Judge Philosophies
Alexandria Lombardi - UCSD
n/a
Carter Castillo - UCSD
Be nice, have fun, be fair, and be accessible.
This can be an intimidating activity and we shouldnt discourage people from participating by being rude, homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. I will not tolerate anything of that sort! While these are my preferences, I don't believe in absolutes so run what you want and make it your job to convince me. Also if you are doing speech you really don't need to read any of this, just be confident, be clear, and be yourself!
Again, I think you should run the arguments you feel most comfortable with regardless of what I think, but judge adaptability is important as well so if you do want to know a little bit about me then here it goes!
TLDR, I love lay debate, I love fast tech debate. I can evaluate both and I don't put any bias onto either style of debate.
General Notes
Tabula Rasa is not real. I am flow and obviously I will try my hardest to isolate myself to just use in round info, but I think it is a disservice if we try and pretend that we can throw all our beliefs, identities, and values out of the door for anything, including debate.
I love to see direct clash in arguments!Please signpost well, organization is key to my ballot.
I probably have a higher threshold for big stick impacts with low probability than most judges. It's just something I have noticed I tend to do so keep that in mind. That is not to say that you can't win on magnitude alone, I just want a really well articulated compelling rationale for that.
I dont like giving out my email (sorry lol) so if theres a speech drop instead that is much preferred.
Speed
I'm a little rusty tbh, but if I'm flowing on my computer I can handle around 350 wpm. If you go faster I will try my best to keep up, but keep in mind I can't evaluate what I didn't get on my flow. If your opponents call slow or clear, please respect that. Please slow down for tags or anything else you really wanna make sure I get down as well.
Case Debate
Love case debate! Give me clear and strong links and good impact calculus (magnitude, probability, reversibility, timeframe, severity).
Theory
I like theory/topicality of all sorts. Giving me proven abuse goes a long way. If you want me to vote on Theory/T you should almost certainly collapse to it in the end.
Kritiks
Go for it! I'm probably not the best judge for K's, cause my bread and butter was always case/theory debate, but I'm not opposed. However, that does mean I probably need you to do more work just for me to really jibe, but that's on owning my own weaknesses. Framework is key!
Speaker Points
I think speaker points are really hard and they are so subjective, so always take them with a grain of salt (not just from me but any judge). That being said, I try and use a consistent scale. 27 is my baseline, anything below a 26 is reserved for misconduct or doing something harmful in the round, 28 is great, 29 is excellent, and 30 is not only a stellar performance but you had great strategy with flawless execution. I do not think a 30 should be impossible, so I am not averse to giving out some 30s, but I do think the bar should be set really high.
Background
I put this at the bottom because lowkey it's like the least important, and I initially didn't even include this in my paradigm cause it feels kinda condescending and silly, but I remember loving to tabroom stalk and read about my judges past competitive experience so here you go (also just so I can defend my honor if my creds are questioned).
I did parli in High School, with Newbury Park High School (go Panthers!) in the TCFL. My top achievement was probably reaching the octofinals at CHSSA 2021.
I did Parli, Extemp, IPDA, Original Speech and sometimes PF in College for UCSD (Go Tritons!). However, I would definitely say my heart and soul was in IPDA and Parli. In my senior year I was ranked third in the nation in IPDA debate. I was also the top individual competitor at the Pi Kappa Delta National Speech and Debate tournament in my junior year.
I know volunteer as an assistant head coach with the UCSD speech and debate team.
For judging, I have judged all formats of debate at advanced levels including Parli, LD, PF, and Policy, and even Congress.
I love politics domestically and internationally, and I love to see good comparisons to different countries with regards to different policies (comparative politics major/nerd lol).
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