Judge Philosophies
AJ Khim - UCSB
n/a
Abigail Wright - CUI
n/a
Adam Messer - PLNU
n/a
Alex Lee - UCSD
n/a
Allie Edinger - PLNU
n/a
Amara Li - UCSD
n/a
Angelina Larosa - UCSD
n/a
Ardra Mohan - UCSD
n/a
Ayah Alhaji - UCSD
n/a
Benjamin Zapf - CUI
n/a
Bennett Beltramo - SDSU
Experience:
Ive been involved in speech and debate for several years as both a competitor and a coach, working across platform, limited prep, and NFA-LD. I love this activity because it teaches clear thinking, persuasive speaking, and respectful discourse.
Ideal Round:
My ideal round is professional, respectful, and engaging. Debate should be competitive but not combativeso keep it civil and make me want to listen. Personal attacks or rude behavior will result in drops for conduct.
In IPDA, treat me like a well-informed lay judge. Keep jargon to a minimum and focus on clear, conversational persuasionlike were talking around a dinner table about an issue that matters.
For NPDA/LD:
Im a stock issues traditionalist. I appreciate organized, well-tagged debates with clear clash and strong analysis. I welcome topicality, but make it airtightdefine, violate, explain, impact. Im not big on Kritiks, but Ill evaluate them if clearly linked to the resolution.
Signposting and structure are everything. I only flow whats explicitly said, so connect your arguments and give me clean voters.
Delivery:
Your presence matters. I value clarity, pacing, posture, and tonedebate is about communication, not speed for its own sake. Sound confident, not mechanical.
I time everything (yes, even roadmaps), so keep things concise.
Final Thought:
Be organized, persuasive, and respectful. Make the round enjoyablefor both of usand Ill be happy to reward strong, clear argumentation.
Brian Feng - UCSD
n/a
Brian Masse - UCSD
n/a
Brooke Warren - UCSD
n/a
Cameron Junod - UCSD
n/a
Caroline Jethmal - UCSD
n/a
Chase Cole - PLNU
n/a
Daisy Ortiz - UCSB
n/a
Derek Kuhns - SDSU
n/a
Derek Cevallos - CUI
n/a
Dewi Hokett - Palomar
Though I am known as a dreaded "communication judge" which is code for "she has no idea about debate and wouldn't know a kritik if it dropped on her head".....I actually love debate, and have judged it over the years. I appreciate well-read teams: meaning I am up on current events. Speed doesn't win my ballot, unless it is executed in such a fashion that the speaker isn't stumbling over themselves to spread their opponent out of the room with ten off case positions. I appreciate clarity, labeling, and solid argumentation. I am judging only IPDA now, which means, this debate should be run before a lay judge without the demonstration of debate jargon, technical prowess, or extreme speed necessary/popular to win a parli debate. I appreciate competitors that are professional both in round towards their opponent, and out of round post debate. You will win my ballot on both content and presentational style. I am a firm believer that the competitor not only represents themselves, but their entire team and coaches that put heavy instructional time into them. In essence, make this round count. I will be most appreciative of your efforts.
Dominic Feliton - UCSD
n/a
Dominique deSeriere - Weber
n/a
Emily Bianchi - UCSD
n/a
Emma Trahan - UCSD
n/a
Emma Ford - CUI
n/a
Ernesto Perez - UCLA
n/a
Erynn Sanchez - PLNU
n/a
Ethan Wong - UCSB
n/a
Felip Gerdes - UCSD
n/a
Fiona Yuan - UCSD
n/a
Fletcher Nickerson - UCSD
n/a
Frederic O'Hara - San Diego Scholars
n/a
Gavin Claprood - UCSD
n/a
Gianna Banducci - PLNU
n/a
Iain Lampert - Independent-AT
n/a
Ishty Hassan - UCSD
n/a
Jared Hoffart - UCSD
GENERAL
My ballot comes down to keeping this atmosphere fun, fair, and educational. If a strategy is within those lines you should be good.
I don't prefer speed. Additionally, if one side is not comfortable with speed, you shouldn't be going fast. That being said, if both sides are cool with speed and I am made aware of that I won't tank speaker points.
Signpost where you are going ("Responding to their contention 1..."). Try and stay in chronological order and take care of top of case argumentation first.
Also, please note that I don't flow cross. If something comes up in cross and you want to make sure it's on my flow, you need to mention it in the speech following cross.
I appreciate a good narrative. Tell your story how you want to.
NPDA
Theory: I'll vote on it. I'll also toss aside frivolous theory if given a reason to.
Kritiks: Run them if you want. I appreciate K's with cool alts that have some sort of solvency. If its confusing, the round is probably not fun for your opponents and I probably won't vote for it anyway.
Counterplans: Awesome. I will assume it is unconditional unless you give me a very good reason otherwise.
Creative technical argumentation is cool. If you want to try running something different/unique, feel free to do in front of me. Just know that I will equally honor any creative responses.
IPDA
I appreciate this being a lay event. However, you should still structure your argumentation in a logical format that is fair for your opponent. Please tell me what type of round it is and structure it in that way.
When two debaters have a mutual respect for one another, it is fairly obvious and makes the debate a whole lot better; Expect high speaks in those rounds.
Speech
In general I don't have any preferences for speech. In impromptu, however, I prefer speeches that fall in line with the name of the event and will place those over any speeches that felt canned.
John Loo - SDSU
Background:
- I've coached speech events for about 12 years and NFA-LD for 6 years.
Philosophy:
- I evaluate rounds tabula rasa: if it's said and extended, I'll consider it true unless refuted. Dropped arguments can be decisive, especially framework or round-defining claims.
- I do not assume anythingimpacts must be explained (e.g., why climate change, nuclear war, etc. matter). Debate is not a search for truth; it is a competitive game.
Exceptions:
- I won't vote on arguments that require me to insert my personal beliefs (use the ballot as a tool, etc.).
- I won't reward dishonesty. In LD, I read cards and will not vote for debaters who misrepresent evidence.
- Excessive rudeness or bullying will result in very low speaker points and likely a loss.
Ks and Theory:
- I am largely tired of kritiks in their traditional forms. You can win one in front of me, but it needs to be distinct, well-applied, and not a generic recycling of the same arguments I've heard for years.
Other Notes:
- Speed is fine if clear, but only flow what I can understand.
- Framing and weighing are essential: tell me what matters most.
- Above all, debate should be competitive, respectful, and fun.
Speech Events
- Clarity of Story/Argument: Clear throughline guiding the audience.
- Organization: Clear structure and logical flow.
- Depth & Research: Strong analysis, evidence, and reasoning.
- Purposeful Blocking: Movement enhances performance, not just for show.
- Polish & Professionalism: Well-prepared, confident, smooth execution.
- Audience Impact: Voice, expression, and connection elevate the piece.
Overall: Prioritize clarity, organization/depth/research second, thoughtful blocking third, and polish/impact last.
John Symank - CUI
n/a
Jonathan Cook - CUI
n/a
Jordan Kay - Palomar
NO SPREADING
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, just have fun. Be kind. Be considerate. Talk to me and your opponents like we're human beings deserving of basic decency. Ts are fine if the way the Aff has set up the round is particularly egrigous, but I'm not a big fan of 'Ts and Ks for Ts and Ks sake'. Forensics is a communication activity. Connect with us.
For IPDA, please keep parli tech and terminology minimal
Julian Mackenzie - SDSU
Note: This is all for guidance on what I would like to see. At the end of the day have the debate you want to have, and I will do my best to evaluate it.
Background: Hi my name is Julian Mackenzie, I participated in Speech and Debate for a total of 9 years as a competitor and now I'm a Coach for SDSU.
- In high school. I competed for four years in mostly Interp, Extemp, Impromptu, LD, and Pufo for Helix Charter High School. In my senior year, I was a debate captain for my high school team.
- I competed for two years for the Grossmont Community College team in NPDA, IPDA and Extemp, where I won top competitor for the 2021-2022 school year.
- After that I competed for UCSD for three years in NPDA, IPDA, Pufo, and TIPDA, and I was the President of the team.
- Now I Coach and I am the Director of Debate and Limited Prep at San Diego State University.
All formats:
- I like Lay debate or fast and Technical debate.
- I will take any argument into consideration as long as the argument is backed up by logic or evidence.
- Both teams/competitors in your last speech please give me clear voters, so that I can make an informed decision.
- Have good clash
- Please signpost
- Please be as organized as possible tell me exactly where you are on the flow.
- Please be respectful to everyone in the round.
- Have Fun!
IPDA:
- I prefer tech over truth, but I will not accept arguments that are a lie and do not have evidence or some truth.
- Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments.
- Please speak with a clear and calm pace.
- Label each of your arguments.
- Avoid technical debate jargon.
- Keep Cases and arguments simple and clear
NPDA:
- I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
- I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
- I love Value and Fact rounds, so please do not define a round as policy if it does not have should in the resolution.
- K's work in Policy Rounds, run Phil if it's a value round.
NFA-LD:
- Run a good and sound plan
- Tricks are great, but please keep them at the top of the case.
- I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
- I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
- Share your doc with me if you are going to spread, please.
- Please have your card doc ready to show your opponent's cards
Speech:
- As for speech I judge like any other speech judge on content and performance.
- Please do not "can" your speech in Impromptu. If I find your "canning" I will place any off-the-cuff speech ahead of you.
- I will not automatically rank you lower if your speech is shorter than 10 minutes.
Julie Abdou - UCSD
n/a
Julius Dawoodtabar - UCSD
n/a
Kashfe Rahman - UCSD
n/a
Kelly Chen - UCSD
n/a
Keyo Vue - UCSB
n/a
Kyuin Lee - UCSD
n/a
Levi Chyorny - UCSD
n/a
Lillian Theis - UCSD
n/a
Lilly Brewer - PLNU
n/a
Lily Jiang - UCSD
n/a
Lindsay Miller - CUI
n/a
Luke Ryder - MIT
n/a
Mia Ogebee - UCSB
n/a
Michael Shurance - CUI
TLDR: Run whatever you want. Dont be afraid to run heterodox arguments in front of me. I welcome diverse perspectives and unique clash. Generally tech over true (as tech is the best method to prove/disprove something as true and I honestly don't know how or why they're portrayed as in competition with each other, but I digress).
Framework:
* Debate is a game (but games are important).
*I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently discriminatory in a way that makes debate inaccessible. ACCESSIBILITY: I believe access to the debate space is the clearest bright line for whether an argument warrants judge intervention. Examples of unacceptable arguments include white supremacy, Nazism/racial superiority, or ad hominem attacks on individual identity. I will drop anyone advocating for these positions or using these tactics. We all deserve respect and fairness, and this may be the only place we can truly get it.
* I aim to be the least interventionist judge you'll ever have. That said, I believe debate has become too ideologically limited. Most debaters have critical, leftist, or neoliberal frameworks in real life, which is fine, but this can create ideological bubbles that limit potential clash against ideas we might all agree on. For example, I hear debaters collapse to fascism bad arguments, but in all my years of debating, I've never heard a clear explanation of what fascism is or why its bad (I personally believe its a horrible political framework, but thats not the point). I don't want to grant framework concessions because I agree or disagree with them. I want clash about the various frameworks humanity uses in the real world (e.g., socialism good/bad, Marxism good/bad, capitalism good/bad, state good/bad) that are inherent to the status quo, as this generates the best education. This is especially true for survival strategies in an increasingly strange and chaotic world. Without this education, we cant properly define or differentiate ideologies in the real world, which allows dog-whistling or mischaracterization of ideologies due to surface similarities. This limits our ability to clash with harmful ideologies.
* I want fleshed-out rhetorical or philosophical impacts and analysis for political theory (K-level or case) and frameworks in general. For example, tell me WHAT fascism IS (historically or in the context of the status quo) and why its bad! (It should be easy, but do the work!) I dont want to intervene with my belief system, as I believe its largely irrelevant to the technicality of the debate and is the fairest approach. If you dont impact or explain your arguments and they're conceded, then cest la vie.
* TLDR Terminalize all impacts, not just material impacts.
Theory:
* Theory is cool.
* I ran it often as a debater because its a smart strategy for protecting against abusive affirmatives and spreading out your opponents outs in their speeches. I will vote on good theory. Use your standards as links to your voters. Explain why ground is lost, for example, and how that impacts fairness or education.
* I generally dont think theory operates a priori in the meta sense unless it addresses specific, "proven" abuse (which btw there's no such thing as proven abuse, that's why the theory needs to be run in order for YOU to prove abuse). My point here being you should have to defend all parts of your theory. However, if you claim it's a priori and its undisputed, then its a priori. Im open to hearing why this particular theory should be a priori or why theory ought to operate a priori, but I need more than rules of the game come before the game (the games already started, so too late?), i.e explain how your standards prove this must operate a priori. The a priori status is up for debate, and I need particularized reasons why your specific theory operates a priori in the context of the round (e.g., it was impossible to generate clash due to the cases format). If a priori is not defended or won, then its a normal off-case position arguing for different rules and standards that my vote would promote for better education/fairness, weighed against the affirmatives fiat education for running the case as they did.
* I default to competing interpretations, as I believe its the most reasonable judging method.
* Reasonability works if the theory isnt well-run or impacted out.
*More than three theories are probably excessive, but I won't police this, the other team should just point this out. If there's abuse, run a theory; if you want to enforce an interpretation, run a theory. If you want to throw your opponents off their game, or beat them to death with legal speak, run a theory. Do what you want!
Ks (In General):
* I like Ks.
* I like well-warranted and explained Ks much better. The K must operate in a way that makes the judges background and knowledge of the literature base irrelevant. Im familiar with many critical arguments, but that doesnt mean I'll do the work for you on framework or solvency.
*Contextualize the K within the broader context of the debate or the resolution. Explain your criticism! I especially like Ks with historical analysis and an education focus. To win my ballot, the K should link to the affirmatives solvency, plan text, or the squo itself in a fundamental way. I want strong, warranted framework arguments, link arguments, and solvency arguments. The alternative/advocacy must exist, and you need to explain why I shouldnt buy a permutation.
*A K without an alternative is just a harsh judgment of the status quo, which the affirmative likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that voting for the affirmative prevents, its just a try-or-die for the affirmative I feel (again do what you want I won't police).
*Advocacies aren't conditional in an ideal world, but kicking an advocacy is fine for strategic reasons. I'm more skeptical of affirmatives breaking procedural fairness, and I think T is a decent check back against this, but that just means that both teams have access to ground, and i'm agnostic on which comes first (y'all need to tell me which comes first and WHY). Again do what you want, just be strategic.
Performance Ks:
* Im fine with performance Ks, but I need clear solvency and education impact analysis.
* Clash is the internal link to education in debate, and the personal nature of performance Ks can make sometimes make clash inaccessible or too personal for me to judge objectively.
* I also don't really like how some performance K's try to bait the other team into saying something offensive and bascially make a bet that they won't want to clash with the K due to its personal nature. I will just say that due to the nature of debate, being offended is likely inevitable, but you should all do your best ALWAYS to be respectful and treat each other with dignity.
Aff Ks:
*The same rules apply for winning my ballot with an affirmative K.
* However, to run a K on the affirmative, you must prove a justified reason to reject the topic and show that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by your solvency or by avoiding defending the resolution.
* Im fine with rejections but need warrants for why its permissible. Im biased toward fairness-good/outweighs arguments from theory, so youll need to resolve some of this offense to win my ballot.
Speed:
* Im comfortable with speed and will keep up. However, if youre slowed or asked to be clearer, please comply. I think access is very important.
Ballot:
* The flow is critical to how I judge. How well your opponent attacks your position or argument weighs heavily. Key arguments are more important than quantity, but I'll weigh all arguments. I love clash, so seek it out, and you'll be rewarded.
Impact Calc:
* For case I want you to do impact calc anyways and weighing. Be specific and clear in sequencing, magnitude, probability, and timeframe.
* It's a personal preference, but I like well warranted analysis about how impacts are more likely to actually occur. I'm semi skeptical of weak links between for high magnitude impacts. I will vote on them, and again if its dropped it's always true for the sake of the round, but if you're going for magnitude, or any of these impacts, warrant them out.
Mikayla Rose Villacorta - UCSD
n/a
Natasha Jovanovi-Vuskovic - UCSD
n/a
Nathan Estrick - CUI
Hey friends, not gonna make you read a treatise to understand my judging criteria. I debated six years in high school and then all four years doing primarily Parli (but also IPDA and LD). Overall, I do my best to be as tabula rasa as I can -- absent needing to intervene with a team being really racist/homophobic or verbally abusive to their opponents, I try to tie my ballot to only the arguments made in the round. On speed, I’m going to be able to keep up with you, but make sure you slow if your opponents ask you to.
That being said, here’s a little bit on how I evaluate some of the major arguments;
Policy: Though I have plenty of experience running different kinds of arguments, I do have a soft spot for a good old policy round. In evaluating policy, Impacts really are king; though generating good uniqueness and winning your link chains are important, I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to try or die arguments, and so I find good Impact framing is usually what wins over my ballot.
Counterplans: As far as counterplans go, I like them, but make sure they are at least competitive on net benefits. I tend to default to counterplans not having fiat, so the neg would need to argue to me that they do. I’m also somewhat sympathetic to PICS bad theory, so keep that in mind when writing your counterplans.
Theory: I tend to have a pretty high bar for voting on theory: if you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to collapse to it. I’m not going to vote on a theory shell that the MO extends for two minutes and then spends the rest of the block doing other things. I also will generally be unsympathetic to weird or goofy theories; they can win my ballot, but unless the connection to fairness and education are made pretty strongly, they’re gonna have trouble picking up.
The K: I like the K, and like to see different varieties run. Ultimately, I believe debate is a game and I think the K is a really strategic and interesting part of playing that game. That being said, if your K has really weak links to either the topic/the aff, I’m not going to be very interested in it, since you’re just pulling it out of a can as opposed to doing the work to contextualize it. I love K’s with good historical theory analysis and good solvency, so the more abstract the K becomes, the harder it becomes to win my ballot with it.
Noelle Planchon - PLNU
n/a
Oli Loeffler - SDSU
(they/them/theirs)
- Coach for IPDA, NPDA, Impromptu, and Extemporaneous Speaking
- Competed nationally and internationally in the same events
- 10 years of coaching experience (K-12 and college-level)
- Competed for three years on the community college circuit
Judging Philosophy:
- I prioritize access and education in debate rounds. Please provide clear organization in your initial constructive speechesthis sets up the framework for the round. At the end of the day, debate is about you having a fun, competitive outlet. If this means heavy tech and theory, great! If this means straight-up policy, also great! Just tell me how to evaluate the round.
- I judge primarily off the flow. If you're going faster, maintain clarity. If youre responding to arguments, tagline as much as possible so things dont get lost.
Argument Preferences:
- Theory: Im fine with most theory, but strategic moves shouldnt be uniquely abusiveIll do my best to engage with it.
- Framework: Please give me a clear framework for evaluating the round.
- Policy vs. Kritiks: Ill evaluate bothjust signpost well and make sure I understand how to weigh your arguments.
- Speed: Totally fine, clarity is key.
IPDA & Other Formats:
- My IPDA philosophy is nearly identical to my NPDA philosophyso just apply accordingly.
Other Notes:
- Speaker points: Based on clarity, strategy, and round engagement.
- No preference on sitting/standing do what makes you comfortable!
- I will do my best to protect, but call your POOs to be safe.
- Taglining is your best friend.
Olivia Velasco - UCSB
n/a
Paulina Andreani - UCSD
n/a
Phillip Leavenworth - SDSU
n/a
Rebekah Symank - CUI
n/a
Remy Dupart - UCSD
n/a
Robert Campbell - UCSD
Head Coach, University of California Speech & Debate. Former member of the national championship teams at the University of Kansas. An ideal debate round involves organization of case and arguments, clarity, and clash (direct argumentation). I despise "spreading" (no auctioneer ever won an argument) and any Affirmative "K"s (debate the resolution).
Royce Li - UCSD
n/a
Ryan Van Mouwerik - PLNU
n/a
Ryan Ariaee - UCSD
n/a
Sam Daftary - UCSD
n/a
Siyu Liu - UCSD
n/a
Skip Rutledge - PLNU
Skip Rutledge Point Loma Nazarene University
40 + years judging debate (revised March, 2024)
6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate
Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer. Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995 and have added NFA LD, IPDA TPDA and BP. In addition to coaching my teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas. I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.
Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills. I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others defense. That probably makes me more of a big picture kind of critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. But I recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I dont hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15-20 minutes without direct access to very much research. Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical.
Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy. Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them. While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims, like 200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS do not become true just because it might be dropped. I think your word is your bond. If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true. If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner. The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. Sources should referenced.
I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . . I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up. I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points. It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins. Strong speakers are capable of logical errors that can sink their case.
I also think it is the debaters job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear. If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such. Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate. As such, I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo. They certainly should if the resolution requires it but may not have to if it does not. I think the resolution is key to the debate.
Having said that I do have some a priori biases. Since I believe the resolution is what is being debated, that has implications on counter plans. My a priori belief is that they should not be topical and should be competitive. Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even better way than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am certainly open to good theory debates, but in fairness, you should know my beginning base of understanding on this issue.
Finally, here is the core of my belief about debate in general: Debate is a zero sum game with a winner and a loser in competitive ballot terms. So I use this template to help be decide rounds:
- Debate is focused clash on the resolution.
- The Resolution is an argumentative statement that fairly divides the Affirmative ground from the Negative ground.
- The Affirmative has the burden of proof
- The Negative has the burden of refutation, rebuttal or rejoinder.
- The Affirmative case should be a fair test of the validity of the resolution.
Sophia Lepari - Volunteer
n/a
Srujam Dave - UCSD
n/a
Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF
n/a
Sylvia Ho - UCSD
n/a
Thomas Zhang - UCSD
n/a
Thomas Woods - UCSD
n/a
Vandahana Ravi - UCSD
n/a
Zenah Merchant - UCSD
n/a
Ziyi Yang - UCSB
n/a