FTN - Judge Philosophies

Tournament Time: 11:03 PM Pacific

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Late Adds Late Drops Entries Headquarters Postings eBallots Results

Judge Philosophies

AJ Moorehead - LAVC

Time starts on your first word. Please don't do the "Time... begins... NOWIAFFRIMTHE RESOLUTION" thing. I promise I know how to use a timer. Have been judging since 2001. Have coached some teams, have worked some camps, so I will probably understand your argument but I will not impact it for you. I believe the "perceptual debate" is real and I try not to get sucked into it. My default is to judge the round using the standard that has been agreed upon or defended more successfully. I will make other calculations if a debater proposes and defends that I should. I prefer to hear about the world rather than the round so please reserve procedural (theory) arguments and kritiks until you are absolutely out of things to say or until your opponent begins to observably cheat. All judges want a clear, numbered list of voting issues at the end of your final rebuttal and so do I. Better debaters will offer such a list at the end of each and every rebuttal.

Abby Sucup - El Camino

n/a

Abdul Sheriff - El Camino

n/a

Abigail Levens - El Camino

n/a

Adeline Bolgar - UCSB

n/a

Adrian Losada - UOP

Credentials: Debated in "tech parli" (NPDA) and was kinda decent with my partner Jasper Pacheco (my goat). I am now an assistant coach at University of the Pacific in Parli & LD.

-2026 NPDA National Champion (I'm washed now).

-A whole one tournament of NFA-LD experience.

-A whole two tournaments of NDT/CEDA experience.

As you can see, I'm oh so cracked at all formats (that’s a joke btw). As you can also see, I am an unserious person.

tl;dr: Born by the flow. Made men by the flow. Die by the flow. (elite ball knowledge required)

This means as much as I like or dislike certain arguments, I will vote on the flow even if it's some nonsense. So think of this paradigm more like my thoughts on debate or certain arguments and my defaults as your reference when instructing me on what to do in round and how to vote.

My email is adrianl1104(at)gmail(dot)com so you can post round me & so I can recruit you if you're cracked <3

LD Translation: basically all my thoughts from Parli more or less apply to LD so you can still read the paradigm. If you are unfamiliar with Parli terms: PMC = 1AC, LOC = NC, MG = 1AR, MO/LOR/the block = NR, PMR = 2AR.
I will have a short section on LD specific things towards the bottom of this tho.

Actual important stuff (kinda):

An argument means AT MINIMUM a claim and a warrant. I hope that is intuitive, I am NOT backfilling warrants for anyone. If you blip a claim and go so fast that you think I'll backfill the warrant and believe you when you tell me it was conceded because I don't wanna look like a noob and pretend I can hang, sorry big dawg, I am not evaluating it. If it's not on my flow then it doesn't exist.

Collapse plz. Collapse to just one position in the MO (not LOR) and the PMR should do the same, plz stop going for everything.

Weigh - I have noticed that my defaults sans weighing done by the debaters is strength of link weighing (what offense is conceded that was collapsed to/how much ink is on it. The second level of SOL is link specificity) then magnitude then probability (plz weigh yourself).

Cheating is bad. Do not do it.

I have a psych degree, do not assume I just know common sense stuff about the economy or politics bc I don't.

Perms are whatever I need it to be to win a round. As a judge, it is a test of competition tho. Intrinsic and severance perms are bad. No, you don't get additional offense if you win the perm or a net benefit to the perm, that just means their counter advocacy is not an opportunity cost to the Aff. You'd be shifting your advocacy if that was the strategy.

I am willing to vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, different sides have different burdens and if Aff can't win that they're desirable because of terminal defense I presume Neg. I do not recommend making this your go-to strat because 9/10 times the defense you think is terminal is actually not but also if there's no other out and you think you can win the Aff does nothing, I'll vote for it. Commit tho.

Time your opponents because I'm most def not going to. I've seen people get away with reading 9:30 MGs (Jasper)

I’m pretty generous with new weighing in the PMR and new cross apps but don’t test my boundaries. New responses to the Neg are not “weighing”. Shadow extensions are probably new arguments kinda but I’m weird with Aff extensions. Call a POO if you find the PMR strategy a little sketch on it being new plz.

MG saying "extend the Aff" is enough for the Aff to be considered extended in front of me. I feel like front lining in the MG is enough for me to consider the argument “alive” on the flow for the PMR to use. I just find it ridiculous that the MG who is pressed for time has to frontline everything and then blurt out "extend (XYZ)" for 20 seconds on everything because the MG wants the PMR to have everything to go for. I also find it silly that if you frontline stuff on an advantage entirely but the Neg didn't read anything against uniqueness 3 or whatever and so the MG misses it and suddenly it becomes a shadow extension for the PMR so the judge can't vote on it…that is dumb. I am sorry, I don't care if I'm wrong, the way we approach extensions is silly. If you frontline everything and then say "extend the Aff" the PMR should have full access to the Aff.

PMR just needs to tell me the story of the Advantage they're going for, no need to line by line extend things, you're already pressed for time if the block was decent.

Also probably should terminalize your impacts.

Don't worry about me with speed, just check in with your opponents to make sure they're chill. If you actually are Lightning McQueen level tho I'll call "slow!" verbally.

Do not worry about y'all calling slow, you aren't "bad" or look like a noob! My partner and I slowed our opponents even in National Finals. It is okay to do it. Cuz honestly, maybe this is a hot take but parli lowkey needs to slow down or maybe I'm just bad at flowing but here's the thing: teams are over here going so fast that judges can't hang because of no speech docs so they're missing stuff and then these teams are backfilling warrants and saying it was conceded from the first speech and the judge doesn't want to seem like a noob so they agree with this straight-up lie. So idk bro, go ahead and call slow.

Call the Point of Order because I am bad at protecting the flow but I will try my best to do so.

I don't get judge kicking things. Like, why are you not kicking it yourself? When has judge kicking ever been the move? Outside of "drop the argument" in T debates, I don't think there's ever a time when judge kicking is strategic.

T Stuff:

I actually don’t have a problem with stuff like condo but I also think the condo bad shell is pretty strong too so go for it but be ready to respond to the new sheet.

Friv is mostly chill but I have my limits.

"Risk of a Violation" makes ZERO sense to me. I understand what the argument is saying but people need to stop reading it because it is simply an incorrect argument.

Text > spirit. Winning spirit is doable in front of me but giga difficult.

People should invest more time in the accuracy vs grounds debate on T.

I kinda don't like RVIs but am willing to vote if there's no other out.

I think MG Theory is broken but will vote for it. PMR must spend all 5 minutes on it if going for it.

I think fairness & education are terminal impacts. You can read collapse of debate or truth testing but these are more weighing tools of fairness and education for me. Jurisdiction is also completely fine as its own impact if you don't think fairness is an impact.

Winning T is not a priori / does not come prior to the burden of rejoinder in front of me will be challenging since it is my default and I kinda just believe this but I'll give it to you if you win it.

I default potential abuse is enough for T and quite frankly I don't think many judges even know the difference or threshold between potential and proven abuse. Idk, y'all can be mad, proven abuse is silly to me.

Competing interps framing does not preclude the judge from voting on we meets or impossible to meets btw.

K Stuff:

I don't understand your K lit base btw. Most familiar with Sharpe, Wilderson, Marx, Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida and kinda Althusser. You can thank Jewell DT for me now also being familiar enough with Nietzsche, Bataille and Baudrillard.

I am probably better at evaluating K Aff v FW/T than K v K.

You can reject the res in front of me. I don't really think I have too much of a preference between K Aff v FW/T but if I start to notice one, I'll update this.

If you disclose to your opponents before the round that you will be rejecting the resolution and tell them what kind of K you're running then I'll give you 30 speaks for aura. I know disclosure in parli is dumb but if it's for rejecting the resolution, I think we will have way better K Aff rounds.

You can't perm in a methods debate is a great argument but should be read as an interp and not a random blip in the perm spike in K v K rounds. Or put it in your FW/T shell.

I kinda believe that the state is inevitable but I also think the type of state/way the state operates can change.

Fiat is definitely illusory but that doesn't mean it is a good or bad thing.

I don't think I have a default or bias towards materialism, ontology, epistemology, etc. first framing in K rounds.

Just extending your ROB/ROJ does literally nothing absent extending other framing pieces. Like you just told me to extend the impact filter without extending any reason why that impact filter is good...like what are we doing? Think of the ROB like a claim and the other framing pieces like the warrants.

Plz have more than just a "you use the USFG and they're bad" link. I don't find these compelling reasons to actually vote down the Affirmative at all nor a sufficient reason for the Aff to not debate the topic.

Plz have an argument as to why you need the ballot. I think it is totally okay if the solvency of the K happens in round but there needs to be at least some reason why you need the ballot on the K. I've just seen this happen too much in K rounds and teams lose.

I often find myself being persuaded by the perm double bind argument except for Afropess since that's kinda the point.

K Teams, I BEG you put the Aff under view on top when responding to the Aff and not read too many other off. Too many rounds of teams just cross applying their Aff under view since it was conceded to the K and then we have a super boring round where no one is really engaging with the K. For the MO, if they do just cross apply means you can definitely still win the K even if conceded because you can do all the warrant comparison to show why your framing beats theirs.

For the Aff, stop just cross applying the under view to the K, it's not enough even if it is conceded. This might be the least fun I ever have evaluating debate rounds because everyone is going for concessions instead of counter arguments and doesn't want to interrogate the K. AND I think in parli I've only heard like 3 actual good Ks so idk why we're afraid. Just respond to the K plz. Your under view is not enough to win against the block going for a K collapse.

Case Debate:

Idk what's going on in the actual world so explain any new tech/politics/IR stuff to me.

I'm pretty cheeks at case debate but I can evaluate it fine (I think)

Uniqueness matters like BIG time. Don't sleep on it. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link is just true.

Neg gets fiat. I didn't realize this was like a hot take or something but like, how do people think counter-plans work? Same process as the Aff.

Condo is fine but be ready to answer T. Dispo makes the round super interesting, I like it, although plz know what dispo is before reading it. Uncondo is fine.

Not reading linear disads is super cool guys.

I think link specificity can win you more debates than you think. They are at worst, tie breakers on who I grant the offense or defense to and at best they are reasons to simply ignore the warrants of your opponents.

Not sure if I've ever seen reading multiple counter plans been used well specifically in parli.

I find myself less persuaded by impact turns compared to link turns & impact defense. But they're usually funny so go for it if you'd like.

Reasons why I'd intervene:

bigoted stuff is said

you cheated

I accidentally did (my bad chat)

Final Things:

I'll disclose after round verbally (I'm not evil).

I'm down to get post-rounded but I can't change the ballot after so if you're just ego challenging me, you're probably going to have a rather unproductive time. I also have a big ego so that might not end well anyway.

LD Stuff:

Everything I said about parli more or less applies here unless I used the word "parli" when explaining something in the paradigm.

Yea, share a doc with me plz. And can we make it as close to what we actually read in the round? If the doc and what you say in round are incongruent, my flow will be cooked (you might take an undeserved but lowk deserved L as a result).

Interps on topicality should have a card. Procedurals don't need one (duh)

I'm new to this format so idk why solvency advocates are such a big deal but I guess bro, go for it.

I don't think you need to disclose if you break new until after the round.

More than four planks on a counter-plan feels unnecessary to me.

I think evidence ethics is totally a sufficient reason for decision. Clipping and power tagging are not okay and can result in an auto L.

For Ks, not sure if I've ever flowed a performance but I will flow the explanation of its significance afterwards. If you would like me to flow the performance part, lmk.

I think I have a lower threshold than most judges for reading uncarded responses. Yea, if they have a carded one I will likely take theirs over yours but saying "you don't have a card for that" is not a sufficient answer when the analytic has either an empirical example that is common knowledge and has been explained and makes sense.

Policy Debate Stuff:

My Parli paradigm has a lot of my thoughts about the K or T and even case tbh. Here's just some specific Policy trends I've seen that I have thoughts on-

I don't believe anyone knows how to impact out PerfCon. If you can then plz prove me wrong.

Some of y'all need to start understanding the arguments that your blocks say. Some simple explanations of how things like limits informs grounds can be round winners but instead I'm noticing a lot of retreating back to our blocks.

Idk why I've seen more sheets covered in the 1NR instead of the 2NC, what are we doing?

I think reading offense in the 1AR is aura and a really good way to make the hardest speech in the round be a game-changer round-winner speech. If you think it's bad to read new cards in the 1AR 1. you're kinda right and I don't love when it's all just new cards but 2. y'all should go watch more DDI and realize my take is based.

I have never seen more than 4 planks in a plan or counter-plan ever be used effectively.

Alex Velez - IVC

n/a

Alexander Cadena - RioRunners

Background Information:

I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. I have experience judging policy while I was in graduate school. This is my third year of coaching forensics. I enjoy the spirit of this event and I am hoping to do so for more years to come.

How I evaluate rounds:

I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like filled and completed arguments. Do you have Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? I would like Plan texts and CPs to be stated twice. In the rebuttals, tell me what arguments to vote on and why they have greater importance than your opponent's arguments.

If you are running a K, please state the Roll of the Ballot and Alternative twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. For the times when it is K v.s. K debates, (I will question my life choices) I will try to vote on the most articulated position that is flushed out in the rebuttals. I am not a fan of spread. If competitors ask how I feel about spread, I will say Its hurts my head.

Topicality Theory Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. Do not expect me to fill in the blips of your standards and impacts. Im not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Ive been persuaded by a compelling RVI against that tactic in the past. (They made pretty smart argument which had no response.)

Some other comments:

Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to win a ballot. If you dont care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POIs are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals.

P.S. Flex-Time is NOT a designated CX period. There are still POI allowed in speech time, I am not a fan of this social norm where questions are only allowed in-between speeches! Also if you have time before your speeches, you should be pretty close to speaking by the time FLEX ends!

Ali Saqebi - El Camino

n/a

Alina Samsonyan - UCSB

n/a

Amarige Azzam - Cerritos

n/a

Beck Clark - IVC

n/a

Cat Conroy - El Camino

n/a

Christiaan Pipion - IVC

First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
Next, clash is incredibly important for me. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think you did better than the other side, what top of case issues you think you win on, critical drops by your opponent, etc.
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 also happy to give you feedback then.
Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
Speed: I don't like it. I think speed gets in the way of clarity. If both opponents know each other, the debate format allows for it, and both debaters are comfortable, I'm happy to flow more quickly, but I will say "clear" or "speed" if I feel you're spreading your opponent out of the round.
Kritiks: While I love critical theory, I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of. That said, if both teams are down with it, I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer.
IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could still buy that argument. I do also have a higher standard for what demands this kind of response in IPDA ompared to other debate formats. The closer we get to argumetns that are more about sematics than fairness, the less likely I am to buy these arguments in IPDA.
Finally, PLEASE be respectful to your opponents. I will get very frustrated if I see laughing, put downs, or any other behaviours that could make others feel disrespected. I'm willing to speak with your coach if I feel that you're treating others in ways that have them feeling particulalry dispirited by the end of the round. Men, be mindful not to talk down to women. I've already seen far too much of that in this activity. Respect your opponents pronouns. Be kind.
Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

Danielle LaFavor - CUI

n/a

David Khashchuk - El Camino

n/a

Edilson Mendez - UCSB

n/a

Fischer Doan - UCSB

I debated for 6-7 years in all forms of prepared and limited prep events. Im politically impartial and will evaluate all arguments on their merit.

The most important part of the debate is flex/CX/POIs; they are the only times when debaters directly engage with each other and reveal their true colors.

I'd encourage you to have fun with the arguments that you run, because at the end of the day debate is a game so we might as well make it enjoyable. Bonus points for running adventurous arguments that challenge the ways that debaters in this league conventionally think.

Gerardo Silva - Cerritos

n/a

Hannah Nelson - CUI

n/a

Isabella Terranova - UCSB

n/a

Jack Celaya - Moorpark

n/a

Jade Metzger-Riftkin - NAU

n/a

Jared Kubicka-Miller - SCC

I have been competing in, or coaching forensics for more than 20 years. I specialized in NPDA and limited preparation events, but I competed in most events, and I have coached them all. Since this philosophy is primarily for debaters to reference, I believe that any debate must start with a good faith effort to identify an issue that is fairly debatable. I consider it my job to judge who are the better debaters, not who is right. If I know you are factually wrong about an issue, I will only make that a part of my decision if your opponent points it out.

For the affirmative. It is not uncommon for debaters to mistake exclusionary practices as cleverness. I encourage unorthodox, and unpredictable approaches to topics, but I consider it a sign of weakness if debaters disregard a debate topic in order to introduce a "safe" case that they have practiced numerous times before. If you happen to get a topic that you are familiar with, good for you. But, I will give your opponent's a lot of latitude if it seems like you are using the privilege of speaking first as a way to revoke access to legitimate negative arguments.

For the negative. If you feel that your opponent is unfairly limiting access to the debate activity, it is not enough just to accuse them. There must be proof to back up the accusation. In other words, I expect you to explain the arguments you believe are legitimately, and exclusively afforded to the negative. And, by explain I do not mean to just give me a title of the argument, I expect a complete description. it should be clear how your arguments address the heart of the matter, and not just what you hoped to talk about.

Above all, I have little regard for debate tricks that have zero application outside of a round. Make sure you prepare arguments that are genuine, relevant, accurate, and rational. Do not rely exclusively on offense. Incorporate strategic defensive arguments and use them to mitigate your opponent's points. I rarely see debates won on 100% offense. Credibility matters, and might be the difference in a close round.

Joe Faina - LAVC

My judging philosophy is straightforward: I base my decision on who makes the best overall arguments in support of their side. Preponderance of effective argumentation.

John Cho - IVC

First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
Next, clash is incredibly important. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think your points are better than the other sides'.
Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
Kritiks: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for it I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer
IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could definitely buy that argument.
Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

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,

Juliette Celis - El Camino

n/a

Julissa Celis - El Camino

n/a

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

n/a

Katya Azzam - Cerritos

n/a

Kayla Salazar - UCLA

n/a

Mia Rowe - UCSB

n/a

Michail Shatalov - UCSB

n/a

Miguel Oliveros - El Camino

n/a

Nathan Estrick - CUI

Hey friends, not gonna make you read a treatise to understand my judging criteria. I debated six years in high school and then all four years doing primarily Parli (but also IPDA and LD). Overall, I do my best to be as tabula rasa as I can -- absent needing to intervene with a team being really racist/homophobic or verbally abusive to their opponents, I try to tie my ballot to only the arguments made in the round. On speed, I’m going to be able to keep up with you, but make sure you slow if your opponents ask you to.

That being said, here’s a little bit on how I evaluate some of the major arguments;

Policy: Though I have plenty of experience running different kinds of arguments, I do have a soft spot for a good old policy round. In evaluating policy, Impacts really are king; though generating good uniqueness and winning your link chains are important, I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to try or die arguments, and so I find good Impact framing is usually what wins over my ballot.

Counterplans: As far as counterplans go, I like them, but make sure they are at least competitive on net benefits. I tend to default to counterplans not having fiat, so the neg would need to argue to me that they do. I’m also somewhat sympathetic to PICS bad theory, so keep that in mind when writing your counterplans.

Theory: I tend to have a pretty high bar for voting on theory: if you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to collapse to it. I’m not going to vote on a theory shell that the MO extends for two minutes and then spends the rest of the block doing other things. I also will generally be unsympathetic to weird or goofy theories; they can win my ballot, but unless the connection to fairness and education are made pretty strongly, they’re gonna have trouble picking up.

The K: I like the K, and like to see different varieties run. Ultimately, I believe debate is a game and I think the K is a really strategic and interesting part of playing that game. That being said, if your K has really weak links to either the topic/the aff, I’m not going to be very interested in it, since you’re just pulling it out of a can as opposed to doing the work to contextualize it. I love K’s with good historical theory analysis and good solvency, so the more abstract the K becomes, the harder it becomes to win my ballot with it.

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

I evaluate IPDA, like any other event, on a combination of content and delivery. Debaters should treat opponents, judges, and audience members with respect. Feel free to make any argument you feel can be persuasively explained to a general audience. Speed, jargon, and technical elements should be appropriate to a general audience. Everything said during your speech (such as roadmaps) should be on-time.

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:

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.
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.
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.
I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.
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.
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, ...
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.
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).

Nikki Leon - UCLA

n/a

Oli Loeffler (they/them) - Moorpark

n/a

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.

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated October 2026.

Hey Gang,

My name is Paul Villa, I am the Co-Director of Forensics at Diablo Valley College, I am also one of the founders of Proteus Debate Academy, which isn't actually an actual academy but is instead just a Youtube channel where my friends and I share our thoughts on debate.

Email: PaulicydebateATgmailDOTcom

Parli:

- Be nice, be classy, we're all still friends at the end of the round.

- Almost all of my viewpoints on debate start from the premise that debate is a game but not "just" a game. This means I am frequently guided by the lens of "how does this argument impact the competitive balance of the game" and "what player incentives is my ballot shaping".

- Everyone should slow down, I judge based on my flow, if it isn't on my flow, I won't pretend it is. I like fast, technical debates, but many of you have put all of your skill points into speed and your clarity, emphasis, and ethos are lacking as a result. An argument is, at a minimum, a claim and a warrant. I hate when people backfill based on blips.

-Flex starts within 3 seconds of the end of the previous speech. If you want me to have your text, you should read it twice and have at least one of those times be slow or provide me a text BEFORE flex. I won’t consider anything else in my decision. We managed to debate Topicality for 2 decades before flex existed, you’ll survive.

- The aff should defend the topic or be exceptional at answering T and I default to T coming before the substance of the aff absent a compelling reason not to.

- I think conditionality probably is unfair, but the negative having 1 conditional advocacy is reasonably defensible. I have voted on Condo 0 times in the last year, but that is likely because no one collapsed to it.

- I vote on negative kritiks a substantial amount of the time because the Aff just extends whatever 2 minute block they read at the bottom of the 1ac instead of actually answering the argument. This is probably my least favorite thing about contemporary parli. Many kritiks can't survive 2 minutes of cross-x, give it a try. If you aren't ready to defend your aff/model of debate, you're in for a bumpy ride.

- If you read anything a high school debater would describe as "tricks" I think you have 0 reason to be upset about the debate no matter how I vote. The worse an argument is, the lower my threshold for response. Things like "death good" can more or less be defeated by a thumbs down in the following speech.

LD:
- I am following the doc and otherwise only flowing when instructed to.

- The NFA-LD rules exist, I am familiar with them and an arbiter of their justice.

- Clipping is cheating and drop worthy.

- Evidence ethics are absolutely a valid reason for decision.

Peter Moore - El Camino

n/a

Rachel Sandoval - UCLA

n/a

Reva Drewek - UCSB

n/a

Rita Rafael - SCC

Spreading is antithetical to education and will greatly impact how I judge the round. Make logical arguments and practice good storytelling. Do the thinking for your audience, this is key! It should be obvious how you reached your conclusions.

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:

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.
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.

Sarah Walker - NAU

Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University

Altogether, I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary Debate.

I have a strong background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed, technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however, I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier judge.

Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c) Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make your arguments clear.

2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items

(a) I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy, not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b) When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those dropped args.
(d) Evidence is evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat. Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan, rather than simply insisting that it can be done.

3) Clipping Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a decision after the review. While I understand why other people proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.

4) Topicality debates: If you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the interpretations of the T.

5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.

Steven Farias - UOP

(Reviewed Jan. 2026; changes- added details on NEG Counterproposals in Overview) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become enables what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think there should be limits on NEG counter proposals in parliamentary debate. For example, I think offering 3 or more clearly skews the debate or being conditional is based around an idea of negation that functions under different constraints. The concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. As such, I think that NEG teams should be deliberate and thoughtful in how they respond to theoretical objections by the AFF to counterproposals.

There are some clear distinctions that should help when debating in front of me:
1. Theory and advocacies are distinct as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defenseable changes to the status quo.
2. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in the topic.
3. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof that a change is needed has shifted from the AFF to the NEG.
4. Vote NEG on presumption when a counterproposal exists does not function for me.
5. The AFF cannot kick the case. In order to win turns on the off case, there must be a stable locus for the AFF to generate offense.
6. Judge kicking must an explicit argument made if you want me to do so and you need to explain why it would be legitimate decision given you are essentially saying you get access to two win conditions while the AFF has one.

Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips dont ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say I didnt get that. So please do your best to use words like because followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

The K- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that Ks without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 17 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 12 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debaters lack of clarity you will say clear (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debaters excessive speed, I expect you to say speed. In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to report me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you dont find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (Ts and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (Ks and Alts or CPs and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

Xander Hepburn - UCSB

Don't worry if you don't know about technicalities and jargon, focus on good arguments. If you make the right arguments but don't say specfic terms like "Perm," "Topicality," "A priori" etc., I still consider them fully valid. Try to organize arguements down the flow (in the order you or your opponent made them) and explain what arguments you're expanding or which of your opponent's arguments you're responding too throughout the speech (signposting).

I don't like canned impromptu speeches, make sure each topic really fits the quotation.

Don't know much about speech events other than impromptu and extemp so I'll mostly be judging on how engaging, entertaining, and informative your speech is, as well as the content, depending on what event you're doing.

Zach Matula - El Camino

n/a

Zion Kandel - El Camino

n/a

2026 Crossman Invitational Day 1 (NPDA/IPDA)