Judge Philosophies
Alexandria Lombardi - UCSD
n/a
Carter Castillo - UCSD
n/a
David Cordier - UCSD
n/a
Elizabeth Luchinski - UCSD
n/a
Felip Gerdes - UCSD
n/a
Hanna Serykava - UCSD
n/a
Indira Iyer - 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.
Jasmine Moheb - UCSD
Hey everyone, my name is Jasmine (she/her/her's) and I come from four yeas of high school experience mainly in Congressional Debate (I competed at district and national level, CHSSA state, and was a finalist at the 2018 TOC) and am now entering my third year in collegiate debate. In college, I compete in the NPDA (parliamentary debate with more tech)/IPDA/BP formats so I am well-versed in everything from technical debate to more lay, rhetoric-heavy debate. I have been coaching debate for six years now and judging for three years, most recently at the 2020 NSDA nationals. I do not like/cannot follow *extreme* spreading, so please avoid doing that if I am judging a policy round. Overall, I look for well-articulated arguments with clear and coherent links as well as concrete impacts. Unique contentions are always a plus. It is very important in Congress to show to me that you are interacting with the round if you are one of the later speakers; clash is appreciated. In other debates, I would consider myself to be a flow judge, so organization and clarity is critical. I am also familiar with and have judged all speech events and there is less of a paradigm I can give for that because everyone is so different, just enjoy your time in speech and debate and performing! Best of luck to everyone!
Jason Foster - UCSD
n/a
Jiayi Hu - UCSD
n/a
Joey Wang - UCSD
n/a
Kaitlyn Chin - UCSD
n/a
Khushi Kumar - UCSD
n/a
Michael Wagreich - UCSD
n/a
Mitra Sutar - UCSD
n/a
Nam Nguyen - UCSD
n/a
Sam Hwang - UCSD
n/a
Santiago Reyes - UCSD
n/a
Taylor Brough - UCSD
n/a