Judge Philosophies
Alex Velez - IVC
n/a
Alex Hepburn - UCSB
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.
Amie Clarke - GCU
n/a
Annette Ruiz - ULV
n/a
Athena Zhang - UCSB
n/a
August Jones - RioRunners
n/a
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.
Bill Neesen - IVC
I love debate and think it is an amazing teaching game.
I think that debaters should make it what they want and defend that with sound arguments.
Policy making, DA, K, T and other theory are all good.
I am addicted to my flow and try to decide off of it.
I am also called a speaker point meanie (K. Calderwood)
Some things you should know (not that I will not vote for them but I am sure my opinions have some effect even if I do not want them to)
I hate conditional arguments but do vote on them.
RVI's are just dumb and when I am forced to vote on them I will take speaker points.
Affs should relate at some level to the topic
IPDA
This is the same as parli. Given recent changes to local parli trying to make it ipda, I will view all limited prep debate as parli and will judge it that.
Campbell Gorlinski - OCC
n/a
Chelsey Barrera - OCC
n/a
Chris Sullivan - Maricopa
I'm a communication professor new to the competitive forensics circuit, bringing academic expertise but still learning circuit norms and conventions. I prioritize clear, organized communication over speed, please speak at a conversational pace and avoid unexplained jargon, as I may not be familiar with them. I value substance and quality argumentation with well-supported claims, effective delivery, and genuine engagement with opponents' arguments rather than simply advancing your own. Sign-post clearly, explain the significance of your arguments, and tell me why you're winning the round. Treat everyone in the room with respect and professionalism, competitive spirit should never create a hostile environment. If I can't understand or flow an argument, I can't evaluate it, so help me help you by making your case accessible. I'm excited to learn from you and provide constructive feedback as we make this a positive educational experience together.
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!
Christian Gutierrez - ULV
n/a
Cody Hagemeier - El Camino
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P_kjcw4S3vbKWv15VlVvgDXz7vGEGmQWBz770deGNdw/edit?tab=t.0
Collette Blumer - CSUF
n/a
David Zahnd - HJ
n/a
Edgar Minasyan - RioRunners
Overall: Do not run critical positions or critical theories, the first team to do so will lose the round. Do not spread, the first team to do so will lose the round. To keep Speech and Debate inclusive all paricipants must be fair and respectful.
Parliamentary Debate: I like strong, straight forward arguments using critical thinking and the core principles of argumentation. I look for a proper structure, organized arguments, and signposting to guide me to my decision in each debate.
IPDA: IPDA as an event is seperate from all other forms of debate (it is not just 1 vs 1 Parli), any person should reasonably be able to clearly understand and judge the arguments presented in the round. Parli terminology should be avoided whenever possible.
NFA-LD: 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.
Ethan White - GCU
n/a
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.
Greg Gorham - GCU
Jake Strader - CSUF
n/a
Janiel Victorino - HJ
n/a
Jeff Samano - Fullerton College
n/a
Jessica Scully - El Camino
n/a
John Symank - CUI
n/a
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!
Jonathan Tapia - SCC
n/a
Jules French - IVC
n/a
Juliette Celis - El Camino
n/a
Justin Perkins - Cypress College
My name is Justin Perkins, I am the Co-DOF 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/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.
Kelly Hutchison - Cypress College
Experience-
Hey there you all, my name is Kelly Hutchison and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Cypress College. I recieved my master's at the University of the Pacific in Communication. I have two years of competitive experience at the community college level. I continued my parliamentary debate career at the four year level at CSULB where I was ranked top 13 in the nation prior to national. I then went on to compete in individual events at CSULB qualifying limited prep events (extemporaneous speaking and impromptu) at AFA. After my competitive career, I have been coaching and judging for several years. Now that you know a little about my involvement as a competitor and a judge, let's discuss how I view debate!
Pedagogy-
I view this activity as a unique place to hone advocacy skills and to learn about current events that are going on in the world around us. This activity is the perfect storm of education, competition, strategy, and community. I find it helpful to remember that all of us were once novices in this space and should create spaces for everyone and anyone interested in the activity.
Speed-
I can most assuredly keep up with your speed, if I can't I have no problem "clearing" or "slowing" in round. Although I think speed can increase the competitive nature of the activity, I feel that rounds should be inclusive to all debaters. Therefore, if a team requests debaters to slow down for equity purposes, you should.
The Topic-
I think the affirming the topic is the burden of the affirmative. I believe that switch side debate checks back for rejecting the topic at large. Although I have voted on positions that do so. I do not think that affirming the topic necessarily means that you as a debater are upholding the implicit undertones of the resolution. Basically, you are not a bad person for saying the state is good. On the other hand, I acknowledge that rhetoric and one's position do matter.
K-
I think that kritiks are a great tool for questioning the methods of the affirmative. I am more persuaded by alternatives that attempt to solve the aff. I am highly persuaded by the arguments that rethink and reject alternatives are artificially competitive. I prefer Ks that have strong/unique links to the affirmative action. I have a very low threshold for generic links or links of omission.
Theory-
I like theory positions and have voted on them. I prefer well flushed out theory positions that the debater can collapse to, as opposed to "blippy"/ unwarranted theory that does not have argumentative precedent. I don't know how to resolve trigger warning theory, disclosure theory, or exclusionary framework theory. I am not saying don't run these positions, but I am not sure how to resolve them. TDLR, I am probably listening to your T, condo, vagueness shells, but not "you must read a plan text in the first three minutes of your speech" theory positions. In terms of dispo theory, I think that the negative always has access to the status quo. The status quo is presumed and not an advocacy.
Concessions-
If you drop an argument, it is dropped. I protect the flow, but please call points of order. I am persuaded by crafty arguments rooted in fact. I have a very high BS meteor and a low threshold for you to refute claims that are not true. I try and not vote for arguments that are explicitly false. Please don't make things up to justify your arguments, this affects your ethos in round.
Remember debate is fun and a great place to make friends (across team lines) and learn things about the world!
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.
Leane Hepburn - UCSB
I've been judging irregularly for over a year now, although I never competed in debate. If you want more details you can ask me in person!
Liz Hernandez - ULV
n/a
Maya Horton - UCSB
n/a
Michael Shurance - CUI
TLDR: Run whatever you want. Dont be afraid to run heterodox arguments in front of me. I welcome diverse perspectives and unique clash. Generally tech over true (as tech is the best method to prove/disprove something as true and I honestly don't know how or why they're portrayed as in competition with each other, but I digress).
Framework: Debate is a game (but games are important). I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently discriminatory in a way that makes debate inaccessible. ACCESSIBILITY: I believe access to the debate space is the clearest bright line for whether an argument warrants judge intervention. Examples of unacceptable arguments include white supremacy, Nazism/racial superiority, or ad hominem attacks on individual identity. I will drop anyone advocating for these positions or using these tactics. We all deserve respect and fairness, and this may be the only place we can truly get it. I aim to be the least interventionist judge you'll ever have. That said, I believe debate has become too ideologically limited. Most debaters have critical, leftist, or neoliberal frameworks in real life, which is fine, but this can create ideological bubbles that limit potential clash against ideas we might all agree on. For example, I hear debaters collapse to fascism bad arguments, but in all my years of debating, I've never heard a clear explanation of what fascism is or why its bad (I personally believe its a horrible political framework, but thats not the point). I don't want to grant framework concessions because I agree or disagree with them. I want clash about the various frameworks humanity uses in the real world (e.g., socialism good/bad, Marxism good/bad, capitalism good/bad, state good/bad) that are inherent to the status quo, as this generates the best education. This is especially true for survival strategies in an increasingly strange and chaotic world. Without this education, we cant properly define or differentiate ideologies in the real world, which allows dog-whistling or mischaracterization of ideologies due to surface similarities. This limits our ability to clash with harmful ideologies. I want fleshed-out rhetorical or philosophical impacts and analysis for political theory (K-level or case) and frameworks in general. For example, tell me WHAT fascism IS (historically or in the context of the status quo) and why its bad! (It should be easy, but do the work!) I dont want to intervene with my belief system, as I believe its largely irrelevant to the technicality of the debate and is the fairest approach. If you dont impact or explain your arguments and they're conceded, then cest la vie. TLDR Terminalize all impacts, not just material impacts.
Theory: Theory is cool. I ran it often as a debater because its a smart strategy for protecting against abusive affirmatives and spreading out your opponents outs in their speeches. I will vote on good theory. Use your standards as links to your voters. Explain why ground is lost, for example, and how that impacts fairness or education. I generally dont think theory operates a priori in the meta sense unless it addresses specific, "proven" abuse (which btw there's no such thing as proven abuse, that's why the theory needs to be run in order for YOU to prove abuse). My point here being you should have to defend all parts of your theory. However, if you claim it's a priori and its undisputed, then its a priori. Im open to hearing why this particular theory should be a priori or why theory ought to operate a priori, but I need more than rules of the game come before the game (the games already started, so too late?), i.e explain how your standards prove this must operate a priori. The a priori status is up for debate, and I need particularized reasons why your specific theory operates a priori in the context of the round (e.g., it was impossible to generate clash due to the cases format). If a priori is not defended or won, then its a normal off-case position arguing for different rules and standards that my vote would promote for better education/fairness, weighed against the affirmatives fiat education for running the case as they did. I default to competing interpretations, as I believe its the most reasonable judging method. Reasonability works if the theory isnt well-run or impacted out. More than three theories are probably excessive, but I won't police this, the other team should just point this out. If there's abuse, run a theory; if you want to enforce an interpretation, run a theory. If you want to throw your opponents off their game, or beat them to death with legal speak, run a theory. Do what you want!
Ks (In General):
I like Ks. I like well-warranted and explained Ks much better. The K must operate in a way that makes the judges background and knowledge of the literature base irrelevant. Im familiar with many critical arguments, but that doesnt mean I'll do the work for you on framework or solvency. Contextualize the K within the broader context of the debate or the resolution. Explain your criticism! I especially like Ks with historical analysis and an education focus. To win my ballot, the K should link to the affirmatives solvency, plan text, or the squo itself in a fundamental way. I want strong, warranted framework arguments, link arguments, and solvency arguments. The alternative/advocacy must exist, and you need to explain why I shouldnt buy a permutation. A K without an alternative is just a harsh judgment of the status quo, which the affirmative likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that voting for the affirmative prevents, its just a try-or-die for the affirmative I feel (again do what you want I won't police). Advocacies aren't conditional in an ideal world, but kicking an advocacy is fine for strategic reasons. I'm more skeptical of affirmatives breaking procedural fairness, and I think T is a decent check back against this, but that just means that both teams have access to ground, and i'm agnostic on which comes first (y'all need to tell me which comes first and WHY). Again do what you want, just be strategic.
Performance Ks:
Im fine with performance Ks, but I need clear solvency and education impact analysis. Clash is the internal link to education in debate, and the personal nature of performance Ks can make sometimes make clash inaccessible or too personal for me to judge objectively. I also don't really like how some performance K's try to bait the other team into saying something offensive and bascially make a bet that they won't want to clash with the K due to its personal nature. I will just say that due to the nature of debate, being offended is likely inevitable, but you should all do your best ALWAYS to be respectful and treat each other with dignity.
Aff Ks:
Aff Ks: The same rules apply for winning my ballot with an affirmative K. However, to run a K on the affirmative, you must prove a justified reason to reject the topic and show that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by your solvency or by avoiding defending the resolution. Im fine with rejections but need warrants for why its permissible. Im biased toward fairness-good/outweighs arguments from theory, so youll need to resolve some of this offense to win my ballot.
Speed:
Im comfortable with speed and will keep up. However, if youre slowed or asked to be clearer, please comply. I think access is very important.
Ballot:
The flow is critical to how I judge. How well your opponent attacks your position or argument weighs heavily. Key arguments are more important than quantity, but I'll weigh all arguments. I love clash, so seek it out, and you'll be rewarded.
Impact Calc:
For case I want you to do impact calc anyways and weighing. Be specific and clear in sequencing, magnitude, probability, and timeframe. It's a personal preference, but I like well warranted analysis about how impacts are more likely to actually occur. I'm semi skeptical of weak links between for high magnitude impacts. I will vote on them, and again if its dropped it's always true for the sake of the round, but if you're going for magnitude, or any of these impacts, warrant them out.
Miguel Oliveros - El Camino
n/a
Nadalie Leon - Cerritos
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.
Nathan So - UCSB
n/a
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.
Nicoletta Enciu - Cerritos
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.
Rebekah Symank - CUI
n/a
Richard Adlof - LAVC
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:
- 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.
Sam Pirasteh - IVC
n/a
Sam Rothstein - UCSB
n/a
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.
Shahin Shams - IVC
n/a
Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF
n/a
Steven Suarez - Moorpark
My background is primarily in IE. I value clarity of argumentation and overall presentation to preserve the education value of the event. If I can't understand the argument due to speed or lack of clarity, it will not end up on my flow and may not track. I encourage debaters to speak at a conversational pace and articulate their points with purpose and precision rather than attempting to overwhelm with sheer volume of arguments.
Its not just about what you say, but how you communicate it. I value clear organization language. I greatly appreciate it when speakers clearly label their arguments, with roadmaps and signposting throughout the round. One dropped argument doesnt win the round for me, but make sure to clearly call attention to your voters.
Be sure to treat your competitors with respect, anything that would be considerd innapropriate classroom behavior/rhetoric hurts the integrity of the event in my eyes and may result in a loss.
Trevor Biship-Gillespie - HJ
n/a
Vanessa Galang - SCC
n/a
Yancy Duncan - LAVC
After 40+ years in Speech and Debate....
I want clear direct arguments, no silly games. I'm not going to assume anything for you, or draw conclusions without you leading me there. I prefer a sincere persuasive style over being blasted with 10 arguments trying to cover everything possible. Don't try to change boats mid-stream.
You'll happily take me as an IPDA judge - most other types of debate make me grumpy.