Judge Philosophies
Abbey Toye - ASU
n/a
Adam Kaminsky - COC
I welcome any style for debate so long as your argument is clear and structured. Good delivery is also a plus, so speaking loudly, at an appropriate tempo, and demonstrating some enthusiasm for your argument.
Agatha 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.
Alix Lopez - 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!
Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC
Bart Aikman - COC
Above all else, I look for a concise argument that has a clear, logical flow. Strong implementation of the principles of critical analysis (claim, support, impact, etc.) is also essential. Do not make unfounded logical leaps in your argument, utilize your sources, and be kind and generous to each other as competitors. Best of luck!
Blake Longfellow - DVC
I am primarily an IE coach and very much approach forensics (including debate) as a communication/persuasive activity. I approach debate with the mindset that all stories are arguments and all arguments are stories. With that said, the story which is the most internally cohesive (narrative probability) and that lines up across the debate (narrative fidelity) is likely to win my ballot.
Here is a list of things Paul Villa thinks you should know about debating in front of me:
- Truth over tech: Blake isn't flowing the debate like this is the national circuit, he is going to take minimal notes, you aren't going to win by pointing out some drop on the flow or technical analysis of the round.
- Don't spread. Like, at all. However fast you are thinking will be fine I'd go slower than that.
- Reading theory is a non-starter, if the other team isn't topical just tell Blake they aren't topical and explain why that means they should lose the debate without getting all technical.
- Blake would probably vote on a K, especially a performance one, assuming it made sense to him in the round.
- Less is more, the more simple the path to the ballot for you the more likely Blake is to vote for you.
Bob Becker - NWC
As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.
When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.
I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.
Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.
As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.
I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.
Brianna Vigoa - SCC
n/a
Camille Tournadre - SMC
Carter Reed - NWC
n/a
Cindy Gutierrez - Mt. SAC
-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If youre going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have someincrediblystrong evidence.
-Dont be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, dont ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.
Clara Adkins - Marshall
n/a
Connor Cuomo - OCC
n/a
Danny Cantrell - 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.
Edward Minasyan - RioRunners
When evaluating debate rounds I find that I look for structure and clarity of all arguments made. An argument without proper taglines or a response without signposting ends up being a thought thrown out with the hope that the judge or opponent flows it in the proper place.
I like to see topical affs who engage with the resolution, regardless of debate format, and negs who engage with the aff through DA, CP, T, and other arguments on case. Stock issues are extremely important to me in both Parli and NFA-LD. If you don't meet those burdens as an aff you will lose if the neg points it out. Fairness should be a priority for everyone, so take questions and be courteous to all.
NFA-LD specific things:You should come prepared to the rounds. That means making sure everyone has access to your case and any cards you read. It doesn't matter if it's a paper copy or on speechdrop.net. I believe that the rules matter, are important, and are the guidelines to competitors and judges in this event. That means stock issues are the most important voting issues, neg should have logically consistent arguments, and excessive speed will mean a loss.
General Notes:I like straight up debates and will almost never vote for K's just run without a truly justified reason. I think spread delivery actively hurts the competition of debate, so just don't do it in front of me if you want my ballot. Don't run excessive or abusive theory just to win a ballot in front of me. Try not to run apocolyptic impacts because they're never explained enough or convincing enough to be realistic. Probability > Magnitude. Don't lie or cheat.
Be nice, have fun.
Elyssa Hulse-Schultheiss - Saddleback
n/a
Frankie Marchi - ASU
n/a
Gregory Nunez - Mt. SAC
Hannah Haghighat - OCC
Jacqueline Yu - Mt. SAC
James Deiotte - UCSD
n/a
Jamie Whittington-Studer - Moorpark
I don't really like giving a philosophy because I think your education in this activity should not be limited/influenced by my preferences. I will adapt to the round and evaluate it based on the parameters set by the debaters. I'm not going to do any work for you----tell me where you want your arguments applied, weigh your impacts, stress where/why you are winning, etc. I value clash & accessibility in debate. Without accessibility, there can be no clash. I have no problems with speed or jargon, but please be courteous with your opponent (I probably won't clear you, but if your opponent does, you need to slow down.) Off-time roadmaps & a clear structure promote accessibility and make everyone's life easier. Just have fun & respect your opponent.
Jared Kubicka-Miller - SCC
I have been competing in, or coaching forensics for more than 20 years. I specialized in NPDA and limited preparation events, but I competed in most events, and I have coached them all. Since this philosophy is primarily for debaters to reference, I believe that any debate must start with a good faith effort to identify an issue that is fairly debatable. I consider it my job to judge who are the better debaters, not who is right. If I know you are factually wrong about an issue, I will only make that a part of my decision if your opponent points it out.
For the affirmative. It is not uncommon for debaters to mistake exclusionary practices as cleverness. I encourage unorthodox, and unpredictable approaches to topics, but I consider it a sign of weakness if debaters disregard a debate topic in order to introduce a "safe" case that they have practiced numerous times before. if you happen to get a topic that you are familiar with, good for you. But, I will give your opponent's a lot of latitude if it seems like you are using the privilege of speaking first as a way to revoke access to legitimate negative arguments.
For the negative. If you feel that your opponent is unfairly limiting access to the debate activity, it is not enough just to accuse them. There must be proof to back up the accusation. In other words, I expect you to explain the arguments you believe are legitimately, and exclusively afforded to the negative. And, by explain I do not mean to just give me a title of the argument, I expect a complete description. it should be clear how your arguments address the heart of the matter, and not just what you hoped to talk about.
Above all, I have little regard for debate tricks that have zero application outside of a round. Make sure you prepare arguments that are genuine, relevant, accurate, and rational. Do not rely exclusively on offense. Incorporate strategic defensive arguments and use them to mitigate your opponent's points. I rarely see debates won on 100% offense. Credibility matters, and might be the difference in a close round.
Jeannie Hunt - NWC
I want to be able to judge the round with very little intervention on my part. That means a couple of things. You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I dont care what that framework is, but I want one policymaking, critical, big picture, etc. That framework is what I will follow, so please dont set the round up as a stock round, and then ask me to look at the big picture at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end. I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene.
There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another. I will vote on pretty much anything, and I am game for pretty much anything. I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions. If you run a k, you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run. I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I dont have to spend time flowing it.
Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I dont have to abandon objectivity all together.
Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement like, go to the DA is fine. Making an argument that is then repeated is not.
Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesnt mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). You can at least take your hat off and make some eye contact. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument. Speed is not a problem if it is clear. PLEASE do not abuse flex time or add 20 minutes to an LD round through evidence exchange. This will make me grouchy and your points will suffer. You don't get to say flex will start when the other team has accomplished something or complied with a request - flex starts when the previous speech is over. Prep time doesn't stop only to take another 2 minutes to process evidence. Time limits exist for a reason.
Because I dont want to intervene, I dont appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldnt vote on new arguments. I wont. If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.
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.
Kathryn Fulhorst - UCSD
n/a
Kelsey Abele - ASU
n/a
Kelsey Devasure - IC
n/a
Maple Flores - SMC
Mario Garrido - OCC
n/a
Matt Grisat - RioRunners
Michael Love - COC
n/a
Nate Brown - SMC
Parli: I dislike spreading and speed in general. This event should develop desirable communication skills like any other. Speed is not good communication. I will not flow it and will vote against it.
Speaking points are about delivery skills, not about arguments. Be a good speaker to get high speaker points. Eye contact, gestures, vocal fillers, etc.
Everything is on-time. Road maps, introductions, ingratiations are all part of your time. Flex time is the opportunity for the next speaker to get ready. The next speech time will begin immediately at the end of the previous flex time. Partner communication should be minimal and should not interrupt the natural flow of a debate. The sitting partner should not interrupt the partner who is speaking unless necessary. And even then, not in the middle of their sentence.
IPDA: I shouldn't hear any NPDA jargon in IPDA. This is debate for a public audience and a lay judge. Arguments should sound and feel conversational. Delivery style (speaker points) should be much more appealing to a lay audience than in any other Forensics event. This is an event that values research and citations, so I should hear some clear source citation.
LD: Keep it slow for me. I can't follow speed.
Nick Graves - SMC
First, this is competitive debate; your arguments need to make sense and they need to persuade me. After that, I appreciate the creativity of arguments. I like to be surprised by the direction you went, especially when the topic is predictable or played out. I find highly technical rounds full of jargon to be tedious and not very fun to listen to. That's not to say I can't follow them or that I'll refuse to give you credit for them, just that I'll be bored.
Remember this is a game, so don't take yourself too seriously and treat your opponent with respect.
Nikki Overcash - IC
n/a
Noelle Anderson - Moorpark
I judge IPDA based on the arguments made in the round and
how each debater adapts while listening to their opponent. Additionally, I take
into account delivery and camaraderie. Please avoid debate jargon or talking so
fast that the audience cannot follow along.Â
Paul Medina - OCC
n/a
Payton Stillman - IC
n/a
Ralph Castellanos - SCC
IPDA: every argument should be digestible to a non-debater. Speak with eloquence and linguistic style. Cases should be organized in a manner in such a way that flowing comes with ease. Make it substantive but keep it simple. Cite your sources. Analyze the round. Winning my ballot means you gave an articulate analysis of the round in your rebuttal speech. In regard to evidence, a strong metaphor or narrative moves me more than a statistic.
NPDA: Be respectful. Be assertive but not aggressive. Be organized. Be easy to flow. I don't really vote for hypothetical examples and futuristic technology that doesn't exist. CP's should be non-topical. Res is the AFF's ground. Plan text matters. Cross-applying everything isn't enough. Link to your impacts. Articulate your impacts. Give impact analysis in rebuttal speeches. Explain how you outweigh. Give me explicit voters. Be engaging. I am not good with speed, you will lose me. I am happy to answer pre-round questions about how I jude.
Richard Andrus - UCSD
n/a
Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt. SAC
n /a
Rolland Petrello - Moorpark
As a debater, I competed in both NDT and CEDA, however, I left those forms of debate as a coach when I felt that they lacked any semblance of 'real-world' argumentation. I believe stock issues are labeled that way for a reason and I will weigh arguments around those issues heavily (even inherency on policy topics). I do not consider myself a 'games-theory' judge, nor do I consider myself purely 'Tabula Rasa'. I do not abandon my knowledge or common sense when I come into a debate round. This does not mean, however, that I am an 'interventionist.' I will only impose my thoughts/feelings into the round in the event that I am absolutely sure that arguments are erroneous.
One of the topline philosophies I bring to this activity is that I am an educator first and foremost. This means that if your approach to the debate undermines the educational experience for anyone in the round, it will probably result in a lost ballot for you. Additionally, behavior that would not be tolerated in an inclusive classroom will not be tolerated in front of me in the debate space. As a Director of Forensics I am also deeply concerned with the future of this activity, which requires the support of administrators that do not have a background in forensics. If your behavior in rounds is such that it would turn lay decision makers against the activity, that is a more real world impact calculus to me than any disad or theory shell I've ever seen in a debate and will be treated as such.
If I were to describe my philosophy, it would be that of 'a critic of argument.' This is to say that if your opponent drops an argument it does not necessarily mean that you win the round:
- You have only won whatever persuasiveness the argument had to begin with. If it had a 'Persuasiveness Quotient' of 0% when it was issued then you have won an argument that is meaningless. If it was a good argument (a PQ of 80%) then the argument will have much more weight in the round.
- Not every argument is a 'voter' and simply labeling it as such does not make it so. In fact, there are few trends more annoying than labeling everything a 'voter.' If you want me to vote on it, you need to explain why, in the context of this round, it is.
My first preference has to do with speed. I used to believe that I could flow 'almost' anyone. I am realistic enough to know that this is simply no longer the case. I'm out of practice and in my experience most of the time people do not speak clearly when they spread anyway. Additionally, most of the time spread is unnecessary. Bottom line, if you went too fast for me to flow it - I won't consider it in the round.
My second preference has to do with specific arguments:
- Topicality - I DO believe that topicality is a relevant issue in NFA LD, Parli, and IPDA. I am tired of seeing Government/Affirmative cases that have little or nothing to do with the topic.
- Kritiks - Most of the kritiks I have seen are interesting theory with little 'real world' relevance. If you're going to run it, make it real world. I find it hard to believe that a single specific language choice will destroy humanity. Additionally, while I understand the way K's function, do not assume that I understand the specifics of whatever theoretical framework you are using. Make sure you explain it thoroughly.
- Resolutions - I believe there are three types of resolutions: fact, value, and policy - don't try to twist one of them into something else. Just debate it straight up.
My third preference has to do with behavior.
- Ad Hominems are never appropriate and the use of them will be reflected in the points awarded in the round.
- Don't ask me to disclose. If I wish to, and have time without making the tournament run behind, I will.
My fourth preference is that while I view IPDA as debate, it should not be Parli LD. IPDA was created with an attention to delivery baked in. I will respect that on the ballot.
Finally, if you have specific questions, ask me before the round.
Scott Plambek - SD Mesa
n/a
Shaw Davari - OCC
Shawna Merrill - IC
My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.
Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.
I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.
I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.
My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.
Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.
Shelby Rankin - OCC
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!
Wade Lindenberger - UCSD
n/a