Alex Wilson - CSU Chico

Pronouns: they/them

Updated 2021-11-07

I tend to vote for the team that makes the most persuasive arguments in a round. This generally makes me a "communication judge," though I make an effort to evaluate each position on the ballot systematically and based solely on what you say in the round.

I will not tolerate blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. arguments.

NPDA/LD Considerations

I have found that my burden for voting on a K may be higher than a lot of other judges because many of them seem hollow in the context of the round (e.g., arguing that debate is harmful while... participating in debate; or arguing that winning is bad so vote for us). Be prepared to explain your kritik more to me than to other judges if you want to win it.

I often find myself most persuaded by well-argued, genuine alternative discourses. These include re-imagining the geography/temporality of the debate space or advancing arguments that genuinely interrogate the constructedness or value of the debate space. In this sense, I'm particularly influenced by the works of Christopher Schroeder, Helen Fox, Patricia Bizzell, Ian Khara Ellasante, and Malea Powell. I am particularly interested in exploring orientations that foreground the relevance, reciprocity, and accessibility of debate for the people who benefit from it.

My threshold to vote on theory is typically pretty low, especially if it is severely undercovered by the other team.

I don't vote for (or most of the time even evaluate) arguments I don't understand.

How I evaluate (post-fiat) impacts:

1. Probability
2. Magnitude
3. Timeframe
4. Reversibility

How I evaluate the round:

1. A priori issues (theory, topicality, pre-fiat critiques)
2. Top of case, solvency, counterplan solvency (if necessary)
3. Impacts of advantages vs. disadvantages

I'm comfortable with faster than conversational speed. I don't like spreading or other paralinguistic acts that serve to reify the elitist stereotypes of college debate. If you go faster than I can keep up, be prepared for me to just write that you said "something" on my flow.

Document Exchange Considerations (LD Only)

Let's use SpeechDrop.net to share documents unless there is some persuasive reason that you cannot.

Please avoid sharing PDFs in round since most PDF makers don't create an accessible PDF with headers, etc. If you're using Microsoft Word, just save the file as a word document and share it.

Critical Debate Familiarity

These are the theoretical frameworks I'm most familiar with:

1. Trans studies (tends to work well as answer to queer critiques, especially with Rubin, Keegan, or Halley)
2. Queer theory
3. (Trans)feminist analysis
4. Rhetorical analysis/the 1AC as rhetorical artifact
5. Critical pedagogy (e.g. Fassett and Warren)
6. Foucault
7. Indigenous/first nations

IPDA Judging Paradigm

Generally, I find the same sorts of arguments discussed above to be persuasive. However, when the norms of IPDA and my philosophy are in conflict, I try to err on the side of IPDA norms. This also means that I default to weighing the depth of your arguments over the number of arguments and lend preference to arguments that are accessible (i.e., comprehensible) to a general audience.

Audience Considerations

Since IPDA is designed as public debate, Im less open to interpreting the audience narrowly toward elite/exclusionary notions of the debate community.

Assuming I am a lay judge who can take good notes will likely pay dividends when debating in front of me.

Flow

I will flow the debate to the best of my ability, but I dont use my flow as the arbiter of winning arguments. Rather, I default to voting for arguments that are persuasive, contextual, and backed by credible evidence and/or examples.

Competing Notions of Resolutional Analysis/Definitions (Topicality)

I am open to hearing arguments about the nature of the resolution and the best definitions for terms (especially with regard to metaphorical or vague resolutions) but phrasing them in the same structure as NPDA/LD/Policy is not a recipe for success. Arguments about definitions and framing are common in public debates, though the specific gamey format used for Policy-style debates is not.

Critical Arguments

Im open to arguments that reference critical/postmodern theories, but the IPDA community has fairly decisively rejected the format commonly used in NPDA/LD/Policy-style debates.

Changelog

2021-11-07: Added IPDA-specific considerations.

---

Alyson Escalante - El Camino

---

Andrew Morgan - DVC

Updated 2/24/24 at 7:46 AM.

I view debate as an educational event. That being said, both sides need to have equal access to debate. If you run 8 off case positions against a novice because the divisions were collapsed, I will drop you. Theres no education in that debate. If you are a junior level debater and you want to run the super cool and fun K that your open teammates are running against the junior level competition, I will drop you for a few reasons:

• You are trying to skip learning the fundamentals of argumentation and debate so that you can do cool stuff
• Its abusive to your opponents
• Neither you nor your opponents are learning anything from that debate. I certainly wont be either.

My position on Ks changes in the open division. While I personally think its incredibly silly to try to explain Marx or Buddhism in 8 minutes or less, I will vote for them as long as you can link the K to the topic. If novice or junior are collapsed into open, please do not run a K against them. Please just debate the topic. If you are an open competitor, you should be totally fine without needing to spread a novice/junior debater/debate team in order to win.

Lastly, I am not a fan of potential abuse when running a topicality. I also think its weird and contradictory to run Disadvantages that clearly link to the plan but then say the plan is untopical.

Overall, I am some fine with speed as long as you are also clear. Articulation is key here. I also appreciate it when debaters are very organized throughout the round. Off time road maps are good; just signpost as you get there. My experience in debate is very limited. I almost exclusively competed in Individual Events.

---

Ashley Yoon - El Camino

n/a

---

Bailey Coleman - MJC

---

Beau Larsen - Macalester

Hello,

I am fairly new to NDPA parliamentary debate. I have a little bit of experience coaching NPDA/BP at the University of Puget Sound during the school year 2018-2019. Otherwise, I've been over in the realm of policy debate since 2010 with a little bit of Lincoln-Douglas coaching as well. I competed in NDT/CEDA at the University of Southern California from 2014-2018.

I do my best to be a fair judge evaluating arguments on the flow. There shouldn't be a need to adjust your preparation to adapt to me as a judge. Like other judges, I like warranted arguments with comparison & impact calculus. 

Please do not misgender me in/out of round -- I use they/them/theirs pronouns. 

---

Benjamin Lange - CUI

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well. 

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on. As a Neg, I think your best bet is to read a diverse strategy, but if you have a baller K that you want to go all in on then go for it.

Finally, and I've realized that this is probably a very important thing to make clear, I am willing to vote on terminal defense if you are able to explain what it means for the round. That means that if you win the "we meet" on theory, then the rest of the sheet is irrelevant - even under a paradigm of competing interpretations, their rule is irrelevant if you followed it.

 

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good 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.

---

Brent Nicholson - McK

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you dont have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I dont have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and Ill always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments Ive seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and Im never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and Ill come along for the ride.

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:

1.Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.

2.I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.

3.I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.

4.I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesnt appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.

5.I dont exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.

6.I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.

7.I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.

8.Give your opponents arguments the benefit of the doubt. Theyre probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.

9.Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.

10.In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.

11.All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesnt come up, but it can. Dont say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.

General

This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophys guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If Im flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I dont ask you to slow down, youre fine dont worry about it. I dont number arguments as I flow, so dont expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the pages of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, MAD checks on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, Ive noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a no condo interp. Basically, if the aff says you cant do that because it is bad and the neg says it is not bad and, in fact, is good I do not think the neg should have to say yes, I can do that (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think some condo interps instead of all condo).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But dont use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if youre neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

Im going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because theyre just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each others flows and into each others speeches. Seek out clash!

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that authors position or the argument youve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that youre leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an even if argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and Ill do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesnt win evidence debates the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds were in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We dont just rely on someone else saying it we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, lets do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if youve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs dont always do that. I think risk of solvency only applies if I know what Im risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that risk on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain thats a presumption trigger because.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I dont see that contextualized well and is often just a risk of solvency type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a we meet so aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive) is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesnt work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesnt necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably dont try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between.At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

---

Claire Wang - UCSD

n/a

---

Cyndi Berck - UCSD

n/a

---

Destinee Sior - Maricopa

---

Devin Felix - UCSD

n/a

---

Dominic Lesaca - DVC

TLDR: Speed fine, condo bad, Ks good, topical please, theory good, put me on the email chain: domlesaca@gmail.com

I competed in Parli/LD at the University of the Pacific. I am a first year out so most of my thoughts are still directly impacted by my own time in debate and my views will probably change the more I judge. I know nothing about courts so if it is a SCOTUS topic please break it into little bits that my baby brain will understand. I am annoyed by the amount of back-filling in most MOs and because of that am more willing to accept PMR arguments against MO blowups of blippy LOC tags. The most important thing to know is that I am lazy by nature so whoever gives me simplest route to the ballot will probably win.

Delivery:

I should be able to handle speed just fine so long as you remain clear, and if I have trouble following then I will call "speed" or "clear". Just make sure everyone has access to the round and you will be fine. For online tournaments please just bring down the speed a notch or two, spreading over zoom calls tends to sound like static over the line and that is just annoying.

Advantages and Disadvantages:

Be sure your tags are clear and number your arguments as much as possible as it makes it much easier to flow. That applies to all of the stuff below. DA debate is probably my favorite kind of debate to watch, especially when the scenarios are very specific to the topic and the aff. Offense is great but 100% loses to better warranted defense. I dont have a default preference for certain impacts over another but high magnitude impacts do make the the decision take less thought when teams dont do their own impact comparison.

Theory:

I always enjoyed debating theory. My threshold on T is fairly low, this means I don't need proven abuse but if you do give me proven abuse you basically have my ballot. Spec is mostly just used to waste people's time but if you have reasons why specification is key for ground on the resolution or specific plan then I am on board. Reasonability can mean a lot of things, you should tell me what it means to you so I know how to evaluate it. Any theory about reading the plan in the first X minutes will make me upset, that is a bad argument and you should feel bad for running it. In my mind the team answering theory needs some kind of counter interp, if you just read offense against T or framework without one I will just default to "the only game in town" rule.

Counter Plans:

Parli - Conditional advocacies are bad.

Other events - I am sympathetic to condo bad but have a higher threshold on the condo bad shell but you should justify why it is good/bad in the specific debate format you are in. I will vote for cheater CPs (states, consult, delay), but I am also very willing to vote on theory against them. The neg will be more likely to win these theory arguments if you show me how the CP is an important issue in the topic lit. For delay, the neg will have to win solid probability on their DA to convince me their is a net benefit to the CP. I generally think of perms as a test of competition if you want to make it an advocacy, you need to debate it out in round. In general I believe introducing a negative advocacy also flips presumption to the affirmative.

K's:

Ks are great, I just may need more explanation of what the alt actually does and will be annoyed if the neg refuses to explain the K until the MO. I dont think that Ks need frameworks to be competitive but probably still need to solve or outweigh the aff then. The Alt should provide some mechanism to solve what you are critiquing, if it is just reject I am going to need some specific framing or historical example where rejecting has been successful in fighting what you are critiquing. My wheelhouse has generally been neolib, Agamben, death denialism (not death drive), ableism, and security. Don't be afraid to go outside of those examples but be sure to explain it well for me.

K affs:

Aff Ks are fine but I still prefer you to be topical and actually affirm the resolution. If you negate or just ignore the resolution on the aff then we are gonna have some problems. You don't necessarily have to defend fiat but be sure to defend why your framework provides for equitable debate (I.E. you probably shouldn't force the neg to defend racism as their only ground). Performance Ks can be a bit confusing if not explained well so be sure to tell me how your performance solves and give me framework so I know how to evaluate it.

Evidence:

I think disclosure in evidence based debate is generally good. Please dont be stingy on sharing evidence with your opponents. I follow along with evidence read in round but I will only read it in depth if I am told to or need to resolve an issue. I dont totally disregard good analytics but evidence is generally preferred if possible.

Speaker Points:

I generally start at 29 and then rank down at a difference of about .5 points. If someone does something really interesting or funny I'll put them at a 30. I may alter the scale if you spread out a novice team.

---

Eddie Li - UCSD

n/a

---

Elana Ho - El Camino

I am a freshman in college with 4 years of speech and debate experience, mostly in Parli, but I’ve also done IPDA, LD, extemp, and impromptu. 

- I don't have a preference whether you run theory arguments or not, but I will vote on them if they're valid and well executed.

- Don't spread, speak clearly. I care about the content of your speech and eloquence more than I care about how much you say.

- Signpost, have a clear framework, and in general, just be as organized as possible.

- I try to be tabula rasa, so it is on you to thoroughly explain your arguments and why they matter, even if it seems obvious. Weighing impacts is important.

- Be respectful.

---

Eli Wilson - IVC

 

---

Elle Baez - El Camino

n/a

---

Ethan Choi - UCSD

n/a

---

Felitxa Zaragoza - El Camino

n/a

---

Joanna Ho - UCSD

n/a

---

Joel Anguiano - SCC

I have had expereince in Parli, NFA-LD, and IPDA, both as competitor and coach. I understand all debate arguments and tend to vote on clear voters by both sides. But please make sure that you are doing the work and connecting the dots. It is always better to have the voters presented clearly then to leave up to me and the flow. As far as techincal arguments in Parli and NFA-LD I think T is an argument that the Neg has and will weigh it if there is a clear reason to use it as. weighing mechanism in the round. I also think that all debaters should be respectful of ecah other. I will weigh anything you want to put on the flow, just make sure you give a clear reason why.

---

Joseph Evans - El Camino

  About me:I have been involved in forensics for over 13 years including 7 years of coaching. I have debated in High School, College and I am now currently a full-time professor and Director of Debate at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of argument and impact prioritization. Thus, I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. Please feel free to ask me for clarification before the round!.   

 

Framework/Role of the Ballot:  I will evaluate and weigh the round through any framework that the Aff or Neg presents to me. I have no predisposition towards one specific FW because all frameworks can either be strategic or not depending on how its debated. In terms of evaluating competing FWs, I will only make my decision on how each are warranted and impacted out in round and will never insert my own beliefs. In terms of the ROB, I will weigh the ROB through the FW presented and if its not contested, this will frame how I evaluate the rest of the round.  If no one tells me how to frame the round, I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the lens of utilitarianism (net benefits). When impacting out why you win a policy debate, please frame your impacts through lenses like timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversibility. 

TLDR: Framework is important! You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and impact out why your framework is best.        

Theory: I will evaluate theoretical positions the same as others. The interpretation will frame how I evaluate the position. You must have a clear description of how the debate round should have been constructed. Additionally, I will evaluate the interp/counter-interp debate based on the standards/impacts presented.  I dont have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps you must justify why I should frame theory through either. If a teams decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them (unless there is conceded offense). 

Counter Plans/Alts/Perms: I view counterplans or alternatives as a test of competition against the affirmatives advocacy. I believe that counterplans/alts can compete based on impact prioritization, functional competition, or (sigh) textual competitiveness. I have no predisposition towards one type of competition. Teams must justify why I should vote on the competitiveness or lack of in the CP or Alt debate. In terms of the perm debate, perms also tests of the competitiveness of the counter advocacy. In order to win the perm debate you need to justify and impact out why it outweighs the CP or alt. I am also open to theoretical reasons why the CP/ALT or Perm should be rejected in the round. 

Speed: Go as fast as you want but please be clear! I have judged NPTE/NPDA finals and/or semi-finals the last 3 of 4 years so I will be able to keep up. However, if you are unclear, I will give you non-verbals or yell clear¢?. My priority is getting everything you say on my flow so sacrificing clarity for speed is not advisable. Additionally, I have voted on speed arguments a few times when teams use speed as a bullying or ableist technique. So be conscious of how you use speed within the round. If you can beat a team without going fast, its a win-win for both teams. You get the W and the other team has an educational/ teaching moment.  

Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in most critical arguments, but I am not by any means an expert on critical theory. Therefore, if you are running something new or obscure, dont assume I understand the literature.  Regardless of the K, I will listen how your frame, impact and weight the FW and Alt/Alt solvency. Additionally, 

---

Joyce Wu - UCSD

n/a

---

Julie Marts - UCSD

n/a

---

Katie Thomas - NSU

n/a

---

Li-Ren Chang - CSULB

---

Lisa Lieberman - UCSD

n/a

---

Malcolm Gamble - Cerritos

Generally:

I believe that the debate round is yours and think you should be able to advocate for the ballot in any (reasonable) way that you choose. I will try hard to evaluate your arguments based on the framework that you present and will default to a criterion of net benefits unless you tell me otherwise. If your interpretation is particularly creative, extra emphasis on how it functions within the round is helpful to me.

Evaluation:

I will try to vote on the flow, based on the arguments you make. The more structure you use, the better chance I have of putting your arguments where they go. I pay attention to your impact calculus, so you should too. If you dont explain how arguments interact, I must decide for myself, which is harder for me and less predictable for you.

---

Matthew Le Roy - UCSD

n/a

---

Max Groznik - Oregon

When in doubt, read the argument you believe in the most. Or a children's story.

Quick Thoughts:

Convince me that more than the links are contextual to the round. 

Teams that engage directly with thesis level questions and the warrant level substance of arguments are likely to be rewarded more than strategic choices more dependent on debating around the other team (Yes Ill still vote on spec, but now may not be the time to be reading McTaggart).

Generally, I dont think theres a meaningful distinction between most types of arguments. I dont care what you read, and I care even less what you call it. Ill sit in the back of the room and cheerfully flow your speech regardless of its content. Ill try to keep as tight a flow as possible, but what I do with that is up to you. If you want to avoid decisions that feel rife with intervention contextualize how warrants interact and tell me the order in which I should prioritize and evaluate them while making my decision. Absent this, well probably all be a little annoyed and confused.

My strongest argument preference is novelty. Ill be ecstatic if you teach me something. Also jokes are neat. If you prioritize having fun, we will probably all have more fun. I think we'd like to have fun.

My second strongest argument preference is the Internal Link turn.

So is my third.

Pet Peeves and Idiosyncrasies:

Regarding presumption: I am not Buridan's Ass.

Debate fills different roles in different peoples lives: employment, education, competition, inward journeys, etc. Most importantly it is a platform from which you can demand to be taken seriously - respect that and engage in debate with grace.

The permutation is not offense. I will vote on offense if presented with the opportunity to.

Testimonials:

"Max's brain is like a game of chutes and ladders" - Fiker Tesfaye

Hello, Max is a smart cookie who writes really fast and thinks pretty well. He will hear your words and think about them and maybe you'll win. - Eliana Taylor

The thing about a good recliner is that is has to both be firm enough for back support, but cushy enough for butt comfort. the ability to recline is a necessary component for any sustainable home living. - Cody Gustafson

Max's life goal is to eat every animal. - Alex Li

"Max Groznik is an absurd bird. And I think birds are neat. Also do not feed him bread." - Adeja Powell

Debate is like a clock, both teams make circular arguments. by the time the minute hand returns to where it started, everything was said, and none of it matters - Chris Miles

Specifics for formats that feature evidence:

-I believe that well researched argumentation is one of the largest benefits of carded debate, likewise I am extremely willing to call for cards at the end of a round; if you ask me to read a card I will read it. Don't power cut evidence, don't misrepresent evidence, don't clip cards.

-I really like advantage counter-plan/impact turn strategies

-I really like nuanced arguments that delve into mechanism debates and rigorous debates about methodology (both for determine validity of empiric data and underpinnings of ideological positions). I think this is something that is uniquely possible in carded debate and should be taken full advantage of.

---

Michael McHan - Grossmont

I'll try to keep this as brief and simple as possible.

For Parliamentary Debate:

• Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
• Structure, structure, structure.
• The PMC speech should contain a clear and fair resolutional analysis. Be very clear when providing the voting criterion (V/C) and articulating how the judge should weigh the round. *Remember, if the Gov. team fails to offer a V/C then the Opp. has the right to do so for them.
• Please make sure you are signposting and clearly labeling your arguments.
• Not a fan of Ks.
• Okay with Ts, but not when levied as a strategy to take up time.
• Both sides should have clear, numbered voters in their final speeches. Don't just summarize existing arguments but TELL me why you should get my vote.
• Ultimately, I like to hear a clean debate, with ample clash, and arguments properly linked and warranted.

For IPDA Debate:

Since IPDA was created for a lay audience it is important that debaters keep their cases as simple and clear as possible.

• Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
• Very important to speak with a clear and calm pace.
• Signposting and labeling your arguments is a necessity.
• Please do not get too fancy with the voting criterion.
• Avoid technical debate jargon.
• Offer numbered voters (reasons why you won the debate) in final speeches.
• Be kind and respectful to each other.
• Smile and have fun!

For other Speaking Events:

• One of the elements I notice first is delivery - I tend to focus first on verbal and nonverbal variety, then command of gestures, then how well you engage your audience (if appropriate for your speech).
• Second, content. How well does your content flow, how organized is it, and how much do you enjoy /belief what you are saying.
• Third, have fun and entertain me! Typically, at any given tournament, I am observing 10-20 debates/speeches, and I like to be entertained by what I am judging. Have fun!

If you have questions about something that was not mentioned in my judging philosophy please do not hesitate to ask me before the round begins!

---

Michael Starzynski - El Camino

tabula rasa, no spreading, roadmaps and signposts please!

---

Mitch Deleel - McK

n/a

---

Nicholas Thomas - Palomar

n/a

---

Nick Marshall - UCSD

n/a

---

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the Director of Forensics at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching in PSCFA since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:

1. I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed that is faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will probably result in me understanding maybe 20% of what you are saying, which is not conducive to your chances of winning.
   
   
2. My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.
   
   
3. I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative (!) impact calculus, and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.
   
   
4. I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.
   
   
5. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them.
   
   
6. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
   - Whining: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
   - Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...
   
   
7. The affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.
   
   
8. I don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

---

Nihitha Uppu - UCSD

n/a

---

Oli Loeffler - IVC

  I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.

I think neg teams have ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.

Speed shouldn't be a problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down. 

---

Orion Steele - SFSU

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

---

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: September 2023

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isnt what I mean. I dont think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical completely fair to an equally mythical completely unfair. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to completely unfair. Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didnt especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

---

Philip Ho - UCSD

n/a

---

Preston Le - UCSD

n/a

---

Rachel Lobo - El Camino

I competed in college circuit parliamentary debate and LD debate for 3 years, and also coached Parli at South Torrance High School.

TLDR// It's your round, do what you want with it.

As far as arguments in-round, there is rarely one I will not vote on. I am flow-centric, and will try my best to keep any outside knowledge away from the debate (although I am not sure that anyone is actually capable of this, so don't make things up, etc.). Also don't be indignant to the other team. I love sass and sarcasm but there is a line that you should do your best not to cross. specifics:

Speed

Spreading is fine with me as long as you do not use it as a weapon to exclude your opponent. If you go too fast or become incomprehensible, I will clear you but your speaker points will not be affected. I would certainly never vote against you because of your delivery. I would also not vote for you based on your delivery so say something substantive. Im not sure how speed plays out in the new online format but we can all try our best and work with each other.

Theory

I will gladly vote on any theory position, if the abuse is potential or articulated. That being said, I will be annoyed if you kick a cool CP for NIBS. I also default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Read a competitive counter-interpretation.

Impacts

Unless told how to evaluate the round, I will default to net-benefits, so make sure you read impacts. That being said, if you do read a framework, you need to extend it throughout the debate or at the very least tell me how it functions. I find myself leaning towards probability calculus but you can always convince me that my bias is wrong and that magnitude outweighs probability. Idk.

The Kritik

I would prefer links to be specific to the topic rather than tangentially related to the idea of something like the topic. Defend or reject the topic, either way you have to justify it. I dont believe that links of omission are very compelling but if you want to convince me otherwise, be my guest. Framework debates, specifically good framework debates, can also be very compelling and I think that sometimes one-off framework theory is an underrated neg strategy. In my time as a debater, I focused on orientalism, antiblackness, biopower, and security K's though I've debated several others and am familiar with some lit. Dont assume I know your author though! I have never read anything written by either Karl or Richard Marx.

If you have any questions that I haven't already answered, always feel free to reach out and ask before the round!

 

---

Rebecca Postula - McK

Hello! I am Rebecca! I graduated from McKendree University (2017-2021) and debated all four years, mostly in Parliamentary Debate however I also did NFA-LD for two years on and off and have some limited speech experience (mostly extemp). As a debater I solely ran policy based arguments on the affirmative however I was more varied on the negative in terms of critical arguments however my experience is limited to mostly Marx, Nietzsche, Biopower, and some Thacker.

Advantages/Disadvantages:I love case debate, this was my bread and butter as a debater and am more than comfortable judging policy based rounds. I prefer these arguments to be set up as uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact however you do you in terms of how you want to set these arguments up. I am totally down for politics disads and love hyperspecific advantages and disadvantages to the topic.

Ks:I will be upfront and say I am not as comfortable in a critical debate as a policy debate, however I do not want to use this to discourage your teams from running these arguments, however I do need some top level thesis explanation of what the world of the K looks like versus the world of the affirmative (or if it is a K AFF what the world post-aff looks like) these will help me to better contextualize your arguments and how they interact with the rest of the debate. I am very comfortable with Marx or any critiques of capitalism but beyond this I am not aware of the literature.

Theory:In terms of topicality please run it, I need a clear interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters at the end of the debate in order to vote for it. Beyond that I am not a huge fan of spec but run it if you must, however be warned that I will not be happy if you go for it.

Framework:As it is my first year out I am not 100% sure on how I vote on framework vs K AFFs, however as I debater this is an argument I ran frequently and am familiar with the argument broadly. However the direction I vote in these debates varies debating on the strategy teams deploy and comes to a question of what the world looks like depending on if I vote for Framework or the AFF.

Speaker Points:27-30, obviously don't be mean and do not say anything offensive.

Overall do you have fun, again this is slowly evolving and will likely change as the season goes on and I gain more experience judging.

---

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

---

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

Background: I am the Director of Forensics at Grossmont College, for the past 30 years. I have been judging and coaching Parli for at least 20 years, and coaching and judging IPDA for about 10 years, or since southern California started competing in this event. I am not an NFA/LD coach or judge.

Educational Activity: I believe that debate is an educational activity that teaches some very important skills from the areas of argumentation and public speaking. I want to hear clear, well structured, arguments. I want the speaker to label their points/sign posting throughout. I need a road map, throughout the speech, not just at the top of the speech. I want to hear arguments that have claims, with reasoning/evidence. I still believe that this is a speaking event, and using some clear structure to you debate is important to me.

Regional Differences: At a state or national tournament, I know that there are different terms/jargon that have developed from individual regions. Therefore, dont assume that everyone should know the same terms. If you use a term, quickly explain it, the first time you use it. I welcome an opposing team to ask the other team for explanations of their terms. I do not expect that team to respond with something like, everyone should know this term. If that is true, give us the definition. I see far too many debaters misusing and miscommunication about jargon.

Topicality/Spreading/Ks: Of course, I expect to occasionally hear a topicality argument, when warranted. I dont want to hear a kritik for the sake of using it, or because you have nothing else to offer. However, if warranted, I may be open to one.

I believe there is no place for spreading/speed in Parli or IPDA. Everyone who continues to encourage or allow spreading is encouraging poor communication skills, defeating the purpose of Parli/IPDA debate. It isnt about my ability to flow, it is about your ability to communicate logical, argumentation to any audience.

During rebuttals I am looking for very clear voters, to tell me why your team wins the debate.

IPDA specifically: I have watched the progression from CEDA to Parli and now IPDA. I would like judges to follow the guidelines for IPDA, which says that there should be lay judges for IPDA. This means that even though I am a Parli judge, I should listen without expecting to hear jargon. I do think a well structure speech is required to be successful.

Having said all that, I love judging Parli debates. I am excited to hear your well structured, lively, debates.

---

Ryan Corso-Gonzales - SU

Ryan Corso

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Director of Forensics at Schreiner University

Updated Fall 2021

About me

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 completed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. In my senior year, my partner Benji and I took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I recently received my master's in communication from the University of Louisville, my studies focus heavily on Rhetoric, Marxism, Neoliberalism, The Public Sphere, and Networking. I'm currently the Director of Forensics at Schreiner University, we are new to the circuit.

I owe all of 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, Trevor Greenan, Aaron Alford, Benjamin Lange, Alyson Escalante, Josh Alpert, Will White, 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 recently read the open-source material from Trevor Greenan and I believe I can uphold the above statement at a higher level now. I'm 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 wouldn't 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 am open to hearing about new positions, and I will always do my best to understand the position that you're reading to the best of my ability. So you can feel free to use me as a test for a new kritik or position in front of me, I'm open to anything. Debate is a game, and I believe in the multiple worlds paradigm, so win the game the way you like.

Policy:

As with most judges 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 familiar with other structures for policy debates as well but I don't think they provide the same strategic framework as the prior structure. Value and Fact rounds do exist and provide unique educational and fairness aspects to them (this probably has to do with my CC background).

Counterplans are opportunity costs to the aff, I don't believe that they are advocacies. I'm fine with conditional counterplans, heck even multiple conditional counterplans. This doesn't mean I won't vote on condo bad, I just don't have a low threshold on the argument as I used to. If you want to say condo is bad, then you will need to win that argument on the flow the same as any other theory position.

Theory:

Theory is my favorite aspect to debate and in my view one of the most educational parts of debate. 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 for its how I conceptualize the offense in the round, most of the theory debate happens here and it is the most important aspect of the debate. There is a very good lecture on NPTE 14 (youtube) about how standards consist of Links, Internal links that lead to your 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. MG theory is fine, I just think you shouldn't abuse it.

* 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.

Kritiks:

Kritiks need a CLEAR link to the AFF, or the topic, for me to even consider voting for it. 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 than 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. All that said, I enjoy complicated and strategic 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, Baudrillard, MLM, Nietzsche, Reps, and Rhetoric.

* 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, cause I will. A clear in round link is easily verifiable, while outside aspects are almost impossible. Being able to witness the link occur is a lot more of a viable link argument, in my opinion, than 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 of the such. Please don't expect me to already "know" (I have been removed from the debate community for the most part the past two years), 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. I'm a firm believer in the idea that people can and will change, ie rehabilitation and reeducation is good.

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, as a way to evaluate rhetorical capabilities, there's IPDA for that. I view speaker points 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 "Whoever did the best debating".

* DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents, good debate is a genuine and nice debate. The community is really important to maintain.

Side note:

I will do my best to weigh the round in the manner I think is most fair in regards 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 the round. I don't think you should belittle your opponents or judge in debate, but you can question me and potentially be upset with my decision. It is my job to vote for the team I think won, and I believe it is part of a judge's job to defend and explain their decision in the instance that occurs.

Good Luck, Have Fun! DEBATE IS A GAME! ENJOY THE RIDE, PLAY IT HOWEVER YOU WANT!

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 than 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! Also, please bring grace back to debate, be forgiving and open planes of discourse.

---

Sage Russo - SFSU

n/a

---

Sam Jones - GCU

---

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.

---

Sean Cox-Marcellin - MJC

edit: I made this paradigm for policy, but the broad strokes apply. Feel free to ask me clarifying questions before round.

Okay, I agree with Jared Anderson:?�?� "Prep stops when you have a) hit send on the email, or b) pulled the flash drive out."

About me:?�?� I debate in college, with most of my experience in NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD. I'm familiar with jargon, theory, "kritikal" arguments, and can follow speed to a degree. Feel free to ask me clarification or specific questions before round. I want to be in the evidence chain, whether you're using email (scoxmarcellin@gmail.com) or speechdrop or whatever. (I'm a big fan of speechdrop). I'll flow what you say, though.

General / Quick Overview:?�?� I consider myself a flow judge, and when it comes to the end of the round that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. Impact analysis in the rebuttal is essential. I think any judge who believes they're tabula rasa is deceiving themselves, but I do try to check my biases and will try not to bring in information external to the round. In round arguments and their analysis takes priority.

Theory:?�?� I like a good theory debate. I think it can be used to 1) collapse and win, 2) prevent shifting or other unfair actions, or 3) as a time trade-off (pure strategery). Whoever reads the theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interp level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (whether I'm rejecting the argument or the team) and why it's more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate as a whole). In your rebuttal, if you collapse to the theory position, it's vital you close all doors. Don't give me any choice but to vote on your theory.

I have some reservations for accepting "Reverse Voting Issues" (RVIs) on theory. By default, if the Aff wins the T, or Neg wins the "Condo Bad" position, I don't automatically vote for them. If you can articulate and impact out good reasons why, and the other side undercovers it, I'll vote on it. But don't blip out a "timesuck" argument and expect to win on it. Kritiks of theory, or linking it through the framework debate can be effective, and is underutilized.

Theory need not be an island. Connect it to the rest of the debate: the weighing mechanism, the kritik, etc. I think it's effective to leverage framework arguments from the first constructives on theory, and vice versa.

Kritik:?�?� I have heard some kritikal arguments, and I've run some kritikal debate, so I have familiarity with the structure. That said,?�?� do not assume I am familiar with the lit?�?� of your author or the ideas being discussed. I believe that someone who presents a kritikal argument has a burden of presenting it clearly enough to connect it to something in the round and impacting it out. I am skeptical of links of omission.

Role of the Ballot / How I vote:?�?� I think the rebuttals are really important speeches. It's a opportunity to clean up and clarify a busy debate into a few key issues that overpower or control the others. I tend to flow rebuttals on a separate sheet of paper, while looking at the arguments you're referencing next to it.?�?� I want you to tell me where to vote, how to evaluate the round, how to weigh different impacts against each other. Don't make me do the work for you.?�?� Ideally, justification for this should have come up before the rebuttals, and I could literally be going through your previous speeches with a highlighter. I also realize this is almost never the case. I think black swan impacts and "reductio ad extinction" are more emotionally effective than probablilistic / systemic impacts, but that's a human fallibility that I'm susceptible to, absent impact framing. I don't think they're logically better.

A magnitudinal impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in probability. A systemic impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in magnitude. One of these impacts is still triggering 100% of the time. Use that. Timeframe analysis is sorely under-utilized.

I'm open to non-traditional roles of the ballot, just be sure to justify it and be prepared to defend it. I default to net benefits, but I'll vote on stock issues, presumption, or "whoever best deconstructs post-truth debate." RotB is as much a part of the debate as any other argument.

Speed:?�?� I'm used to fast debate, but even I can get spread out by the fastest teams when they're dumping analytics at top speed without explication. Evidence-based debate can get really fast, and that's fine, but I recommend you?�?� emphasize your taglines?�?� and slow a little for them if you want to ensure I flow them. I don't like speed (or anything else) being used as a tool to exclude, and am receptive to well-run arguments about that.

Evidence:?�?� Quality of evidence debates are cool. Reading the other team's small-text at them is also cool. I like to see interesting analysis of evidence, and comparisons between different cards in the debate. Quality can beat quantity, but yeah, quantity has its uses too.

Speaker Points:?�?� Arbitrary and problematic, but if I just gave everyone 29.7-30 then it's arbitrarily better for people who get me as a judge. I'm not sure what to do about that. My normal range is 26-30.

Remember that you're debating in front of and with people. To win, you never need to act in ways that intentionally hurt someone.

---

Shayan Saadat - El Camino

---

Suhas Subramanya - UCSD

n/a

---

Therese (Lisa) Nguyen - UCSD

n/a

---

Tyler Jang - UCSD

n/a

---

Victor Parker - UCSD

n/a

---

Virginia Kerr - Hybrid

n/a

---

Will White - El Camino

They/He

For email chains:

williamewhite275@gmail.com

Background: I did NPDA for 4 years and wrapped up my last year with Parliamentary Debate @ Berkeley. I got 5th place at NPTE with 9th top Speaker and Sems at NPDA as 2nd top speaker. I did NFA-LD as a side hobby lol. Current DoF for EVHS!

TL/DR: I treat debate like a game and will vote on almost anything. Explain how the link story reaches your impacts and give me a framing to what impacts I should look to first. I will keep my decision focused on arguments made on the flow. I can hang with speed go as fast as you want. Also, I'm cool with frivolous theory. Tech>truth. Love K affs and neg strats. I don't think how "blippy" and arg is a reason to reject it. Like engage with it since its blippy, it should be easy to beat, and don't think there is a real bright line to what is friv like the only answers I have ever gotten are "you just know" which I don't think is a path to my ballot.

Also for most events I'm K>Theory>Tricks>Case>Phil

EDIT 10/11/21:

*mainly for carded debate except for theory/K updates

- I try not to read cards unless told to and you should make it loud and clear what you're asking me to evaluate when you're doing evidence comparison other wise I either won't grant it to you or I'll read the evidence maybe but I can't guarantee I'll interpret the ev in your favor

- I can still hang with speed but go slower and give me pen time if you're going on to analytics that aren't in the doc and try to number your responses if the analytics you're reading are like a page long *I honestly think just having analytics in the doc is the easiest way to fix this problem though in which case you can go top speed and idc still

- If you want me to look at the other teams card bc the card is in the opposite direction than the team claims to be then you should re-highlight the card and read it aloud

- I don't think you HAVE to have a stable interp for theory but I think I'm like really really receptive to claims about how the other team meets and you don't solve your offense

- I default to Theory>K but am pretty receptive to the K coming first/ out weighing

EDIT 9/28/21:

- I’ve discovered that I’m pretty down for implicit clash. What I mean by this is that like if DA substantively just implicates solvency of the aff I think the neg can just win the DA to take out 1AC offense and the converse would be true for me with winning an arg in the 1AC that implicates something like the uniqueness or link level of a DA. For example, if the aff is about like privatization solves grid failures and the DA is about why like privatization leads to grid failure + displacement and neither team points out how this interacts with the aff I would default to the DA taking out the aff because the flow becomes almost unresolvable for me in a world where I grant both claims as 100% true just because they weren't cross applied to some part of the flow

- I am down for terminal defense but think I find myself pretty persuaded by risk of offense/try or die framing

- In uncarded events I think a warrant + empirical example tends to hold more weight to me than just a warrant that justifies something in the abstract

- I’ve found that I have a lot of fun judging tricks like truth testing paradigms + paradoxes but that being said I think you can go fast on them but going 500 wpm might hurt you unless you do slower 2N explanation for me

- I default to theory/T is apriori so thus I look there first but still hold the belief that absent impacted voters I’m pretty willing to just move on from the sheet

- Neg teams should choose their words carefully with T because if you tell me to drop the arg on T I’m a little unsure where that leaves me on my flow

EDIT 4/10/21:

- I got sat for no neg fiat comes before T. Fr just go nuts lol

- I think I have a higher threshold for framework now but I think if you go for it with reasons to not weigh the aff/method turns I'm probably still fine

- Obviously do what you want but I think as a competitor I was mainly a theory/K debater but like my ideal round is fr a K v K debate but don't do something you're not comfortable with like I'll still judge your heg aff

Theory: Love it

- Absent a voting paradigm I default to competing interps. Need a bright line for reasonability otherwise, I will err towards competing interps.

- I also default to text of the interp over the spirit of the interp absent any reason to evaluate one of the other.

- Absent framing claims out of the MG/1AR/2AC I default to T coming before MG/1AR/2AC theory

- I default to drop the debater until told otherwise

- I assume education and fairness are not voters until explained otherwise. For example, the line "the aff puts us at the margins at the topic which is a voter for fairness and education" does not do it for me. Give an actual impact to these things.

- I have a lower threshold on disclosure theory for evidence debate but can be convinced otherwise but I have a high threshold for it in parli given it would be non-verifiable.

- I view we meets as a link take outs but think that folks can go for a risk of a violation depending on the arguments made

RVIs: I understand RVIs as framing claims for theory i.e., if you lose the standards level debate or the we meet you should lose because of reciprocal consequences. That being said I need the warrants for fairness and/or education to justify an RVI not just "oh no they were a time suck"

- I default to no RVIs unless told other wise

IVIs: Will vote for them but they need sequencing and impacts

Ks: Super down! I love reading Ks and while I have experience running Ks like Baudrillard, Edelman, Queer Pess, Nietzsche, Buddhism, Queer Performance, Orientalism, Settler Futurity, Ableism, and others. I still expect explanation coming out of the LOC/NC and while I am down for the backfill in the MO/NR/2NC I think its risky in terms of how the debate will play out on how I evaluate my flow

- I am pretty down for ROB first claims to frame out offense but I need implications to why that matters otherwise I default to assuming its a sort of thesis claim for your framing

- Absent any sort of layering or specific indicts to fiat and policy-making I think I currently default to the aff getting to weigh the plan vs the alt

- Spikes to perms need to be warranted. For example, I don't know what no perm in a methods debate means or why everything isn't a methods debate, why the perm or 1AC is not performance, or why links are DAs to the perm

- I am p down for severance perms for alts but I don't really find myself voting on meta claims on these perms being bad in a K debate -- I think a better story for my ballot would be a substantive reason why it's bad ie., representations are binding type stuff.

- I am down to vote on presumption triggers embedded within the framework of the criticism HOWEVER absent any contestation from either team I default to presumption flowing affirmative because you read an alt.

- I think links of omission are a bit of an uphill battle for my ballot but I will not just ignore the K if only links of omission are read.

- I default to perms being tests of competition not an advocacy unless told otherwise

Critical Affs:

- I love K affs and don't think that they have to have a link to the res as long as you have long substantive claims to frame why your advocacy comes first. I think teams should spend alot of time on the method indicts if a team reads FW because I tend to err slightly towards the method indicts over the debate collapse claims.

- I think soft left affs are great and something I love to read but they need to make it clear before the PMR/2AR why their particular type of critical offense comes first otherwise I default to assuming they operate at the same layer as typical policy impacts

Speed: I can hang, for NPDA I usually cap at around 335 wpm so like unless you're not clear I'll catch your args. If it's a carded event you can go like 500 wpm+ idc really. For parli specifically, I would appreciate the interp read twice or a copy of the text.

Partner Communication: Go for it! It's a partner activity.

CP:

- I'm pretty down for everything including delay but I do not judge kick counter plans unless told to

- I assume presumption flips aff for case debate when you read a CP

- I am cool with kicking planks

- I think things like intrinsic perms are not voters unless told otherwise

- Don't care one way or another for condo or dispo

AD/DA:

- I would prefer the conventional format of these args ie., uniqueness, links, and impacts with the exception of carded debate though I think the tags of the cards should indicate that they function implicitly on this level in this format.

- I am gravitating towards warrants being explanations of how things work and an example rather than just (x) author says (y)

- I tend to find myself more willing to pull trigger on an AD/DA with brink scenarios though not a must-have I suppose

- I default to fiat being durable

- Also, absent any weighing I default to strength of link>magnitude>timeframe>probability

Rebuttals:

- I tend to think in the PMR/LOR you can do weighing against the positions even if it was not done in the MG/MO but I think reasons why it would function as a link take out would not do it for me

- I tend to think shadow extensions are new arguments that should have been in the MG but you can try to convince me other wise

POI: Please do not use these to make “did you know?” type arguments.

Try to save it for the next constructive.

PoO: I will do my best to protect the flow but I personally prefer the team to call it

Evidence Debate: I am pretty down for spin and think that spin can be more important than just reading cards without thinking about them because I think a card is only as good as you frame it and extend it to be.

PS If you're running dedev pls don't double turn yourself

---