Judge Philosophies

Aaron Fullman - CSULB


Alicia Batice - PCC


Andrea Sanchez - SDSU

Hello! My name is Andrea, and I am a former debater of SDSU and Palomar College. As a tl;dr:

Tell me how to evaluate arguments. Please let me know how I can help to make the round a safe and accessible space. Give a clear link/impact scenario; why is your Ã??Ã?¢??nuke warÃ??Ã?¢?? scenario actually going to happen? What does this mean in the scope of the debate? Speed is fine, but be clear. IÃ??Ã?¢??m not too fond of econ debates, so guide me through it friends! Kritiks and procedurals are great, but I also like traditional case/policy debates. IÃ??Ã?¢??ll listen to just about anything Ã???Ã??Ã? as long as itÃ??Ã?¢??s not ableist, racist, sexist, queerphobic, etc. If you disregard this and are very toxic in round, it will reflect in your speaker points. Perms can be advocacies if you tell me they are. I donÃ??Ã?¢??t believe DAÃ??Ã?¢??s (especially tics DAÃ??Ã?¢??s) can be permed. In essence; be organized, tell me where youÃ??Ã?¢??re winning, and compare impacts.

  • Speed: IÃ??Ã?¢??m okay with speed, but clarity is of high importance. ItÃ??Ã?¢??s not worth potentially making a lot of arguments if your opponents or I are saying Ã??Ã?¢??clearÃ??Ã?¢?? or Ã??Ã?¢??speedÃ??Ã?¢?? every 30 seconds (which would likely affect your speaker points). Volume and clarity can also help make the round more accessible (in more than one regard).

  • Procedurals: TheyÃ??Ã?¢??re great! A debate about framing and the words we use can be very persuasive depending on the impacts you choose to derive from it (c/kritical args can be very fun to make in rounds with procedurals/theory). Make sure you tell me how to evaluate this position; just because you say Ã??Ã?¢??A PrioriÃ??Ã?¢?? doesnÃ??Ã?¢??t mean I will prioritize the argument; why is it important for articulated or potential abuse? Explain why I should fault to competing interps (if you choose to make that arg). Repeat your interps.

  • Framework: IÃ??Ã?¢??m down for a framework debate. If a counter framework is presented, the other side should address it. If there are two frameworks floating around and nobody tells me how they interact or frame the impacts, I will be very annoyed (it will mean that I have to do some of that work at the end of the round, and nobody wants that).

  • Kritiks: Kritik debates can be very fun! DonÃ??Ã?¢??t be afraid to test out a weird or new K in front of me. Affirmative kritiks arenÃ??Ã?¢??t unwelcome; please explain your reasoning for rejecting the topic, or using the K as a method for discussing the resolution. Performance args are fine. I expect the other team to ask, though, if the performance is the method/ advocacy. Alts (just like CPÃ??Ã?¢??s) are permmable if done correctly.

CP�?�¢??s: Please say why your CP is mutually exclusive. PICs are not so fun/not the most competitive counter plans you could be running.

Andrea Brown - St. Mary's

LD Philosophy:

Open specific:

I don't do well with speed over the internet. Your tags and cites need to be read at a slow pace. You can go as fast as you want in your cards but everything else needs to be at least three steps below your normal pace.

I've been out of LD for a while now and am not familuar with the current norms. I will try to go with whatever norms you want although that's always debateable.. If you're going to argue I have to vote on the rules, I would prefer that you give a reason why I should care about rules but I'll vote on it unless the other side argues that differently.

If there's something I missed because of my internet or yours, I will try to let you know at the end of that speech. If there's a prefered norm to handle this, let me know before the round starts when both you are your competitor are present.

Only the bottom paragraph of my parli philosophy applies to LD.

Novices: Assuming you're not super-fast, you'll be fine.

Parli Philosophy

Important: If you want me to prioratize truth over tech, please say this in the first speech. I will listen to arguments against truth over tech, but I will analyze them through a truth framework.

What's cool:

People or theory that I'm a little familiar with and like: Eve Tuck, Tiffany Lethabo King, Spinoza, Gilles Deleuze (although I'm finding Jodi Byrd's argument persuasive, so maybe not focus on the rhizomatic/lines of flights parts but there's still a lot of cool Deleuze left.) Christina Sharpe, some of Sylvia Winters, some community-written disability theory (spoon theory is a good example of this). There's more but that's probably enough for you to get sense of the direction I go in. Note: just because I say I a little familiar and like them doesn't mean I know your relationship to the above folks so don't take shortcuts and assume I'll understand or follow.

There's a lot of really good K arguments out there that I'm less familiar but would love to learn more about so run whatever you want. Even if it's not my cup of tea, I'll vote for it.

Straight up:

I'm cool with straight up but please frame it within antiblackness and/or colonization and/or capitalism or some other structuring event. Tell me the story of how investor confidence is connected to legacies/continuations of extracting resources or pushing out labor or whatever. If you're going to run it, own what you're advocating for and move on. If you're if ideologically opposed to the structure/event framing, that's cool, I've got issues with it too, just frame your arguments within the context of a larger history. If you don't, I won't vote you down necessarily, but you'll be at the low end of my speaker point range (28/28.1).

Speed and decision making:

I'm fine with speed and speed Ks. I will tank your speaks below the 28 threshold if you don't slow down for a team that calls slow. In the MO/LOR/PMR you need go at least two steps slower than your top speed and pick the arguments that matter. Stop extending everything. I start my round analysis with the team that has the conceptually clearer rebuttal, see if I think they've won the arguments they claim they have, and then go through the other team's rebuttal. If you don't funnel your arguments through the role of the ballot, I might do that for you, and I've voted teams down for losing under their own role of the ballot.

Random stuff:

I don't need proven abuse to vote on theory but in a close framework debate, I tend to lean towards justice over fairness. I'm usually a flow judge (offense over defense warrants over none) but if that's a bad way of evaluating your arguments, I'm happy to switch to something else just walk me through what you want me to do. I will keep flowing because if I don't, I will forget your arguments/performance/whatever. I've never voted for presumption and if you go for presumption, you're probably already losing. If you tell me to gut check my arguments, I will and my gut will tell me I'm hungry. If you tell me to use my intuition, I will but I will not confine my intuition to one argument so be prepared for those consequences. I fundamentally don't believe contradictions are a thing for the K perm so if you're neg, you need DA(s) to the perm not reasons why it won't work. I'm working on protecting in the rebuttals but only for very big things, if you think it's small but key, call the point of order. Frankly, I would prefer if you didn't trust me and just called it. At the end of a debate day, I am usually exhausted so my capacity to put my decision into words goes way down. If that's you, I'm sorry and you can catch me later and ask me to explain better if you want.

Will vote you down over:

I saw something in lila lavender's philosophy and really liked it so I'm adding a version of it. I reserve the right to vote you down for being overtly oppressive. This means if you say racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, Islamophobic, etc stuff, I reserve the right to vote you down. If you do any of those things directly to your competition, I definitely reserve the right to vote you down. However, there's a chance if a competitor does this in a way that outsiders might not realize is violent, nonverbally, or during crosstalk, I won't catch/process it happening during the round so if this is happening in-round, I prefer you pointing that out.

Andrew Eilola - BUST


Autumn Zimmerman - KWU


Ayden Loeffler - El Camino

T - If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well. SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively. CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. Collapse - Please collapse.

Barbara Brawn - DVC


Bart Aikman - College of the Can


Christian Geddes - El Camino

Claire McAlister - Butte


David Sylva - Simpson


Dawn Lowry - GMU


Deano Pape - Simpson


Destinee Sior - MCCC S&D

Hello! My name is Destinee Sior and I am a debate coach for Maricopa Community College. I just have a few things to say about how I view the wonderful world of debate, and my method on judging. For starters- no matter the type of debate- I will always want you to do what you do best, what you feel comfortable with, and debate in whichever way makes you happy. 

I do not mind if you do critical or policy oriented debate. I enjoy listening to Ks and I really enjoy just straight policy cases. Whichever one you choose, all I ask is that you give me a solid structure and you stick to it. Sloppy debate is one of my biggest pet peeves. Please make it easy for me to follow you so I can get everything you say down on paper. I donâ??t care for the double-clutching speed debate, but I can typically flow well if you want to spread. However-- just because, I can flow it does not mean your opponent can. If you are asked to â??clearâ?? you need to SLOW DOWN. I do not care for Kâ??s ran out of the affirmative, but if you want to party please have a solid link story. Negative strats should include an interrogation of the affirmative, as well as their own case. I will not gut check your arguments for you, please do not ask me to do that. Tell me why dropped arguments are important. I love impact calc ❤ Weigh your impacts on timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Give me voters / reasons to prefer. I think it is the job of the debater to make my job easy, but also have fun. I loved debate and you should debate the way you love. 

IPDA-- For the IPDA debaters, please understand I have a Parli and LD background. With that being said, I understand that IPDA is not Parli nor LD. Therefore, please do not debate as such. My judging philosophy for this though is roughly the same-- structure, structure, structure. Give me a solid impact story. Do not just say â??lives savesâ? â??improves ecosystemâ? -- what does that MEAN? Why does it matter? How are you weighing it against your opponent? Do not just rely on me to do the work for you. Give me lots and lots of warrants, I love evidence. Most importantly, letâ??s have some fun.

Dylan McIlveyna-Davis - DVC


Edward Minasyan - RioRunners

Ethan Besser Fredrick - Simpson


Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners

The most important criteria for me is fairness. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point.  Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon)

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them.Ã? Ã? If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD.

I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.

I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. 

Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)


Greg Gorham - GCU

Hannah Haghighat - OCC

In debate, I want to see clash! The worst kind of debates happen when it results in 2 ships passing in the night. Make sure you have impacts and clash! I will vote a lot of times based off impacts so provide them and have solid voters in your rebuttal speeches. Make sure you have clear structure and signpost.
I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. Be kind and respectful towards one another. I prefer good on case argumentation over procedural arguments that are run in order to avoid on case analysis. However, if you do feel as though the opposing team is being unfair to you, or ran something that warrants a procedural argument I will accept it. If you are running a procedural argument make sure you run it properly and respond to it properly.
Also, part of being a good debater is in presenting arguments in order to be persuasive, so make sure you are not spreading and speaking too quickly. That is not persuasive! Talk like a human. I do prefer that you stand while speaking, just like you would during a speech. When it comes to partner to partner communication, if it is your team member that is speaking I am okay with it, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches, pass notes instead. Ultimately, I want to experience a fun, constructive, and respectful debate.

Jessica Jung - Parli at Berkeley


My name is Jessica Jung. I won NPDA in 2018-2019 with my partner, Lila Lavender as a hybrid team (the first all transwomen national champion team yay!!) I also did NPDA Parli for four years in college for UC Berkeley where I competed on and off. I was mostly a kritikal debater personally but I dabbled in case and theory every so often. I generally believe that debate is a game and should be treated like one. This means that I am content agnostic (for the most part and with a few exceptions such as instances of violence in the round) and that I see debate from a more technical standpoint. Technical debate was what I learned at Cal and is what I am most familiar with and thus, that tends to affect my judging. That being said, one of my goals in debate when I competed was to turn debate into a spectacle (whether that was good or not has yet to be seen) but as such, I am very open to new arguments, new types of debate and pushing the envelope for what NPDA parli is or could be. That being said, anything that is new takes some getting used to so don't be surprised if I find these cool new novel arguments difficult to evaluate.

A few personal requests:

1. Please read trigger warnings or content warnings before discussing any topics related to sexual violence. Please do so before the round and not at the top of the PMC so that if I or anyone else in the room needs to take a second, or abstain from the debate, there is a moment to exercise some amount of personal privilege.

2. Do not misgender your opponents, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "they" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponents" in the round as I find using people's first names in the round to be kind of uncomfortable.

3. I would prefer you do not give me a "shout out" or refer to my personal history during your speech or during debates. Not sure exactly how to phrase it but I find it uncomfortable for debaters to refer to me via first name or reference my debate history in the round. Before or after is fine, we can make small talk etc but please just don't be weird about it during the round.

4. Please debate however makes you the most comfortable, I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand, what you wear etc as long as you're respectful of your opponents and your partner.

TL;DR fine with theory, Kâ??s, case, explain your arguments with warrants and explicit implications, will default to tech evaluation on the flow, donâ??t be bad to your opponents

Evaluative Framework:

- I'm comfortable with case, theory, K's etc. I'm fairly content agnostic in this regard.

- I'm fairly comfortable with speed but if I call clear or slow, please heed these requests, otherwise I will just miss things on the flow because I can't write fast enough.

- I evaluate the debate based on the flow, which generally means I will vote in whatever way minimizes my intervention in the round. I think that some amount of judge intervention is inevitable but I will still aim to make decisions with the least amount of intervention possible.

- I stole this from Trevor Greenan but we got a similar debate education so this should be totally justifiable: I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing
5. arguments I am more familiar with

- In round articulation of arguments is very important. Even if conceded arguments have certain potential implications for the round, unless those implications are made explicit or within the original reading of the argument, I am unwilling to grant you those implications as that feels interventionist. This generally means you should be more explicit than not. This applies to: concessions, extensions, impacts, weighing etc.

- I generally don't like voting on blippy arguments or underdeveloped arguments especially if these arguments are just claims with no warrants or impacts. I have a high threshold for these types of arguments and am also willing to grant late responses if the original argument or its explanation was unclear or massively underdeveloped.

- I do not grant shadow extensions, or at the very least, treat them as new arguments. This means that arguments not extended by the MG cannot be leveraged in the PMR, arguments not extended by the MO cannot be leveraged in the LOR etc. While grouped/blanket extensions are fine, for example if an entire advantage/DA is dropped or extending a section of the flow like all the impacts, but for the most part if you want anything specific from these extensions you should do them in the MG/MO. This also includes new cross applications from extended arguments onto other sheets/layers of the debate as these cross-apps should have been done by the MG/MO.

- I protect against new arguments but you should call Point of Orders just in case as I am not perfect and can/may miss things.

- I have a high threshold for voting on presumption and presumption is a portion of debate I may not be the most comfortable on. I'm still willing to evaluate the layer, just don't assume that I'm following your presumption collapse 100%.

- I don't mind conditionality. That being said, my preference is towards less wide, more tall/deep debates but whatever floats your boat.

Argument Specifics:


- have a stable and clear interp text
- read theory arguments with explicit voters
- if not explicitly articulated, I will default to drop the argument
- I default to competing interpretations
- read brightlines for reasonability
- generally friv T is fine by me but I'll be honest and say I don't find friv theory debates to be all that interesting
- I might have a lower threshold for voting on RVI's than other judges on the circuit but I am still generally unwilling to pull the trigger on them unless they're substantively developed, even if its conceded (see the point about implications/explanations above)
- if standards are not articulated in substantively different ways or are not given different implications (like terminalizing out to fairness or education) then I am unwilling to auto-vote on a conceded standard if the other similar standards have answers to them or if the other team has some amount of mitigation.


- sequencing arguments such as prior questions or root cause claims need to be warranted and substantively explained as well as interacted with the other portions of the debate
- clear links please, not links of omission, try and make them specific to the 1ac
- I evaluate links via strength of link. comparative work on the links done by the debaters would make me really happy! be sure to weigh relinks and links against each other
- rejecting the resolution in front of me is fine as long as you defend and justify your choice
- I believe that I can follow along with most K arguments you read in front of me but don't assume I'm intimately familiar with the literature
- do not assume that because I did mostly kritikal debate in college that I am exclusively a K hack, if anything I am likely to expect a lot from K debates and may have higher evaluative thresholds for K's because that's what I am most familiar with. that being said, I love kritiks so feel free to run them in front of me.
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the alt are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- I'll evaluate/vote on severance permutations if there is substantive explanation and if there's no argument why severance is bad/unfair.


- not sure if there's really such a thing as terminal defense but am still willing to buy these arguments
- prefer less generic case arguments than not (who doesn't really) but am still fine with your generic advantages and DAs.
- more specific and warranted the better
- CPs need to stable texts
- I evaluate permutations as a test of competition and not advocacies unless told otherwise. I also prefer to have explicit perm texts and I'm talking like "permutation: do both" as a fine example of an explicit text. Just saying the plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive does not count as a perm argument.
- PICs/cheater CP's are fine with me but so is PICs bad and CP theory

Joey Barrows - UOP

I competed in LD for two years, and did Parli for one. I don't have much of a bias towards any particular strategy. I am willing to vote on pretty much anything if it's winning on the flow. If I'm having a problem with speed I will let you know.

Kelly Hutchison - UOP

Read what ever you want, I am willing to listen to any argument, critical or topical affs. I like framework arguments, but make sure that they have impacts and flush them out. I wont do extra work for you, that means you need to make extensions. Please make sure that you have evidence to back up your claims, and then give analysis. Debates without evidence are boring and not as educational.

Kristen Stout - Crowder


Kylie Burmeister - Simpson


Li-Ren Chang - CSULB


Megan Koch - DVC


Meredith Mountjoy - DVC


Michael Starzynski - DVC


Nathan Steele - CCSF


Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU

Noelle Anderson - Moorpark


Patricia Hughes - RioRunners

When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.

� � � � � � � � � � �  When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters.

I am not a fan of Kâ??s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge Kâ??s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For Kâ??s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.� 

� � � � � � � � � � �  I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped. � 


While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.� 

Paul Villa - DVC

I enjoy evaluating debates centered around the desirability of an inherent, solvent, and reasonably topical affirmative advocacy in comparison to the status quo or one or more unconditional negative advocacies at a rate that is accessible to me and all competitors in the round and which avoids sophistry.

I donâ??t always get to watch debates that maximize my joy, despite this, I still end up making a decision at the end of these less joyous rounds. That decision almost without fail goes the team/debater that collapses to as few core issues as possible and gives me a cohesive picture of how those issues result in a ballot for them or their team, regardless of if a technical analysis of every single argument on the flow would have otherwise resulted in a ballot for the other team. I very much believe it is the debater's job to make my job as easy as possible by resolving the debate for me. I also refuse to vote on any position I canâ??t explain at the end of the debate, especially the solvency mechanism.

Here is a list of things that are unlikely to win my ballot:

Deploying tactics which deny accessibility to your opponent

Non-topical Affs

Conditional Advocacies

Framing out Fairness or Education or saying they are non-unique

Advocacies and arguments of all kinds that I donâ??t understand

3 second spikes in the early speeches that becomes several minutes long in the back half of the debate

Frivolous theory, if you have to ask it is probably frivolous

Being really mean

Strategies which rely on arguments which are not uttered by the speaker during their speech

Paxton Attridge - Cal State LA

In NPDA, I find clear warranting in-case and impact calculus very helpful, particularly direct comparison between the world each side's impacts create. I am more than fine following quick speed in delivery, though clarity is still appreciated in both delivery and argumentation (the latter particularly within rebuttal). Argumentative consistency helps me in adjudicating, and so clear disclaimer regarding which arguments within cases are being addressed or rebutted is very useful. In line with this organization's values, I value more critically-directed debate, though this approach does not necessarily require argumentative structures idiosyncratic to NPDA or other forms of debate. I believe that the debate space should be safe for protected populations, and behavior that threatens these populations will be at the very least remarked upon on the ballot, and may impact my judging decision if egregious. My familiarity in debate is more philosophically and policy-directed, though arguments making other appeals will still receive full consideration.

Randy Cox - UT Austin


Robert Hawkins - DVC

Ryan Corso-Gonzales - El Camino

Judging Paradigm

Ryan Corso Pronouns: He/Him/His


I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California, and one-time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there, I competed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. My senior year, my partner Benji and I, took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I am now a student at the University of Louisville, I'm getting my masterâ??s in communication, my studies focus heavily on Marxism, Neoliberalism, The Public Sphere, and Networking.

I owe all my knowledge in debate and my success to my amazing coaches, mentors and teammates that helped me through my career most significantly Amanda Ozaki-Laughon, Joe Ozaki-Laughon, Benjamin Lange, Alyson Escalante, and Judith Teruya.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow centric judge. Debate is a game; you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I am open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, fascists args, etc) just be prepared to justify your actions, and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran policy args, just as much as I ran kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most. I think people on the circuit would have referred to me as a K debater, yet I would not have.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I love learning new things (Policy, Kritiks and even theory) so you can feel free to use me as a test for a new kritik or position, I'm not affiliated with any school atm, and I just want to experience debates where people talk about what they want to talk about.


I default to policy making good framework, if both teams accept this then great, however, this doesn't mean critical arguments don't operate within that framework. Policy debates should consist of advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact structure, because I believe it provides the clearest format for debate. I am very familiar with other structures for policy debates as well. Value and Fact rounds do exist and provide unique educational and fairness aspects to them (this probably has to do with my CC background).


Theory is the most important aspect to debate in my view. A good theory consist of a clear interp, and an unique violation that explains the operative nature of that interp. Standards, are not tag lines, this is the substantial aspect of theory. There is a very good lecture on NPTE 14 (youtube) about how standards consist of Links, Internal links and Impacts. Fairness and Education are the only two competitive impacts that I have heard in regards to theory. Do not just read tag lines on in theory debates, I will not fill in arguments for you. Each round is specific and this should be clear in your reading or responding to theoretical positions.


You need a CLEAR link to the AFF, or the topic, for me to even consider voting for you! I will not do the work for you filing in your links. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round. You do not get to win just because you read a Kritik, you need adequate links in order to win, and an alternative or advocacy that resolves the impacts identified. (This means I'm more then willing to not vote on a kritik that has adequate forms of terminal defense against it. If I believe there isn't an adequate explanation of a link I will not vote on the K.)

If you believe your kritik is complicated, please have a thesis portion! I am a firm believer in providing a thesis for kritiks. Almost all the kritiks I wrote had an in-depth thesis. I enjoy complicated kritiks, and at the end of my career I even began to utilize Kritiks without frameworks, so I understand how a well written kritik has the potential to operate in that manner.

Kritiks are a great method to layering the debate, it doesn't mean that all other impacts are invalid just that new framework arguments are needed to balance or relayer the debate. Please make sure your impacts are terminal and do impact comparison and make sequencing arguments in the rebuttals, even if you believe that you have out framed your opponents.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Nietzsche, Reps and Rhetoric. (This doesn't mean read these Ks in front of me, I am much more open to the idea of voting down a bad K shell, then I am picking up a bad K because it's relatable.)

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, I view it as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. An easy way to think about this is in regards to Ethos, Pathos and Logos. I value Ethos and Logos far greater than Pathos. While all are essential to argument making, I don't find pathos as compelling in the debate setting. I give speaker points based on the idea "Who ever did the best debating".

Fair warning:

* I will clear or slow you if I feel like I need to.

* I do NOT vote on RVI's, they are illegitimate arguments and I will dock speaker points if you read them in front of me!

* Substantial engagement, or whatever this theory arg was called, is NOT an impact! You will not pick up a ballot from me be reading this, it is an internal link to Fairness and Education. If you decide to collapse to a theory shell with this as your only impact, you can just assume you already lost the round.

* Solvency deficit is not a compelling theory position; this is defense at best. Attempting to turn a defensive argument into an offensive position is not how you win that argument. This falls into the category of relabeling arguments in manners that they do not function. I believe this is bad for debate and creates "improper" forms of education which only harms the event.

* DO NOT LIE in round, I feel that debate is first an educational event, I do feel that it's appropriate to fact check people in round if I believe they are lying, or just factually incorrect.

* DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents.

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. Therefore, I do not believe that debate is a space for you to impose or weaponize certain religions or religious, or other non-falsifiable content. For instance, I do not feel educated enough on these matters and or comfortable being put into a spot affirming or disaffirming your faith in a certain religion. I think it's also probably disingenuous to weaponize a religion that you do not believe in within the debate space.

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I don't know what these kritiks are being labeled these days, but I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person (especially at a national tournament). This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, because I will. Being able to witness the link occur is a lot more of a viable link argument in my opinion then one team claiming things happened outside of the round, or in the past. If have no way to validate an argument I therefore won't feel comfortable voting on something. Please don't expect me to already "know" (I'm removed from the debate community for the most part), also please don't attempt to prove something occurred to me. Also, I feel very compelled by apologies as a method to resolve the kritik, for in most instances I've seen this run, I think? I know this is probably a controversial opinion and that's ok with me, if these kritiks are viable and important strategies to you as a debater I think you're better off striking me. Sorry...

Side note:

I am 2 years removed from debate, I do not watch debate rounds frequently and very rarely engage in conversations about debate. I'm sure not as strong at flowing or keeping up with speed as I used to be. Please keep that in mind when debating in front of me.

I will do my best to weigh the round in the manner I think is most fair in regard to how you present them. I will try my best to vote for the team I think won... I guess that's all I can do.

If you think my decision is wrong please feel free to talk to me about it. I won't hold grudges for people defending positions they had in rounds. Debate is a very passionate event, I was a very passionate debater, and I think that's a beautiful aspect about debate! That being said there is a difference between being a passionate debater and a jerk in round, I don't think you should belittle your opponents in debate, but you can question me. It is my job to vote for the team I think won, and I believe it is part of a judges job to defend and explain their decision in the instance that occurs.


Note to Seniors: Your success in debate does not in any way correlate with your worth as a person! Debate is a GAME! This should be a fun experience and I hope you make as many friends as possible in debate and cherish every moment with your teammates and opponents. Some of the most incredible people I have ever met have come into my life because of debate and I hope that applies to you. Please try to have fun, don't hold grudges and enjoy every moment. The real world is so different then the debate world and I hope your transition from the debate world is smooth and incredible! I've realized that so much of what I thought was important and damning in debate has very little value outside of that echo chamber. That's not always for the best, but it is the reality. Stay friendly, humble, and smart moving forward in life! I wish the Best of Luck to everyone who leaves this community!


Sam Jones - GCU

Bio: I am a recent graduate and debated 4 yrs of NPDA at Point Loma Nazarene University and I'm currently Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

If you ask your coach if they know who I am I bet they'll say: "eh, he can flow"

I see debate as an educational activity first, but I also acknowledge and admire the game of it too. I like seeing well constructed strategies being executed effectively: complete PMC's, fleshed out shells, offensive arguments and COLLAPSING :)

Speed: Speed seems to be fine. Idk about online so depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, I don't mind your aggressive strategy or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. It forces me to be more critical in my evaluations and it is of my opinion that people that resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk

Straight up debate: I'll admit I have a sweet spot for straight up rounds, but it's more because I'm just a sucker for fundamentals in debate. Many "K" debaters end up completely forgetting how to run a regular plan without it being a soft-left aff and get shook at a little bit of solvency mitigation. Like I said, I just like good debate straight up or not.

Condo: I really don't see condo as an issue. I think generally it makes for a round with a higher competitive ceiling when this is treated as a given, but like I've said before, I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if its argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. I know some people have an ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy. I also don't mind answering questions at all, but you might see a knock if you try to post-round me

Advice: Don't argue like I do with my girlfriend because you won't win.

Sasan Kasravi - DVC

TL;DR: I won't punish you for not debating the way I like, but I can't "hang". Speed and Ks not recommended, but I won't vote you down unless your opponent gives me a decent reason to. Give me direct and clear reasons to vote for you. Have fun in the round.

I'm a community college Parliamentary Debate coach.

I protect the flow in rebuttals based on what I have on my flow. Feel free to call points of order if you'd really like to, though.

I do my best to vote the way the debaters tell me to and to be tabula rasa. With that having been said, I think everyone has biases and I want to tell you mine. I won't ignore any of your arguments out of not liking them, but my biases could lower the threshold for refutation on an argument I dislike.

What I like to see most in debates is good clash. To me, good clash means link refutations and impact comparisons.

I'm comfortable with theory and you can run whatever procedural you'd like. I prefer to vote on articulated abuse rather than potential abuse. While I'm happy to vote on procedurals if it's called for, I've never walked out of a round thinking, "Wow! What a great T!"

I don't like K's. I've voted on them before, I'll probably end up having to vote for a K again, but I'm not happy about it. Specifically, I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard.

I prefer that you don't spread, but I can keep up with decent speed. I'll tell you to slow if I need you to slow down.

Please be inclusive of your opponents and (if there are other judges in this round) the other judges on the panel.

It's important to me that this activity:

a) be a useful experience for competitors' lives outside of forensics

b) be enjoyable enough to be worth giving up weekends instead of sleeping in and watching cartoons.

Lastly, if I make jokes please pretend to think I'm funny. I don't have much else going for me.

Sav Price - KWU


Shanae Wong - DVC


Shayan Saadat - El Camino

Steven Farias - UOP


Updates: My threshold to vote on theory has decreased. Proven abuse is not a necessity on T, though it is preferred. Also, my thoughts on role of the ballot has changed under my section for K's.

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; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on theory except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually 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 IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BESIDES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK which I think it does.

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

K debate- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality 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 provied 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 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. Also, please do not make myself or your competitors uncomfortable. If they ask you to stop your position because it emotionally disturbs them, please listen. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not. I believe you should be able to run 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 competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either. Caveat- I think that negative teams should remember that a contextual definition IS A DEFINITION and I consider multiple, contradictory definitions from an affirmative abusive (so make Aff doesnt meet its own interp arguments).

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations 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 my ballot on theory.

Counterplans- CPs are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that We Bite Less is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not in the end prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. This means if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the CP should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. 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.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as 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.


Sue Peterson - CSU Chico

Updated 9/8/18

I am now primarily judging NFA-LD.

PARLI: If you have me as a parli critic, know that it is not my strength nor my favorite style of debate. I just think that referencing evidence with no ability to check the accuracy of your reference makes it difficult to evaluate conflicting arguments, but I will do my best. Having well-warranted arguments beyond just a source (so explaining the warrant, not just naming the source and claim) will help your efforts. I can flow pretty fast debate, but without evidence, the arguments sometimes come fast and furious and I can't write or type that fast, so slow down a bit if you want everything on my flowsheet at the end of the speech.


As far as argumentative preference, performance debates are not really my cup of tea. I like critical arguments and I'm relatively familiar with the literature, but if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. But, I think claiming some methodological advantage to a certain plan is fine and the negative is free to critique it up if they so choose, as long as they in some way specifically engage the affirmative's arguments (usually better if it is the affirmative's arguments and not just the resolution or the status quo, but that is debatable).

I do not enjoy nasty debates where people ad-hom each other, yell at each other, or otherwise argue instead of debate. I think debate should be enjoyable for both the debaters and me -- so be nice and have fun. And if your opponents are not nice, don't get sucked into the evil...maintain your composure.

Rebuttals are key. Make sure you take the time to explain your arguments, how they should be impacted in the debate, how they compare to the other team's.


I am no longer inclined to read much evidence, but if you want me to read evidence because of it being a focus of controversy in the round, identify the evidence by author AND warrant - not just author. I want to know WHAT to read and WHY I'm reading it. I prefer to hear the evidence and hear the explanations and vote on that because debate is about oral argumentation. So, I won't read anything unless I feel like I have to in order to be fair to both sides in the debate.

I am not prone to vote on "this is a rule" unless it is well-warranted. I get that LD has rules and I believe there are reasons for those rules, but I also believe that debaters should be able to articulate those reasons in a round in order to win on those arguments. So, if you are going to make arguments about what should be excluded in a round, be sure to provide warrants other than "its a rule". I am open to debaters asking others to speak more conversational in rounds as that is part of this activity's unique appeal, but I do think that you should be reciprocal - so don't ask for someone to slow down (or yell slow/clear during their speech) and then speak fast in your own speech.

I love a good T debate. Most pre-round questions seem to focus on in-round abuse and competing interps, so I will say here that I think both those arguments are things that can be debated out in the round. I don't HAVE to have in-round abuse, but I'm open as to why I shouldn't evaluate Ts that don't prove it. My default is competing interpretations, BUT if the affirmative is obviously topical under the negative's interpretation and explains such, I don't think they HAVE to have a counterinterp.

If you have any other questions, let me know before the round begins!

Tyler Watkins - GMU


Will Seiler - Simpson