2023 Crossman Invitational

El Camino College - Nov 4-5 | Status: Completed | 5:20 AM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 5:20 AM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Alex Li - El Camino

Go to this link: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=21043

Alex Car - Maricopa

n/a

Alex Cadena - Cal State LA

n/a

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

For parli: I try to just look at arguments made in the round. Both sides should weigh their impacts and explain why they should win. I expect everyone to be respectful to their opponents. I love counterplan debate. I am not the biggest fan of Ks. If you do choose to run a K spend extra time on alt. solvency. I have no problem with speed or jargon.

For IPDA: I view IPDA separately from parli and try to leave my parli knowledge at the door. I don't think debate jargon or speech belong in IPDA. Delivery and persuasion matter. I view IPDA as a combination of debate and extemp.



Alyson Escalante - El Camino

My views about debate have changed fairly radically since the end of the 2019/2020 season. I will give a detailed explanation of these changes here, but if you want a TLDR dos and don'ts list, I’ll put that at the end of my philosophy as well.

Accessibility note: I suffer from carpal tunnel. This means that on a good day, flowing high speed rounds involves minor but mostly not distracting discomfort. On a bad day, this means flowing high speed rounds is exceptionally painful to the point that the pain absolutely acts as a distraction from the round and significantly slows my flowing speed. If I am having a bad day, I will let you know before the round and I seriously and sincerely ask that you consider accessibility concerns and slow down in that round or if you are cleared by me. I will not vote on arguments I could not get on my flow as a result of debater disregard for accessibility.

Overview: My position for years has been that NPDA debate should be a technical exercise in which the content of an argument is largely insignificant. I have generally been of the opinion that the role of a judge is to bracket out their own views and preferences and to vote based on the technical execution of a strategy regardless of the pedagogical or ethical validity of said strategy. I no longer believe this, and I am adapting my judging paradigm accordingly.

I believe that NPDA debate is a unique format that has many benefits which cannot be derived from other forms of debate, and I believe the preservation of NPDA as an event should be a central goal for all participants in the activity. NPDA provides scholarship opportunities, travel opportunities, and intensive pedagogical development that many students might not otherwise have access to. Debate is not just a hobby we participate in on the weekends, it is a gateway into academia, politics, and a longstanding community.

My concern is that I believe the proliferation of certain pedagogically vacuous trends within NPDA constitute an existential threat to the continued existence of the event, and I feel personally that being a responsible judge with a commitment to the activity and community means no longer facilitating the spread of these trends. My philosophy has changed in order to account for this shifting understanding of what it means to be a good judge.

Theory: Theory has become my main site of concern in terms of proliferation of vacuous strategies. I vote on theory a lot, based on my judging record, and that will probably not change, but there are certain theoretical arguments I am fundamentally opposed to and will not vote on.

  1. I will not vote on specification arguments which demands specification for anything other than funding, enforcement, and actor.

  2. I will not vote on theory positions with a violation derived from the formal behavior of competitors in the round (as opposed to violations derived from the argument choice of competitors). What I mean by this is theory such as “The affirmative must read their plan within X amount of time” or “The negative must take at least X questions during flex” or “The affirmative must pass us a copy of their plan text”

  1. I will not vote on disclosure theory or any theory with a violation which occurs outside of round.

  2. You should not include more than 2 new theory sheets (defined as independent interpretations and violations) in any constructive speech.

Theory should indeed be about establishing ideal debate norms through a competing interpretations framework as opposed to being about correcting in round abuse, but there is a limit to the scope of what we can consider legitimate norm setting. I will still be evaluating theory under that paradigm, but parli has clearly passed this threshold to the point that particularly inane instances of theoretical debate has become particularly harmful to the pedagogical value of the activity.

Criticisms:

I believe that critical debate is highly valuable and when well executed can offer some of the most interesting rounds in debate. My stance here remains largely unchanged. This is the type of debate I have judged the most of, and it is the literature base I am most familiar with.

It is, however, important to me that your criticism makes sense. I won't vote on a criticism that I fundamentally cannot understand, and even if you win the formal and technical components of a criticism, if I cannot explain in non-technical terms to the other team why your criticism wins, I’m not going to be comfortable voting for this. Basically this means that your criticism should have a core thesis summarizing the central components of your argument. This also means that your links should be contextualized to the other team in such a way that it is clear how their rhetoric, ontology, epistemology, etc in particular reproduces the impacts that you isolate.

Non-Topical Affirmatives:

I think that it is best for the affirmative to be topical unless the topic is flawed to such a degree that the affirmative is at a thorough disadvantage. That said, I am not so strongly committed to this that I am unwilling to vote for non-topical affirmatives. If you want to read non-topical affirmatives in front of me, you should have a clear reason why you ought to be exempted from upholding the topic.

Counterplans/Advocacy Status:

There are no forms of counterplans that I have an a priori opposition to beyond delay counterplans (which you should not read in front of any judge). I believe that conditionality is important for the negative flexibility and encourages more dynamic negative strategies. That said, I do not believe that an unlimited amount of conditional advocacies is a tenable norm for debate. As such, teams should not read more than two conditional advocacies in front of me. To make this concrete, you may read 2 counterplans/alternatives as a part of your LOC, but I believe the MO should always still have the option to kick both and defend the status quo.

Tech VS Truth:

I previously held that only the technical dimensions of debate mattered, and I was fairly antagonistic towards arguments in round that truth ought to be weighed over and against technical debate. I no longer hold this position to be true.

Technical debate can be utilized as a way of beating down teams in a manner which reproduces various forms of social violence and marginalization. For example, I have seen and voted for utterly vacuous critiques that were read as a means of dodging a grounded discussion of anti-black violence in debate purely on the basis that these criticisms won on small technical concessions and extensions despite offering no read pedagogical value to the debate round.

I’m not going to be auto-dropping all arguments I see as vacuous, because that would be utterly subjective and unpredictable in a way that is not fair to competitors, but I am significantly more open to tech vs truth arguments that claim that the use of technical debate can be an instance of violence in round, and I am much more willing to consider claims that flow centric debate ought to be de-emphasized, either in a specific round or as a broader norm.

Summation: I think this has hit on the major changes to my judging philosophy and the bright lines that I have drawn and am willing to enforce. I know these bright lines will make me a worse judge in the eyes of many competitors, but I also believe many competitors have a short sighted view regarding the future of NPDA and that some level of paternalism from those of us who are committed to ensuring the future survival of this activity is necessary.

TLDR Dos and Dont’s

  1. Don’t read spec besides A, F, or E spec

  2. Don’t read disclosure or out of round abuse theory

  3. Don’t read theory about the conduct of debaters as opposed to their arguments

  4. Don’t read more that two conditional advocacies in the LOC

  5. Don’t read more than two theory sheets in any constructive speech

  6. Do make arguments about why truth ought to be weighed over tech if technical debate is

    being used as a form of violence

  7. Do slow down if I ask, it's a disability thing. I will not vote on arguments I could not

    get on my flow as a result of debater disregard for accessibility.

  8. Do include a clear thesis in your criticisms and make your links contextual

Andrew Yllescas - CSUN

n/a

Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa

Debate is about persuading your judge. Having said that, please talk to me, not at me. For all types of debate, let's have some clash? Call points of order in the rebuttal, I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive (I know this will look different in a remote setting but the concept still applies), I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments please just be sure that they are warranted and fully explained. Structure is vital to a clear case. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you donât want to leave it up to me. PS-all road maps are in time.

IPDA:
   This event is not Parli lite. The best way I have heard it explained is that it is dueling extemp speeches. There should be clash, clear arguments, and clear reasons to vote for you.

NFA-LD:
I prefer a conversational rate and a speaker who engages with their audience rather than just reading their cards. I have only judged 2-3 rounds of LD all year, if you run the round like I know the topic as well as you, you may lose my ballot.

Remember to have fun!


Ashton Poindexter - Utah

I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD throughout my college forensics experience and currently coach at the University of Utah.

I'm okay with whatever arguments you want to run so long as you do clear warranted analysis, argument comparison, and evidence comparison. A couple of key considerations are:
I have a higher threshold for theory if you don't collapse to it.

Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.
I'll default to topicality/theory being apriori, so if you want me to evaluate something else first you need to make the arguments.
You can't win just because your advocacy could also solve the issue if you haven't linked them to offense.
I'm good with speed, though there's two reservations. First, I often flow electronically now so I need a bit extra time between page transitions. Second, if your opponents ask you to slow I expect you to slow. If you need someone to slow, you should say slow and not clear, clarity I expect them to bite their pallet while still going quick.
In general - I like good arguments, I don't like bad arguments. Pleasemake good arguments and be a good human being while you do it.

Averie Vockel - Utah

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. If you need to go fast, do so. BUT no one (including me) should have to ask you to slow you multiple times. Also of note, slow and clear mean different things so make sure you are clearly expressing your needs.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO start flex when the speech ends. Flex doesn't start after you have asked for texts of CPs, plans, etc.

DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round. This means you should compare your arguments to your opponents and tell me why I should vote for you.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete. I like T, I think it's useful. BUT you need to make sure the pieces are present and explained.

DO tell me how you want me to evaluate T against other arguments.

DO engage with the topic in some way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be clear on why that is fair to your opponent. There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways. If it is LD, I expect the aff to affirm.

Ben Mason - El Camino

TLDR: Run whatever you want, I'll vote on the flow and whatever fw you want me to evaluate. I'm a 4th year undergrad at CSULB studying Communications. I debated for El Camino College in NPDA / IPDA / Limited Prep Speeches / Interps for 2 years. If there are any questions or preferences let me know. Communication: Communication with your partner in any manner is fine, but I will only flow whatever the present speaker says. Be respectful to your opponents and your partner. Speed: I don't mind speed, just speak clearly and concisely. I won't call clear or slow because it's your time and you can use it however you want, but I may give nonverbals to indicate you are going too fast or are being unclear. Kritiks: Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear fw for evaluation, a K without fw is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I primarily ran anthro when I was competiting so I may be a little more critical if thats what you run, but I don't pretend to be an expert or anything. Identity tix are cool and fun arguments are beneficial to debate and individual agency, however, they can also easily be used to bully, silence, or provoke reactions from other teams when weaponized incorrectly. I won't tell you how to run identity arguments but know that it's somewhat of a grey area for me as far as voting. Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as that it's properly structured (interp viol stds voters). I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is clearly just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). MG theory is fine, should be fleshed out though. I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory. RVIS: I don't hate RVI's or IVI's but it's not the most compelling argument. If a team is reading 7 blipped out T shells and 3 blipped out specs then yeah run an RVI but other than that, all instances of spec T and other theory are not cause for debate collapse or abuse. Signposting: Please have brief taglines for your arguments, I can't vote on an argument if I don't know what to call it, where it fits, or why it matters. Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but be sure to make sure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

Benjamin Work - Westmont

n/a

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.  



BG:

I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. 

Impacts:

You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. 

Case Debate:

I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. 

Disadvantages:

Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. 

Counterplans:

Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. 

Conditionality:

I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it. 

Kritiks:

I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than they used the state.¢? I am not saying this cant be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I dont like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. 

Identity Arguments:

With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. 

Theory:

I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Dont just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. 

Speed

Speed is fine but please be clear. I dont see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. 

Defending the Topic:

Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument. 

Speaker Points:

If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.

Miscellaneous:

Be organized and sign post. Dont assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round. 

As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time. 

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory. 

Brooke Hanniff - Cerritos

Camila Polanco - Cerritos

n/a

Chloe Paul - Cal State LA

n/a

Damon Darling - Utah

TLDR: Been doing this for quite a while. 12 years total in forensics (if you include HS). 7 years doing Interp/Platforms/Limited Prep. 3 years doing collegiate Debate, specifically all of the areas listed prior as well as Parli Debate and IPDA Debate. Additionally, this is my third year of Collegiate Forensics coaching. I spent two years coaching for San Diego State University and now im at the University of Utah

Debate: My views on debate are very straightforward. Debate is both academic and a game. It is first a basis of argumentation and speech, and secondly an avenue for competition. What this means is I fully understand the ways debate has evolved to become this great source of competition However, I find it necessary to respect its academic roots, so please try your best to make well-educated arguments and analysis in round, rather than running a bunch of asinine arguments because you think you can win on them. With that being said, I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I like K debate and case debate equally. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that Frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. I think where the K fails often is through a misreading of the base literature. Additionally, please note that why I may be knowledgeable about a good deal of critical theory. Please make sure that you are fully articulating the argument and not relying on the assumption that I have read D&G or Baudrillard.

^^^ with that, if youre framing your K based on judge background: My area of education/expertise is in Critical Gender Studies, Sex, and Sex Work. So be weary when youre running these in front of me and please make sure you know what youre talking about

Theory/T: Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned. In the words of my colleague adeja, Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.

Flex: Stop stealing flex. Im not waiting 3 minutes while you wait for a copy of the text. Yall should have that ready on either side, please. Lets get this show on the road. I will not let my ballot be the thing that sets our schedule back.

Speed: Youre not gonna speed me out of the round most of the time you just gotta make sure youre clear. With that, my flow is not as tight as it used to be. The faster you go the more likely I am to miss it on the flow though I did hear it.

^^^ if your opponent asks you to clear or slow I fully expect you to do so. Speeding someone out doesnt make you a good debater.

Collapse: You should probably collapse. You cant go for everything

Edward Minasyan - RioRunners

When evaluating debate rounds I find that I look for structure and clarity of all arguments made. An argument without proper taglines or a response without signposting ends up being a thought thrown out with the hope that the judge or opponent flows it in the proper place.

I like to see topical affs who engage with the resolution, regardless of debate format, and negs who engage with the aff through DA, CP, T, and other arguments on case. Stock issues are extremely important to me in both Parli and NFA-LD. If you don't meet those burdens as an aff you will lose if the neg points it out. Fairness should be a priority for everyone, so take questions and be courteous to all.

NFA-LD specific things:You should come prepared to the rounds. That means making sure everyone has access to your case and any cards you read. It doesn't matter if it's a paper copy or on speechdrop.net. I believe that the rules matter, are important, and are the guidelines to competitors and judges in this event. That means stock issues are the most important voting issues, neg should have logically consistent arguments, and excessive speed will mean a loss.

General Notes:I like straight up debates and will almost never vote for K's just run without a truly justified reason. I think spread delivery actively hurts the competition of debate, so just don't do it in front of me if you want my ballot. Don't run excessive or abusive theory just to win a ballot in front of me. Try not to run apocolyptic impacts because they're never explained enough or convincing enough to be realistic. Probability > Magnitude. Don't lie or cheat.

Be nice, have fun.

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10.

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn.There arelots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, butI try notto bring them into the round.Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you can lose a round if you drop one little argument, though it's unlikely unless your opponents blow it up, but if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework argument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool, or ask me to vote on real world impacts, I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have been "won." A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up or lie. In LD, I will read evidence, including that which the debaters don't read and will not give the ballot to debaters who misrepresent authors.

Because I try to base my decision based solely on argumentsthat are madein the round,I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad.Likewise, you don't have to run only conventionally believed positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or if they are "true."In general, know that I don't believe that debate is a search for the truth; I believe it is a game. As when you play all games, you should have fun!!!

BUT . . . if you are excessively rude or bullying, I will probably drop you.

2023 Update: after 3 yrs of competing and 23 years of judging, I have decided that I am over the k. My mindet has not changed; society has not changed. College students, who went through the application process, which by its nature excludes some, speaking for others has become old. I'm not saying I will never vote for a k again, but it will prob have to be different from the versions on a theme that I have heard for the last 30 years. Plus it's really killing parli which makes me sad. :/

Gabe Graville - SDSU

He/Him

Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.

I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.

I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.

I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp.  You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.

While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.

Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe

Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it

Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space. 

Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners

I debated NPDA and NFA-LD. In IE's, focused on Limited Prep and Platforms, minimal personal experience in Interps. Been coaching forensics speech and debate for the last 15 plus years.

You matter, your opponent matters, your speech matters, truth matters, rules matter, I matter. I refrain from interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also, hurting, kicking, and just violence in general, I frown upon)

In all forms of debates my guiding principle aside from fairneness, consideration and humility will be the official rules of the event. Although I might disagree with some of the rules, untill they are changed, I will abide by the existing sets.

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any students. Do not isolate, offend, or make your opponent feel less than wonderful human beings and students that they are. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attacks and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments and not a bully pulpit to bash fellow students.

I prefer good On Case/Off Case. Be aware that procedurals force judge intervention. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. If you are running a CP, you give up presumption. You take upon yourself same burdens as the Aff. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete.

I firmly believe that speed kills, "DO NOT SPREAD" as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything.

I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.

Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

On IPDA. It is a stand-alone debate. It is not Parli Light, it needs logic, anlaysis and persuasivness, which means for the duration of IPDA round I do not speak Parli. Make your arguments conversational, logical and devoid of lingo that has no place in this event.

On NFA-LD. Its stock issues and spread delivery is antithetical to this event.

Hannah Koh - OCC

n/a

Heather Smith - El Camino

n/a

Jack Gilley - Westmont

n/a

Jeannie Hunt - Utah

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

FLEX TIME - stop stealing flex and adding several minutes to each round. You should have a plan text, alt, CP text, interpretation - anything you know the opposition is going to want a copy of - written and ready to go. And flow, ask for it to be repeated when they say it, or let them know before the round starts what you will want in writing. I will not wait more than 30 seconds for you to write it out before I start flex.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything (except stealing flex).

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing, I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Jeff Samano - Fullerton College

n/a

Jen Page - Cypress College

I am an educator and the Director of Forensics. I am also a former debater, platformer, and interper and have been a part of this community since the late 80s. I teach and coach all events. I love it all!

Just a few points: IPDA is not a version of Parli-LD or NFA-LD. The resolution in IPDA is what the debate should be about. Please do not turn IPDA into something it was not meant to be.

Please dont expect me to make arguments for you or draw conclusions. I judge based on what is said/happens in the round. Links, impacts, etc.... Articulate any abuse. Stock issues are important. QUICK road maps are appreciated and are not timed. Please be kind to your partner and to your opponents. Speaker points do matter if competition is fierce. Dont run T just for the sake of running it, in hopes that I may buy the argument. If there is no reason to run T (and/or you dont make the argument clear), it is a waste of your time. Running Ks...sure. But explain, justify, link, and dont use it as a strategy to confuse your opponents. Dont make assumptions that anyone else in the room has read the lit/info on your K. Clash in round is good. Speed...ok. BUT, if you out-spread your opponent, there is no debate, and I see this as a form of abuse in the round. (See previous comment about judging based on what is said/happens in round.). Dont call a point of order unless its an actual point of order! Remember the opposition block in Parli. Again, be kind, have fun, and tell me why you should win.

Persuade me with your arguments and logic, knowledge, humanity, wit, and sense of humor...just as long as you arent abusive to others in the round.

Jordan Kay - OCC

n/a

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, 

Josiah Edwards - El Camino

n/a

Justin Perkins - Cypress College

My name is Justin Perkins, I am the assistant coach at Cypress College, where I am primarily responsible for Debate events including Parliamentary Debate, IPDA, and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically and intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 50 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in a subtly similar yet beautifully different ways.

Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game, and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. However, I am persuaded by debaters exercising and explaining what they know that I know that they know, you know? That means explain everything to the point of redundancy. My brain is mush by the end of a long tournament. I like criteria based arguments, meaning that all warrants should frame the data supporting your claim in the context of the criteria agreed upon in round.

With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round.

This leads to the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, its your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out clear for you to speak more clearly, Speed to speak more slowly, and Signpost if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't pull through incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.

I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and dont really recognize reverse voters for numerous reasons. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. I don't discourage the practice of fact and value debate, in fact, I consider the degree of difficulty in running those cases to be higher. I will entertain as many points of order as you call. You may state your point, and I will entertain a response from the other side, before finally giving you a brutally honest decision to the best of my ability and will encourage my fellow judges on panels to rule on important, big round arguments in rebuttals at their discretion. It is a team activity, but I will only weigh arguments made by the speaker, feel free to repeat partner prompts or pass notes. Give me your best and have fun, I'll be giving you my best and ensuring we have an ordered and fair round.

Kevin Shufford - Maricopa

As a judge, I prioritize logically consistent arguments backed by real-world, tangible examples. I value clear structure and roadmaps, which help me follow the flow of the debate and understand each debater's position. I appreciate debaters who engage in rigorous analysis and provide well-supported evidence to bolster their claims. Ultimately, I seek to reward debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills, effective communication, and a deep understanding of the topic at hand.

Kyle Pryor-Landman - SDSU

Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am an ADOF at SDSU and Secretary of the NPDA. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.

TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.

FAQs:

  1. What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
    1. I am pretty comfortable with most of the lit in the meta (esp. continental philosophy)! If you want to do something outside of that, just explain it!
  2. Can I spread? Sure, just don't be abusive. (I am not a fan of listening to or evaluating speed T so please just be nice to each other :D )
  3. Can I reject the topic? Update 2025 - I don't like K affs. I really don't like K affs which wholesale reject the topic. I don't have an issue with K affs that affirm the topic (read: derive offense from the implementation of a topical(ish) plan). If you are going for structural impacts, please weigh them. I have a pretty low threshold for buying FW-T, so do what you will with that.
  4. What do you want to see?: In order from most to least enjoyable for me to judge:
    1. Topical Aff vs. Disads/CP/T
    2. Topical Aff vs. K
    3. K aff vs. FW-T
    4. K aff vs. K (everyone understands their K)
    5. K aff vs K (no one understands their K) (I am the wrong judge to break your new K aff in front of)
  5. Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
  6. Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
  7. Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
  8. Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
  9. Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
  10. What about LD?: Cross apply everything from parli. I do pre-flow a bit to save my wrists, so be clear about where you are cutting your cards if you do.
  11. How do you feel about IPDA?: I am coming to terms with it. The closer it is to NPDA, the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am.
    1. What does this mean for me?: Strike to the policy topic, read a plan, and actually interact with your opponent's arguments. If you really want to do a value that's fine, just tell me how to evaluate your arguments. Please don't strike to the fact. In the case you do, please don't say preponderance of evidence and assume I know what you mean by that. I'm not counting warrants. INFO is for that.
    2. I am NOT EVER voting on things like eye contact (please don't stare at me), presentation (will be reflected in speaks, not the W), dress, speed, tone of voice, etc.
    3. Also, please spare me the thank yous, and don't shake my hand. I don't know where those things have been, and I want them nowhere near me.
  12. Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge? I like to have a fun, silly, goofy time in debate rounds. (This does not mean you shouldn't take debate seriously.) I also have carpal tunnel (thanks, grad school!), so my written RFDs are going to be shorter than they used to be. Email me after the tournament if you want more written feedback, but you should also write down your oral feedback anyway.
    1. I was a squirrelly debater. I rarely read a topical plan, but I think I rejected maybe twice or three times when the topic was really bad. I don't need or desire that you emulate me in any way. Actually, I'd prefer hearing something new from time to time. Please terminalize your impacts and for the love of all things good in this world, do impact weighing. If you don't, I will look to strength of link. If I can't figure that out, I will vote on presumption. If you wanted to go for presumption, please do it for real in the MO. T voters also need to be terminalized, especially if you are collapsing to T in the MO or PMR. I am not Kant.
  13. Clash makes me scared! What should I do? Respond to your opponent, or you probably won't win.
  14. If I ask you what your paradigm is before the round, what will you say?: It's on ForensicsTournament if you want to check it out.

Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell

Speaks: 26-30 (expect 27.5) unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard all year, 26 being you did not include significant portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you. I am not a point fairy and I think speaks matter.

ps. don't read fun as a voter unless you're gonna terminalize that.

Marnie Salvani - Hired

n/a

Melissa Deleon - Cal State LA

Background

  • she/her/hers
  • I competed in parli and IPDA for 4 years at Rio Hondo College and Cal State LA.
  • I currently coach debate at Cal State LA & East Los Angeles College
  • I prefer specificity when asked questions like: "How do you feel about theory?" That's kind of vague, so I might not give you the answer you want. Hopefully the answers you seek are found below.
  • Yes partner to partner communication is cool
  • I was hesitant to write a judging philosophy because you should run your rounds as you please, not as I please. Appealing to your audience is a fundamental aspect of communication, but it can also harm the authenticity of your advocacy. This is your round, find the balance & speak your truth.

GENERAL

  • Be respectful to everyone
  • Be mindful of your positionality in the world as you run arguments about others
  • Don't misgender others
  • I'm a fan of people first language (people that are homeless, people with addiction, etc.)
  • You can still be fair while being strategic
  • Debate is a game
  • Be persuasive

IPDA

  • This event is NOT an extension of parli
  • Conversational doesn't mean structure isn't important = don't make claims without backing them up
  • I like voters here

PARLI

  • Sure, debate is a game where we engage in a thought process of imagination, but I tend to vote on real world impacts.
  • I don't like voting for nuclear war

THEORY

  • Procedurals/T: necessary when the opponent is unfair/not following rules
  •  I'll vote for articulated abuse
  • Kritik: no thank you :)

SPEED

  • Since speed is so subjective, feel free to speak at the rate which is most comfortable or necessary for you, as long as your opponent has access to the words you are speaking.
  • If someone is speaking too rapidly, please slow them down by saying "slow".
  • If someone is speaking in a manner that their words are unintelligible, say "clear".
  • Please don't use the opponents method of delivery as a reason for me to "vote them down" if you did not first attempt to demonstrate that it was problematic. Fairness goes all ways.

If there's anything else you would like to know, please don't hesitate to ask me! :)

Mikayla Holzinger - OCC

I am primarily an IE Coach, however I also appreciate a good debate.

Spreading: Dont do it. It defeats the purpose of the educational nature of this activity. Speak to be heard and understood.

Organization: Be clear in your structure; show me how the arguments fit together and be sure that clash is occurring between your and your opponents arguments; roadmap your speeches and label your components,

Kritiks/Topicality: Im game as long as they make sense. Dont do it to do it. Do it because it makes sense.

IPDA: This event is meant to be distinct from Parliamentary Debate; I think about it as competing extemps; this means that style is an important component that must be utilized. You should also avoid highly technical language and treat me as a lay judge.

NPDA:You may use more technical language with me; however, this does not mean you may spread (see above).

Off-Time Roadmaps: I time roadmaps; they don't take a lot of time, so do them but include it in your time.

Partner Communication: Keep communication to a minimum while each partner debates; you may pass notes, but the person speaking is the person that needs to be the one making the arguments

If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them.

Naomi Fobes - El Camino

n/a

Neko Phung - SMC

n/a

Nicholas Thomas - CSU San Marcos

n/a

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the DOF 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 national circuit NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching college debate 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 faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will 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 mostly ran 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. In policy rounds, 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. Parli: 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.

I am happy to answer specific questions before the round starts. (But please note: "Do you have any judging preferences?" is not a specific question).

Nicole Castro - Moorpark

n/a

Noelle Anderson - Moorpark

I judge IPDA based on the arguments made in the round and how each debater adapts while listening to their opponent. Additionally, I take into account delivery and camaraderie. Please avoid debate jargon or talking so fast that the audience cannot follow along. 

Patricia Hughes - RioRunners

When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.

When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters.

I am not a fan of K s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.

I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.

 

While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Richard Hu - Cal State LA

n/a

Robert Montgomery - CSUF

n/a

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

As a debater, I competed in both NDT and CEDA, however, I left those forms of debate as a coach when I felt that they lacked any semblance of 'real-world' argumentation. I believe stock issues are labeled that way for a reason and I will weigh arguments around those issues heavily (even inherency on policy topics). I do not consider myself a 'games-theory' judge, nor do I consider myself purely 'Tabula Rasa'. I do not abandon my knowledge or common sense when I come into a debate round. This does not mean, however, that I am an 'interventionist.' I will only impose my thoughts/feelings into the round in the event that I am absolutely sure that arguments are erroneous.

One of the topline philosophies I bring to this activity is that I am an educator first and foremost. This means that if your approach to the debate undermines the educational experience for anyone in the round, it will probably result in a lost ballot for you. Additionally, behavior that would not be tolerated in an inclusive classroom will not be tolerated in front of me in the debate space. As a Director of Forensics I am also deeply concerned with the future of this activity, which requires the support of administrators that do not have a background in forensics. If your behavior in rounds is such that it would turn lay decision makers against the activity, that is a more real world impact calculus to me than any disad or theory shell I've ever seen in a debate and will be treated as such.

If I were to describe my philosophy, it would be that of 'a critic of argument.' This is to say that if your opponent drops an argument it does not necessarily mean that you win the round:

  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.

Ronnell Evans - CSUN

n/a

Rosa Flores-Diaz - SMC

n/a

Ryan Bartl - Hired

n/a

Sean Connor - OCC

I am primarily an IE Coach, however I also appreciate a good debate.

Spreading: Dont do it. It defeats the purpose of the educational nature of this activity. Speak to be heard and understood.

Organization: Be clear in your structure; show me how the arguments fit together and be sure that clash is occurring between your and your opponents arguments; roadmap your speeches and label your components,

Kritiks/Topicality: Im game as long as they make sense. Dont do it to do it. Do it because it makes sense.

IPDA: This event is meant to be distinct from Parliamentary Debate; I think about it as competing extemps; this means that style is an important component that must be utilized. You should also avoid highly technical language and treat me as a lay judge.

NPDA:You may use more technical language with me; however, this does not mean you may spread (see above).

Off-Time Roadmaps:Keep them brief

Partner Communication: Keep communication to a minimum while each partner debates; you may pass notes, but the person speaking is the person that needs to be the one making the arguments

If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them. Otherwise, I'm happy to give critiquesafterthe round is finished,aftermy ballot is turned in, and only if it doesn't impede with the tournament running on time. If you see me after the round, I'm happy to give you feedback then.

Selene Aguirre - Cerritos

As an educator, the core of my teaching and judging philosophy is empowerment and inclusion. My experiences are primarily focused on platform speaking. However, Iâ??ve taught Argumentation and Debate for the past four years and have developed a few preferences when judging IPDA, Parli, and LD. 


As a debater, I expect you to speak with clarity, a bit faster than a conversation speaking rate (but avoid speeding if the speech will be affected), and loud enough for me to hear you. I prefer off-time roadmaps for clarity, appreciate signposts throughout speeches, and praise respectfulness and good sports[person]ship. Also, I am a tabula rasa judge (consider myself a clean slate). I will allow you to guide the round and not let my preconceived ideas cloud my judgment. Therefore, I look for clear and well-supported arguments, evidence, and analysis, and lastly, let me know how you weigh your impacts and why your voters are more critical than your opponent. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm if thereâ??s no way to assess it another way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your time! 


Inclusion is not a matter of political correctness. It is the key to growth. -Jesse Jackson

Shauhin Davari - OCC

The debaters that win my ballot most often present clear, concise, well supported arguments. I want clash. I’m not a huge fan of K’s or any preplanned argument that doesn’t have to do with the resolution. Look up from your flow sheet, my face will tell you if I don’t get it.

Spencer Simon - Hired

n/a

Trevor Wilcox - CSU San Marcos

n/a

Victor Wright - RioRunners

n/a

Zachary White - Cypress College

Overall:

I think debate should be accesssible and educational. Be nice in your rounds, be courteous, and remember to be considerate of everyone's identities, religions, values, ability, etc. Don't make asssumptions about what I know or don't know. Always explain and warrant your impacts, links, etc with examples, explanations, etc. Off time roadmaps are great!

Parli:

I love parli! One of my favorite events and really enjoy judging it. Make sure to have clear links, clear warrants, good info. Cite and justify those sources. Be nice! Remember to call points of order as it is a part of the debate I enjoy is still around. Don't assume I will protect an argument.

Be respectful about partner communication. Don't puppet but notes or checking with your partner are fine in round within reason

LD:

Dislikes speed in LD (I just can't flow every argument as well as I want). I appreciate warrants, but I will try to read the sources you drop. Don't drop me bad evidence and expect me not to read it. I want good clash and clear links to arguments.

Background:

2 years of parlimentary debate and 5 years experience teaching debate. I prefer clash, clearly sturctured arguments, and making debate approachable. Give me examples, warrants, etc. Mostly competed in IEs, so I primarily value delivery elements, direct refutation, and a fun, friendly debate environment.

I will accept a stock issues, Ks, and identity arguments, but I prefer a debate within the general boundaries, limits, and standards of the resolution. If there is a topicality, moving target, or vagueness issue, feel free to call it out within reason. If you run procedurals for procedurals sake or feels heavily unwarranted, it may effect how I percieve the round. (Not so much in IPDA though)