannot keep up.

I am also not a tabula rosa judge. I will believe most arguments that are based in fact, but if you tell me untruths, (ie. Turkey should become a part of NATOit's been a member since 1952) I will not flow them. Make sure that your arguments are rooted in fact and evidence, because that is the only way to achieve both education and fairness in round.

I am not a big fan of topicality/counterplans/Kritiques. I feel that most rounds should be fought straight up with ADDs, and DAs, as most topics are debatable by design. Using theory /CPs feels like an underhanded way to skew the Aff out of its ground. However, that does not mean I will not vote on theory. If Aff brings an inaccessible plan/definition/actor to the round, I find myself voting on T/CPs often, even though I would rather not do so. One last note for T, if you say Topicality is a-priori and then kick it in the MO/LO, it will flow against you as the neg. Either it excluded you from the round, or it didn't. Both cannot be true in the same world. If you dont say a-priori, I will simply treat it as an additional DA, which I do not mind voting for.

IPDA

IPDA is not Parli or LD so do not try to make it such. This event is supposed to be accessible for any person, so dropping hyper specific labels, ie. links/uniqueness is a quicker way to my ballot. That said, you should not let the debate become unorganized either. Using language like contentions, or main points is highly recommended. In IPDA I will evaluate the round as competing extemp speeches. I desire performance and persuasiveness as well as excellent clash and contextualization of data surrounding the topic. If you have competed in public forum as a debate event in high school, I view this event as the 1v1 version of that event. One last note for this event, I will not vote for Krtiques/Topicality/or any theory under any circumstance. This does not mean the Aff gets to bring in obviously skewed definitions, and the neg should be ready to have an alternative definition if the round needs it.

Limited prep

Speeches with less filler words shine above the rest. While most speakers don't use ums or likes, most extempers do use now and well. These are still filler words, and they become noticeable quite quickly. Also, bring your own personality and fun to the event. Far too many limited prep speakers are too robotic in their delivery. Humor is always a plus.

Speech events

What I look for in speech events is a well-polished piece with excellent blocking and a good story/argument. Some of the best speeches I have watched, hit all these points as well as engaging with the audience/judge if applicable. I am not a fan of superfluous blocking for the sake of blocking, but I will appreciate the effort. Overall, well-polished pieces are what I look for first, a clear argument second, and well done blocking third.

Osirus Polachart - Mt. SAC

n/a

Oz Kimbell - CPH

n/a

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: August 2024

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 asked to

- 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 Co-Director of Forensics 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, and I coached the most successful NPDA team of all time. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

Rachel Alarcon - Mt. SAC

n/a

Robert Hawkins - DVC

I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in high school LD and sometimes judge Parli & IPDA. I am not a technical judge in NFA-LD. 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 if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.

Ryan Wenzel - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present. However, I am a newer judge, so make sure I can keep up.

Ryan Guy - MJC

Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!

Video Recording & Online Tournaments

In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.

I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!

A Little About Me

I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.

I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.

How I See Debate

1. Sharing Material

If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.

2. Speed

Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.

3. Procedurals & Theory

Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.

4. Kritiques

I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
- Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
- Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
- Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.

5. Organization & Engagement

Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.

6. Oral Critiques

If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.

7. Safety & Well-being

Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.

IPDA Notes

Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.

How I Decide Rounds

Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.

Specifics for NFA-LD

File Sharing
- SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
- If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
- Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.
Disclosure
- I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
- If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
- Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.
Cardless LD
- I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.

Speaker Points

Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.

Topicality

Please make an honest effort to be topical.
T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.

In Closing

I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.

Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!

Sadie Shields - CPH

n/a

Sarina Wang - Mt. SAC

n/a

Scott Lankford - FTC

EXPERIENCE: Prior to teaching English at Foothill Community College for 35 years — I’m retired now! — I was a high school Colorado State Champion in Extemp. But that was, ahem, in a prior century! My academic degrees are in Philosophy (BS from Williams College) and Modern Thought and Literature (PhD Stanford).

Now that I’m retired, I’ve started volunteering as a judge — as a way to “pay it forward” for the next generation. That’s you! I’ve always said that Speech and Debate was the most valuable training I ever got in any class, in any school, anywhere. It’s served me well my whole life. And I’m pretty sure this experience will serve you well too — no matter what career you choose.

Based on my “critical thinking and research” teaching experience, extemp experience, and academic training, as a judge I especially value:

Clear argument structure with plenty of framing and signposting
Evidence-based arguments with source citations
Polished speech presentation in terms of vocal variety, pacing, effective use of body language and gestures, and eye contact.

Scott Lankford

Professor of English (emeritus), Foothill College

Scout Del Real - LPC

n/a

Sean McGrory - LPC

n/a

Sean Thai - Delta

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.

I need clear perm texts, e.g. PDB is not a valid perm text for me. If you get called out for, I will not accept the perm.

Text copying happens during flex time, unless the interpretation or text is significantly long. I WILL enforce the rules on time and prep, as per tournament invitations.

Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations and net benefits without some other D-Rule. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I will always try to use the criterion + impact framing from the round if possible. I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. 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. 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.

Im willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.

It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.

LD:

I have trouble with implied clash, and it marks it harder to evaluate debate rounds. Please signpost clearly where you want your arguments.

Tech is a form of truth.

Flex time answers are binding.

"Email me for cites" is NOT a form of disclosure to me. If that is the extent of your disclosure, there is a much greater chance you will lose on that argument.

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

Sofina Salvatore - LPC

n/a

Steven Farias - UOP

(Reviewed Jan. 2024) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.

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. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such 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 as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defensable changes to the status quo. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in teh topic. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then 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 that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, 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. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. 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!

Sylvia Seay - CPH

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.

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!

Tehreem Khan - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Teresa Ong - FTC

n/a

Teresa Massimo - Ohlone College

n/a

TeriAnn Bengiveno - LPC

n/a

Thuy Pham - Mt. SAC

Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means

clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow.
no spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you!
you are courteous to your opponent.
you make it clear why I should vote for you.

Excited to see you all debate!

Tina Lim - SJSU

It's up to the debaters how I evaluate the round - you work it out; I listen. Assume that I am intelligent and knowledgeable about the world. I have no preference for how you debate except I believe that everyone should be courteous and respectful. I feel like I can keep up with most debates, if you are too fast or too mumbly, I will let you know verbally.

For evidence debates, even if you use speechdrop or some other way to give me a copy of your evidence, I believe it is your job to read the arguments in a way that I can understand without me reading along with you. I don't like having to read the arguments myself.

Tony Escalante - Hired Judge T.H.

n/a

Travis Dollosso - LPC

My judging philosophy is that I am not a debate judge. I coach individual events including persuasive speeches. I generally understand the premises of persuasion.

I am in no way familiar with debate norms, language and rules. Be as crystal clear with sign posting and structure of the speech as possible.

Your delivery is essential to your success in your rounds. Speak slowly and do not rush through the speech to unpack as much content as possible. You will lose me completely.

Explain very specifically in your closing speech why you think you won the debate. And, please for the love of all that is good and holy, do not use debate language, jargon or terminology.

IPDA was created for and meant to be evaluated by NON-Forensic people. If we (the audience) need to be trained to simply understand what youre talking about, then, sadly, youre doing it wrong.

Looking forward to seeing/hearing what you have to say..even more looking forward to being able to understand it.

Trent Webb - Hofstra

n/a

Tyler Sasabuchi - Solano CC

Hello! Tl;Dr at bottom for those panic checking paradigms during prep. Longer version: Ive
done debate, parli + IPDA, you wont lose me with jargon or theory stuff, most likely I can
keep up with your speed but make sure its still legible and actual words. If your opponents
ask you to slow or clear, do. Debate needs to be accessible. I vote on T+K. On T, I prefer
proven abuse, but will buy potential abuse if you can provide a very clear and solid line of
thinking to the abuse. For K make sure your K is logically consistent, and use examples that
actually support it. Not the biggest fan of pie-in-the-sky theory Ks (vote neg to embrace fate,
out there multi-verse theory) but in rare cases maybe. I prefer on/off case direct clash, and
love weird or off the wall stories to get to impacts, as long as the story makes sense and has
good impacts. If youve got weird stuff you want to try, please feel free. I will be mostly tabula
rasa, barring very obvious things (dont tell me the sky is purple and expect me to fully buy
that without significant evidence). Love historical examples to support points. Please enjoy
yourselves and have a good time, a bit of humor goes a long way in a round, but isnt
necessary.
Tl;Dr seasoned debater, ok with jargon/speed, dont mind theory. T doesnt need proven
abuse, but potential needs strong through-line. K is fine, but make sure It has logical
consistency, and lets not get too crazy with theory. Big fan of clash, prefer it to theory, you
can run whatever wild stuff you feel like as long is makes sense. Be nice and polite to each
other, preferably lets have some fun so we dont go insane.

Tyson Tran - LPC

n/a

Veda Dean - Sacramento

n/a

Wes Christensen - CPH

n/a

Zachary Jordan - LPC

n/a

Zoraya Kai - Lewis & Clark

n/a

2026 Talk Hawk Invitational (18th Annual!)

Tournament Time: 4:17 PM Pacific

Judge Philosophies

Adriana Hernandez - Santa Rosa

Alan Fishman - Hired Judge T.H.

Alex Paez - Hired Judge T.H.

Alexis Litzky - CCSF

Alisa Osborne - Hofstra

Aly Grever - CPH

Alyx Dickson - Lewis & Clark

Amy Furber-Dobson - LPC

Andrea Grillo - LPC

Andrew Morgan - DVC

Angela Ohland - Butte

Angelica Guzman - UOP

Anju Vriksha - FTC

Anna Faalogoifo - Hired Judge T.H.

Annie Koruga - UC Berkeley

Annie Moore - LPC

Arielle White - Delta

Ben Mann - Lewis & Clark

Bill Lucio - Harper College

Brandon Wood - COD

Brendan Sullivan - LPC

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

Carson Moreland - Lewis & Clark

Charlie Burrowes - CPH

Claire Aguiar - LPC

Clay Miller - Mt. SAC

Corey Norton - LPC

Cynthia Ross - LPC

Cyril Bhooma Goud - SJSU

Dan Crawford - LPC

Danny Cantrell - Mt. SAC

Dasha Spivak - LPC

David Valadez - LPC

Deborah Bauer - Hired Judge T.H.

Diana Navarro-Kleinschmidt - Hired Judge T.H.

Diego Paez - Hired Judge T.H.

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

Elana Boyd - LPC

Eric Fletcher - FCC

Ethan German - CPH

Ethan Stern - Deb@Davis

Ethan Percival - Deb@Davis

Evan Moreno - CPH

Frances Hui - LPC

Garry Lee - FTC

Gemma Caruso - CPH

Hannah Branch - Nevada

Harish Rao - Hired Judge T.H.

Harry Schulte - EPCC

Isha Roy - LPC

Jackie Blair - Sacramento

Jacob Montez - LPC

Jared Anderson - Sacramento

Jay Villanueva - Nevada

Jedi Curva - Mt. SAC

Jeff Przybylo - Harper College

Jim Suth - Hired Judge T.H.

Joel Chmara - CLC

Joey Barrows - Delta

John Schultz - Tallahassee

Jonathan Du - LPC

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

Josh Montez - LPC

Joshua Hevert - EPCC

Josue De Leon - Santa Rosa

Kaitlyn White - LPC

Kanan Prashar - Ohlone College

Karen Cornwell - Santa Rosa

Kim Yee - SJSU

Kim Yee - Ohlone College

Kirsti Copeland - FTC

Kloe Situ - LPC

Kye McDougal - Hofstra

Kyle Barber - Bellevue College

Kyle Johnson - LPC

Kyle Landrum - Chico State

Lindsay Walsh - SJSU