FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adrianna Marquez - LPC

n/a

Ajibola Hassan - Hired

n/a

Alejandra Quezada Sermeno - LPC

n/a

Alexis Bondarenko - LPC

n/a

Alexis Litzky - CCSF

I have spent many years coaching/judging/directing at San Francisco State University, University of San Francisco, and now City College of San Francisco. Notice a theme?

My threshold for argumentation is relatively low: I coach and will vote on any argument that is well supported and persuasively presented. Excellent warrants and evidence will take you farther than empty tagline and generalized debating. I like topic specific education, but I also like new interpretations of education and the topic. I love this activity because in many debates I have witnessed I learned something new about the topic and about the debaters involved.

What does this really mean for debaters?

1 - I try to let the debaters control the interpretation and framework of the debate. Try to be clear and focused about what you think the criteria or role of the ballot is/should be, and what that means for me. This is the first question I resolve whenever Iâm making a decision.

2 - You should run and go for arguments that you think are germane to the topic and politically salient for you, not what you think I want to hear. I have literally voted for every "type" or "genre" of argument, and I wish you would spend less time trying to overly adapt to my judging preferences. I take judging seriously, and you should know that I approach every debate with the same sense of importance whether it is a first-time Novice or a 2-year long competition with your favorite rival. I try to provide as much intellectual and professional integrity as one can, and I hope you do the same.

This also means that there is no specific bright line that you need to pass on theory for me to vote for it, or any kind of specific component of an argument that will help you win. There are some normative standards that always affect judges, like you need to have some sort of impact to win the debate. But I canât in good faith say that impacts are always more important that links, but link debates can be incredibly salient if the neg is making a good solvency press.

3 - I love the flow. Not in an overly fetishistic sort of way, but I definitely take the practice the seriously. My students think itâs weird, and maybe it is. But I love the satisfaction of tracking arguments throughout the debate. This does not mean that if you drop an argument itâs over for you, but you do have to tell me why you decided to spent 6 minutes on framework rather than answering another major argument the opponent is going for. Itâs also the primary tool that will help me resolve many debates. Unless, of course, you tell me why it shouldnât matter. In which case, I will probably still flow (because Iâm me) but please donât take that as an affront to you.

Some thoughts on style:

My background in CEDA/NDT debate means that Iâm fine with speed, but there is a limit to how much I actually think thatâs required. People who are trying to sound fast but actually arenât fast will not be rewarded. People who are clear, fast, and engaging with the arguments and the other team will be rewarded. People who actually use the flow and respond to specific arguments will be rewarded. Youâre also more likely to win the debate. I particularly appreciate it when debaters highlight arguments they think will become particularly key or relevant to the debate.

Other than that, I have some general love for:

New ways of understanding the same old business.
Critical interrogation.
Thought experiments.
Surprises.
Debates that inspire and challenge my sense of political engagement.
Hannah Arendt.
Jokes, smiles, and sassy attitudes. These will get you infinitely farther than rude, brutish, and hurtful debates. You have the rest of your life to be as serious as you want, use this unique space and time to enjoy yourself and learn about the topic and each other.

Enjoy yourself, and remember to have fun! Itâs the weekend and we like to be here!

Alyssa Conroy - Hired

n/a

Amanda Johnson - Hired

n/a

Amy Hileman - NOVA

For IPDA debate I do not want a jargon-filled round where students attempt to speak so quickly that the competition and judge won't notice the flaws in their logic. I do not believe that IPDA should look/sound like other types of debate. Give me the politeness/ettiquete at the start of the constructives. Focus on the quality of your argument vs speed. If I put my pen down when you are speaking, you are speaking too quickly. I am looking for sound arguments with clear structure and supporting research.

Ashley Eastman - LPC

n/a

Averie Vockel - Utah

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

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

DON'T be rude.

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

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

DO provide terminalized impacts and weigh them.

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

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

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

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

Bailey Coleman - MJC

I consider myself both a flow judge and Comm-centric judge, because I would like to be able to follow along easily on the flow but also like speakers to sound persuasive.

I am not the biggest of fan of speed. Since I am partly a flow judge, if a speaker is too fast for me to get everything on the flow then it's hard to visualize the debate on paper and see where arguments may have been dropped or pulled across. I would much rather listen to a solid, slower speech that is easy to understand and sounds persuasive and logical. Taking time with two organized, in-depth arguments is better than spreading through a bunch of arguments.

I don't mind procedural arguments as long as they aren't used just to be squirrelly. If an affirmative team is blatantly not topical, then a topicality is fine and makes sense. If a negative team runs a T just for the fun of running one, then I feel it takes focus from the actual issue in the round.

An ideal round for me is a competitive but friendly debate. I would like the AFF to be topical and focus on some solid solvency and advantages. I like the negative team to bring some good disadvantages to the round and only use topicality if totally needed. I do like counterplans and think they're a good test of the speakers' abilities to think on the spot and argue their best. I like structure and to be able to easily follow along on the flow, with debaters clearly signposting where they're at. Finally, overall I want to hear as much persuasion as possible and the debaters to clearly tell me why I should be voting for them.

Bill Lucio - Harper College

DEBATE

To me, a good debater can adapt to any style of debate and is aware of the differing styles each form of debate utilizes. For instance, I believe debate jargon has value in rounds of Parli and LD, as those are specific styles of debate that include a unique type of rhetoric and vernacular in which all speakers have learned and been coached on. On the flip side, it is my belief that a more common style of debate, like IPDA, should focus on the bare bones structure of argumentation.

IPDA should be accessible to anyone, anywhere, regardless of their experience. In face, public is in the name. The second speakers start using debate jargon in IPDA, they have already lost me as a judge. I think that one of the reasons why debate is dying, is because its getting too niche focused IPDA is an amazing gateway event that should welcome newer, first-time debaters into the family, and bringing in styles reserved for other forms of debate can be hard on beginners.

I value humanity and humility. I much prefer speakers refer to each other by their names, rather than, my opponent. I dont like aggressive questioning, passive aggressiveness, and boastful or cocky presentations. I dont appreciate speakers telling me how I will vote give me all the tools I need to make an informed decision, but dont tell me what I am going to do or not do. Remember that there is a fine line between enthusiasm and volume. Remember that there is a difference between passion and pace. Make sure you find that happy medium of ethos, pathos, and logos, as speakers who priorities one heavily over the other two will not be rewarded.

At the end of the day, I value debaters who treat the round like three friends having a conversation over coffee. Lets remain friends by the end of this thing, yea?

PLATFORM EVENTS

Regarding individual events, speakers should engage in appropriate delivery strategies when performing Platform events, such as proper pronunciation and clarity of words, a wide range of vocal variety, and natural use of gestures. While the overall delivery of a speech weighs heavily in my decision, I also tend to prioritize organization and flow, as well as creativity in topic choice. I'm a firm believer in creative content, but also respect solid and identifiable transitions. Do not go overtime.

INTERP EVENTS

In other individual events, such as Interp, I expect the speaker to fully embody their characters. Take risks, think outside of the box, and use your body and movement in ways that aren't necessarily obvious or overdone. While the argument articulated in an introduction does play a major role in my overall decision, I value a performance that takes me out of this world and puts me into a new one, so really become your character and "own" the world in which they live in. Do not go overtime.

Lastly, regarding Limited Prep events, I really respect a good, clean delivery, that utilizes all the tools of basic public speaking (organization, variety of examples/sources, confidence in speaking voice, engagement with the audience, etc.). I do not want to hear a "canned" speech, challenge yourself! If I feel like I have heard your speech before, or that the interpretation of your quotation is too much of a stretch, I will most likely reward the other speakers who placed a more creative emphasis on their speech. Students competing in LP events should be constantly reading the news and searching for examples, so i want to see some interesting things I haven't seen before. Do not go overtime, ESPECIALLY if I am giving you time signals throughout the entire speech.

Blake Longfellow - DVC

I am primarily an IE coach and very much approach forensics (including debate) as a communication/persuasive activity. I approach debate with the mindset that all stories are arguments and all arguments are stories. With that said, the story which is the most internally cohesive (narrative probability) and that lines up across the debate (narrative fidelity) is likely to win my ballot.

Here is a list of things Paul Villa thinks you should know about debating in front of me:

- Truth over tech: Blake isn't flowing the debate like this is the national circuit, he is going to take minimal notes, you aren't going to win by pointing out some drop on the flow or technical analysis of the round.

- Don't spread. Like, at all. However fast you are thinking will be fine I'd go slower than that.

- Reading theory is a non-starter, if the other team isn't topical just tell Blake they aren't topical and explain why that means they should lose the debate without getting all technical.

- Blake would probably vote on a K, especially a performance one, assuming it made sense to him in the round.

- Less is more, the more simple the path to the ballot for you the more likely Blake is to vote for you.

Blake Harris - CCU

Bob Becker - NWC

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.

When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I dont require competing interpretations.

I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. Im fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. We dont like the resolution doesnt cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some contradictory arguments good answers.

Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you dont tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.

As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says one million deaths and the other says dehume, but doesnt explain why dehume is worse than deaths, Ill vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then Ill vote for dehume. I think Im telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Also, one new trend I find frustrating in LD is tag lines that are multiple sentences long. Your tag line is a claim, but make it a brief one. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. Thats why Im here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.

Brennan Mock - LPC

I teach Non-Circuit debate to Elementary-High School Students.

I am fine with theory, K's and anything except high, high speed.

Ideal Round; Lots of Clash, less definitional unless specifically needed for round to continue, and kindness to one another.

I often will not flow much, I try to listen to each argument and find the most salient points. I do not prioritize spreading over high-quality arguments. I will not believe something has a chance of happening just because you say it does, I need evidence. Tell me how to vote, I will not find voters for you.

Dehum is my pet peeve, unless its actually relevant to your impacts.

FOR NORCAL: Philosophies I agree with; Paul Villa (DVC), Doug and Janene (Solano), Blake Longfellow (Concordia), and Ryan Guy (MJC)

Casey Hamilton - LPC

n/a

Chris Josi - Mt. Hood CC

I have coached for about 3 years after competing and becoming nationally recogonized. My goal now is to always be available to help debaters improve their technique.

I try to be as impartial as I can, and limit the scope to what is happening in the round. However, please do not inflate the truth. I default to qualitative on balance.

You need to impact your points and explain why it is imperative I need to vote for your case. Structure is also very important; I won't connect arguments for you.

Speaking quickly is up to you and your opponent, not me. Please respect each other's pacing. However, as long as I can understand what you're saying I will flow it.

I believe Topicality and Kritik arguments are import, but they should be resevered for when your opponent has stepped out of the bounds of the debate.

Claire McAlister - Butte

Cole Brown - CCU

IPDA is supposed to be a common-sense, rhetoric-based event. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, or anything else that would not be persuasive to the average person off of the street. The point of debate is to make us better at discussing issues with real people, and IPDA is trying to achieve this goal. Also, please be courteous and kind to your opponent.

Corey Norton - Hired

n/a

Cynthia Ross - Hired

n/a

Daniel Broyles - Pac U

n/a

Danny Georgiev - LPC

n/a

Dawn Fore - LPC

n/a

Deanna Constable - Hired

n/a

Eden Fuson - Hired

n/a

Evelin Pedro - Hired

n/a

Frank Polanco - Hired

n/a

Gabby Fernandez-Felix - MJC

I'm a lay-judge who is currently taking an argumentation and debate class where we have just started participating in IPDA style debates.Ã??Ã?Â

Gregory Chatham - MJC

I'm a lay-judge who is currently taking an argumentation and debate class where we have just started participating in IPDA style debates.Ã??Ã?Â

Griffin Abrams - CSUN

n/a

Harish Rao - Hired

n/a

Jaime Rangel - MJC

I'm a lay-judge who is currently taking an argumentation and debate class where we have just started participating in IPDA style debates.Ã??Ã?Â

Jared Anderson - Sacramento

Logistics:

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, Im going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I dont want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and dont argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I started out coaching CEDA/NDT debate but I have now been coaching LD for a long time. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly and are within the rules. You can win my ballot with whatever. I dont have to agree with your argument, I dont have to be moved by your argument, I dont even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I do need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, Im familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments?other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. Its up to you. I will tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand - I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that is on you.

The rules are the rules and I will follow them. I will not intervene; you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it.Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I dont need abuse? proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this. On the current topic (2019-2020) I will probably have a pretty low threshold on Vagueness/Spec arguments. You need a clear plan. Neg arguments about why the aff needs to clearly outline how and what amount they propose investing will be met with a sympathetic ear.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you cant find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. Im pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so youll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVIs are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

Jason Chmara - Hired

n/a

Jeannie Hunt - NWC

I want to be able to judge the round with very little intervention on my part. That means a couple of things. You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I dont care what that framework is, but I want one policymaking, critical, big picture, etc. That framework is what I will follow, so please dont set the round up as a stock round, and then ask me to look at the big picture at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end. I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene.

There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another. I will vote on pretty much anything, and I am game for pretty much anything. I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions. If you run a k, you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run. I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I dont have to spend time flowing it.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I dont have to abandon objectivity all together.

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

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesnt mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). You can at least take your hat off and make some eye contact. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument. Speed is not a problem if it is clear. PLEASE do not abuse flex time or add 20 minutes to an LD round through evidence exchange. This will make me grouchy and your points will suffer. You don't get to say flex will start when the other team has accomplished something or complied with a request - flex starts when the previous speech is over. Prep time doesn't stop only to take another 2 minutes to process evidence. Time limits exist for a reason.

Because I dont want to intervene, I dont appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldnt vote on new arguments. I wont. If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

Jennifer Conner - Pac U

n/a

Jeremiah Baxter - Hired

n/a

Jessica Samorano - Hired

n/a

Jessica Wilson - Hired

n/a

Jessica Sturla - Hired

n/a

Jewell Christian Stewart - Hired

n/a

Jim Dobson - LPC

I prefer to see debate rounds as something that a lay person could watch and think was cool. Rapid delivery, technicalities, and rude people are not what I am looking for. A lively and fun debate with good attitudes is what I will want to see.

If it looks good for general public speaking it should look good for debate.

Joel Chmara - Hired

n/a

Joey Barrows - UOP

I competed in LD for two years, and did Parli for one. I don't have much of a bias towards any particular strategy. I am willing to vote on pretty much anything if it's winning on the flow. If I'm having a problem with speed I will let you know.

John Rosen - Hired

n/a

Josh Thompson - Hired

n/a

Joshua Bruce - MJC

I would be considered a Coms judge, and have approximately a year and a half of debating IPDA at the junior college level. Ive competed exclusively with Modesto Junior College both at novice and open IPDA debate. I greatly enjoy the fun nature and spirit of debate, and am hoping to be involved for many years to come.

How I evaluate rounds:

I feel my preference toward style of debating leans toward a communication centric as opposed to strict flowing of rounds. In general I tend to keep notes on each case, and keep up with refutations, as well as any dropped portions of the case. Keep in mind this is IPDA, and not Parli or LD, so I would prefer debaters not to spread their arguments. Each round the debaters should focus on presenting a clear case that satisfies the resolution, there is no need for focus on debate terminology, or to get caught in squabbles, the best presented case should be the clear winner. When it comes to definitional arguments, certainly some clarity among the purpose of definition as it applies to the resolution is necessary, yet again the focus on squabbles should be avoided. Furthermore framework shant be overly complex. Seeing as this is a novice tournament, I am focusing on the arguments made, and not how well structured they all are. Make sure the impacts of your arguments are clear, and well understood, and how they connect back to the resolution.

Some other comments:

Above all else make sure to have a good time! We are all here as part of the learning experience, and can each benefit from the experience we all bring to this exercise. Please remember to be kind, and that we are all here to learn something, I will not tolerate any poor behavior toward ones opponent. Also off time road maps are encouraged.

My personal background has been focused on healthcare administration, more specifically hospice and palliative care. Im quite well read on the ins and outs of our healthcare system, and the laws that regulate our industry. I also tend to be up to date on current information, and events happening both domestically and internationally. I always appreciate a well researched case, and look forward to judging these rounds.

Joshua Stewart - Hired

n/a

Katie Lai - Hired

n/a

Kayla Griffin - Weber

Give trigger warnings if you talk about traumatic things. I don't like acted out rape scenes - I will give you the lowest score for that.
In debate I look for strong communication, logical links, and strong clash!

Kelly Hutchison - UOP

Read what ever you want, I am willing to listen to any argument, critical or topical affs. I like framework arguments, but make sure that they have impacts and flush them out. I wont do extra work for you, that means you need to make extensions. Please make sure that you have evidence to back up your claims, and then give analysis. Debates without evidence are boring and not as educational.

Kevin Ozomaro - UOP

I’ve debated for 5 years, I’ve coached hs LD, parli, and pf. I have about 5 years of coaching between high school and college. I have a years worth of middle school debate coaching.

The Basics:

In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)
Use speechdrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds

NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)

I’m fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.
Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse
I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.
I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise
Tell me why you win.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik.

I will also mention that I’m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards thing in parli. If you don’t understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.

Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is “antithetical” to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear” or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.

If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.

Safety: I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

stolen from Ryan guy of Mjc

Kevin Lomelin - MJC

I'm a lay-judge who is currently taking an argumentation and debate class where we have just started participating in IPDA style debates.Ã??Ã?Â

Kinza Muhammad - Hired

n/a

Kyle Caprista - Hired

n/a

Kyra Tillmans - Hired

n/a

Lisa Howard - DVC

Liz Fritz - COD

The biggest things I look for in any type of debate:

1. Logic that is clearly linked and supported by evidence (note: evidence, not just sources).

2. Arguments that are impacted back to the resolution/weighing mechanism.

3. Direct clash/direct responses to opponents arguments.

4. Respect to each other and the round.

Things that do not bode well with me:

1. Hostility towards opponent(s). Yes, even if they started it. If you respond to hostility with hostility, then you will receive a hostile ballot.

2. Telling me I have to do something (That is why AFF wins/that is why you should vote for AFF - fine; that is why you must vote for AFF/why NEG must lose - nope)

3. Trying to use what are courtesies, not rules, as reasons why your opponent should lose.

4. Lying about facts/statistics/evidence. I wont always know if you are lying, but you dont know when I know you are. So dont.

I will gladly consider all arguments brought to the flow in both IPDA and parli, but they must have a reason for being there. If you do not explain the reason for an argument and why it matters to the debate (top of case issues, non-unique, etc. ESPECIALLY) then it is like they do not exist.

Ultimately, this is your debate. I want to give both sides the room to be able to create argumentation unique to the topic and round. Just keep it civil, logical, and on topic.

Margaret Bilos - Harper College

I believe an IPDA debate should be a structured discussion between two people who may disagree about a topic but are respectful, thoughtful, friendly, and conversational.Ã?Â It should be viewed more as a well-reasoned, well-delivered philosophical disagreement that anyone can judge rather than a highly specialized format.Ã?Â I would rather hear you disagree over the arguments and claims rather than hear you debate about debate.Ã?Â Ã?Â

I like to imagine that we all went out to dinner and cracked open a fortune cookie.Ã?Â One of you agreed and the other disagreed and you talked and argued, bringing up examples and points.Ã?Â After fifteen minutes or so, I said one of you won and we all enjoyed dessert.

In public address, I am looking for connection to audience, an interesting topic, solid delivery, convincing research, and credible support.Ã?Â

For interpretation events, I am hoping to be drawn into the story, the drama, and the character that you are creating.Ã?Â The best performers might not teach us a lesson, but they can sweep us up into a beautiful moment.Ã?Â I am less concerned with rigid rules and conventions if what you're doing makes sense and adds something to the piece and character.Ã?Â Ã?Â

In limited preparation events, I am looking for a speech with good structure, interesting arguments, and eloquent delivery.Ã?Â If you are thoughtful and clean, I am hoping to learn something new or see it in a new way.

Overall, be creative, be friendly, be conversational, be expressive, be in the moment!Ã?Â Ã?Â I'm looking for creativity, passion, energy and for you to put me at ease.Ã?Â My favorite speakers, in all events, makes the audience feel like a valued part of the conversation.Ã?Â Ã?Â If you are having a good time- we will have a good time!

Mario Prado - MJC

I'm a lay-judge who is currently taking an argumentation and debate class where we have just started participating in IPDA style debates.Ã??Ã?Â

Marius Mayer - LPC

n/a

Mark Galaviz - Weber

I remember long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow. If I fail, or if I succeed, at least I lived what I believe.

Melissa Garcia - LPC

n/a

Meredith Mountjoy - DVC

Mike Ansell - Hired

n/a

Nathan Carter - NOVA

For IPDA, I believe the debate should not look like NPDA or NFA-LD. Please be kind to each other, be an effective speaker, and make reasonable arguments supported with content beyond hypothetical examples and/or personal examples. Do not be abusive to your opponents. I beleive all forms of debate are an educational activity so I am hoping to hear CLASH between ideas. I will flow the debate of course, but I am not going to protect you or speak for you. So if you feel a Point of Order is needed, you will need to call that out in rebuttals. Road maps for me are in time and I do appreciate being told why you are winning (Rather than just saying VOTERS). Try to tone down the debate jargon in IPDA please.

NPDA and NFA-LD

I respect the flow for the most part, but if you do weird things like RVIs or weird conditional arguments or K's that are poorly used or explained I will frown and be a sad sad human. Please don't make me sad I am still recovering from the Superbowl loss the 49ers had to endure.

Anything else just ask.

Most importantly have fun and be clear.

Nez Hasanly - LPC

n/a

Orion Steele - SFSU

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pablo Ramirez - SFSU

Rajiv Vijayakumar - Hired

n/a

Rameesha Muhammad - LPC

n/a

Richard Paine - Noctrl

As a competitor, I used the NDT style. As a coach, I have coached NDT-CEDA (for about 10 years), LD (for about 7 years), IPDA (for about 7 years), and Parli (for about 15 years). My philosophy obviously has to shift in various ways depending on the type of debate I'm judging, but here are a few key points that generally apply:

(1) Seek clash. Don't let the debate become two ships passing in the night. If your opponent makes an argument, don't drop it - respond to it directly, and show me why your position directly clashes with and takes out theirs. If your opponent drops an argument of yours, make sure you pull it across and tell me why it matters.

(2) Be organized. Regardless of the format, I want to hear numbers/letters and clear tags that are maintained throughout the debate. Don't just speak in uninterrupted sentences. Give me numbers and tags if you want me to flow the arguments.

(3) Topicality matters to me. The affirmative/government has the initial right to define the terms, but they must be reasonable. Any challenges coming from the other side must be premised on the question of reasonability.

(4) I don't like counterplans. If you feel that you absolutely must run one, you should know that I feel counterplans must be NON-topical.

(5) I'm also not a fan of kritiks. They seldom strike me as the best way to go.

(6) In a policy round, I am a "stock issues" judge.

(7) Don't just make claims. Be sure you support those claims with both logic and concrete evidence whenever possible. Seek to demonstrate the impact of any given argument.

(8) Affirmative plans should be fully developed. It is the initial responsibility of the affirmative to provide all plan components - it is not the responsibility of the negative to seek them through cross-ex.

(9) Cross-ex questions are binding. In formats that allow questions to be asked during speech time, the speaker should take questions QUICKLY. No "I don't have time" or "I'll take it at the end of this (endless) position." If you ignore legal questions for more than a short time, I quit flowing your speech.

(10) Speed should be easily comprehensible and flowable. If I can't get your arguments written down, then I can't base my judgment on them.

(11) Be cordial and polite to your opponents. I appreciate intensity and assertiveness - but please don't cross the line into downright rudeness.

(12) I do not believe that debate is a "tag-team" sport. Thus, debaters should not interrupt their partners' speeches to add information, clarify statements, tell them what to talk about next, answer questions for them, or whatever. Only the person whose official speech time we are in should be talking for your team.

(12) If you have other specific questions, please ask them just before we start debating the round.

(13) Have fun! The whole point of this is to enjoy it as we develop our skills together. Trophies aren't the point - greater skills are.

Roma Diseati - NOVA

n/a

Rusty Kransky - Hired

n/a

Saba Salehifar - Hired

n/a

Salim Razawi - LPC

n/a

Sam Director - CCU

Sara Anderson - Hired

n/a

Sarah Kellner - Hired

n/a

Sasan Kasravi - DVC

TL;DR: I won't punish you for not debating the way I like, but I can't "hang". Speed and Ks not recommended, but I won't vote you down unless your opponent gives me a decent reason to. Give me direct and clear reasons to vote for you. Have fun in the round.

I'm a community college Parliamentary Debate coach.

I protect the flow in rebuttals based on what I have on my flow. Feel free to call points of order if you'd really like to, though.

I do my best to vote the way the debaters tell me to and to be tabula rasa. With that having been said, I think everyone has biases and I want to tell you mine. I won't ignore any of your arguments out of not liking them, but my biases could lower the threshold for refutation on an argument I dislike.

What I like to see most in debates is good clash. To me, good clash means link refutations and impact comparisons.

I'm comfortable with theory and you can run whatever procedural you'd like. I prefer to vote on articulated abuse rather than potential abuse. While I'm happy to vote on procedurals if it's called for, I've never walked out of a round thinking, "Wow! What a great T!"

I don't like K's. I've voted on them before, I'll probably end up having to vote for a K again, but I'm not happy about it. Specifically, I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard.

I prefer that you don't spread, but I can keep up with decent speed. I'll tell you to slow if I need you to slow down.

Please be inclusive of your opponents and (if there are other judges in this round) the other judges on the panel.

It's important to me that this activity:

a) be a useful experience for competitors' lives outside of forensics

b) be enjoyable enough to be worth giving up weekends instead of sleeping in and watching cartoons.

Lastly, if I make jokes please pretend to think I'm funny. I don't have much else going for me.

Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte

I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.

I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:

-Using clear roadmapping

-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)

- Be respectful of your opponent and judges

-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff

- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me

Sophia Kokezas - Hired

n/a

Stephan Brooks - Brooks Debate

STEPHAN BROOKS

COACHING & COMPETITIVE BACKGROUND:

- Founder / Coach @ Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2016-Present)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Debate Coach @ Stanford National Forensics Institute in Stanford, CA (Summer 2013-15)
- Debate Coach @ Cal National Debate Institute in Berkeley, CA (Summer 2013)
- Debate & Extemp Coach @ Summit Preparatory High School in Redwood City, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Debate Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I am former debate competitor. I have experience in and have judged all forms of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several California Bay Area schools and programs, including my own private program. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- First and foremost, I am a "policymaker" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging 90% of debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that crap at home. I want real-world impacts not BS theory garbage.

- On that note, I HATE THEORY. I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! (unless your opponent is legit guilty of a fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc.)

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Also, you will probably lose. And don't bother reading me your stupid block about how reading more stuff is more educational, nothing is educational if it sounds like gibberish, and if you read that block I'll vote you down AND give you negative 500 speaker points. And next to your negative 500 speaker points, I'll write my own education block note stating how receiving negative 500 speaker points is educational and will teach you not to spread in the future when your judge says that they hate spread. And then when ballots get scanned online, your friends will see your negative 500 speaker points, laugh at you, and reinforce that education.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible, even if a tournament director tells me not to. What are they going to do if I break their rule, ban me from judging and doing more work? Oh no! How horrible! I'll just have to sit in the judges room all day, eat free food, and catch up on my work.

MY DEBATE PET PEEVES YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF:

- You absolutely do not need to shake my hand. Kids spread germs, I don't know where your hand has been, I usually work seven days a week and can't afford to get sick. I'll just assume you're sincere about thanking me for judging regardless of whether or not we shook hands and/or the outcome of the debate.

- Am I cool with off-time road maps? No. I'm not cool. (PF Debate only) First, in the time it took you to ask me that, you probably couldn't just given your road map already. Second, it takes just 5 seconds of your time to road map anyways, how precious are those 5 seconds to you, are you going to tell me the meaning of life in those 5 seconds or something? Third and most importantly, are you paying me extra to stay at the tournament longer? If the answer to that last question is no, then forget about your off-time road map. It should really just be called your off-time make Stephan Brooks stay at the tournament longer plan. I am so not cool with that.

- I'm old school when it comes to presentation. Leave your computer at home. I also think cases/evidence on iPads is annoying too, especially when those materials are requested by opponents. If your opponent kindly asks to see a piece of evidence, and it takes you longer to produce that evidence on your laptop/device than it normally would have had you simply just printed the evidence, I will consider dropping you, as it is not cool to be unable to produce evidence during limited prep in an educational activity.

- If you're not getting up to speak, I'm running your prep time. Don't ask for set amounts of prep time- how the heck do you know that you only need 30 seconds to think through everything you need to say? Are you psychic? Also, don't disagree with me about how much prep time you have left- you'll lose.

- Don't be a @#$!& during the debate. You'll lose. It's nice to be nice.

- I have judged since 2005 and can count on my hands the number of times I have legitimately bought a nuclear war impact. If you want me to weigh mushroom clouds on your side, you better work hard for them. Also, you might be on mushrooms if you think I will vote for a silly illogical/unwarranted nuclear war impact.

- Do NOT spend half of the debate crying abuse (this is for you Parli people!) and claiming your opponent is violating the rules of _ debate. If they are, I will be smart enough to catch it and you'll win. If they aren't, you will come off as extremely annoying. I love to punish annoying complainers with losses and low speaker points- the low speaker points is to ensure you will not break to elimination rounds based on speaks so I don't have to hear you cry unnecessarily in elimination rounds.

- I cannot stress enough how much I hate theory. I watched an elimination round where a competitor won the coin flip for sides, selected AFF, and argued that he was disadvantaged having to debate on the AFF side. Back in my day, new topics came out, and us kids would be excited to debate a new topic- we would not look forward to arguing the same abuse arguments regardless of the resolution.

- As far as I'm concerned, Counter-Plans are legal in all debate formats, Public Forum included. We should always be able to argue that the reason we shouldn't do X is because Y is an option, and there is an opportunity cost at stake. I don't care what the stupid NSDA rules say in Public Forum. Also, 99% of you who do Public Forum and complain about counter-plans likely were never taught the 4-5+ necessary components of an actual CP, so shush.

Steve Robertson - Contra Costa

Steve Robertson

Contra Costa College, Director of Forensics

Years competed:1 yr LD (high school), 4.5 years NDT/CEDA (college)

Years coaching: 25+ years (middle school, high school, college - LD, parli, NDT/CEDA, IPDA)

Philosophy - The round is for you to convince me why your side should win the debate. try to be as non-interventionist as I can be. I work off the flow, focusing on your claims, warrants, and evidence. Believability is also a factor. I find it very difficult to vote for arguments that I don't understand how they work or function. So be sure to explain why things are the way they are. Compare impacts, and explain why your impacts/argument outweigh or should be viewed as more important than theirs. The main point is that you need to justify your position to me: what is your argument, why is it legitimate, and why does that matter in light of the other side's arguments. If you can adequately answer those three questions better than the other side, you should win the argument.

I punish non-responsiveness - meaning that if you drop or undercover arguments, they suddenly get much more weight in the round (especially if exploited by the other team). However, if you under-develop your arguments (such as blipping out theory pre-empts without justifying them), it doesn't take much to respond to these arguments.

I also communicate through nonverbals. If you see me nodding, then that means I understand your position (not necessarily agree with it, but I get what you're saying). If you see me cocking my head to the side or scrunching up my face, it means I don't get what you're saying or I don't understand your argument or I don't see why it's relevant. If you see that face, you should either give more explanation (until you see a head nod) or cut your losses and move onto another argument. If you see my hands in the air, that means I don't know where you are on the flow. You should give me a signpost, because I'm currently not flowing you.

Here are some event-specific concerns:

Parli- Debate starts at the highest point of conflict. I will listen to arguments of trichot/type of resolution, though if the tournament identifies it as a particular type of resolution this becomes a bit more difficult.

I don't care about partner to partner communication. However, if it's done during the other team's speech, then mute yourselves from this 8x8 (e.g., chat privately, mute yourselves and talk in another venue, etc.). Don't disrupt the other speaker.

If you want to give your partner advice or arguments, that's fine as well. There are 2 things to be aware of: First, I only listen to what the speaker says. So if you tell your partner something, it doesn't reach my flow until the current speaker says it. Saying "yeah, what she said" will get onto my flow as "yeah, what she said" - not the actual argument. Second, the more you parrot or puppet your partner, the lower your speaker points will become. This is purely subjective on my part, so use at your own peril.

Finally, parli has the Point of Order. I will not protect against new arguments or other rules violations (unless specified to do so in the tournament rules). Use this if applicable. Frivolous use of it, however, will desensitize me to it.

LD- You have the obligation to provide evidence in this debate. Please do so. Referencing evidence that has not been read in the debate will carry the same weight as an assertion for me.

For me, reading the source (publication title and/or authors' last names) and date is sufficient for citations, provided that all additional information is provided on the card's citation itself. If you want to run an official rules violation on this in front of me, I will entertain it, but realize I am disinclined to vote evidence or a debater down if that information is available on the card. Doesn't mean you can't win it, just that it'll be an uphill battle.

Realize that while underlining and highlighting are acceptable ways of modifying evidence for a round, ellipses, unreadable font size, or gaps in text are unacceptable.

IPDA- IPDA is more of a communication event than a debate for me. It is NOT treated the same as parli. I do not flow, but take a very limited amount of notes. Eloquence factors into the decision for me. I think of this as a townhall meeting, closer to interactive persuasion than debate. Avoid debate jargon, extensive line by line analysis, and other more traditional debate tactics. This is about persuasion, not strict argumentation. Think of debating in front of your grandmother, not a debate judge.

Bottom line - make good arguments, offer clash, give impact calculus/comparison, and be civil to one another. Oh...and have fun! :)

Steven Farias - UOP

(March 2022) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

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 can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Societies and nations have excisted without structures of oppression in the past which means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. I borrow here because 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 NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct. Theory is distinct from T. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then they presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. 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 and that format allows meaningful engagement. While these are things I think the AFF and NEG should do, 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. 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 offensive 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) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 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!

Sue Peterson - CSU Chico

Updated 9/8/18

I am now primarily judging NFA-LD.

PARLI: If you have me as a parli critic, know that it is not my strength nor my favorite style of debate. I just think that referencing evidence with no ability to check the accuracy of your reference makes it difficult to evaluate conflicting arguments, but I will do my best. Having well-warranted arguments beyond just a source (so explaining the warrant, not just naming the source and claim) will help your efforts. I can flow pretty fast debate, but without evidence, the arguments sometimes come fast and furious and I can't write or type that fast, so slow down a bit if you want everything on my flowsheet at the end of the speech.

BOTH PARLI AND LD:

As far as argumentative preference, performance debates are not really my cup of tea. I like critical arguments and I'm relatively familiar with the literature, but if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. But, I think claiming some methodological advantage to a certain plan is fine and the negative is free to critique it up if they so choose, as long as they in some way specifically engage the affirmative's arguments (usually better if it is the affirmative's arguments and not just the resolution or the status quo, but that is debatable).

I do not enjoy nasty debates where people ad-hom each other, yell at each other, or otherwise argue instead of debate. I think debate should be enjoyable for both the debaters and me -- so be nice and have fun. And if your opponents are not nice, don't get sucked into the evil...maintain your composure.

Rebuttals are key. Make sure you take the time to explain your arguments, how they should be impacted in the debate, how they compare to the other team's.

LD:

I am no longer inclined to read much evidence, but if you want me to read evidence because of it being a focus of controversy in the round, identify the evidence by author AND warrant - not just author. I want to know WHAT to read and WHY I'm reading it. I prefer to hear the evidence and hear the explanations and vote on that because debate is about oral argumentation. So, I won't read anything unless I feel like I have to in order to be fair to both sides in the debate.

I am not prone to vote on "this is a rule" unless it is well-warranted. I get that LD has rules and I believe there are reasons for those rules, but I also believe that debaters should be able to articulate those reasons in a round in order to win on those arguments. So, if you are going to make arguments about what should be excluded in a round, be sure to provide warrants other than "its a rule". I am open to debaters asking others to speak more conversational in rounds as that is part of this activity's unique appeal, but I do think that you should be reciprocal - so don't ask for someone to slow down (or yell slow/clear during their speech) and then speak fast in your own speech.

I love a good T debate. Most pre-round questions seem to focus on in-round abuse and competing interps, so I will say here that I think both those arguments are things that can be debated out in the round. I don't HAVE to have in-round abuse, but I'm open as to why I shouldn't evaluate Ts that don't prove it. My default is competing interpretations, BUT if the affirmative is obviously topical under the negative's interpretation and explains such, I don't think they HAVE to have a counterinterp.

If you have any other questions, let me know before the round begins!

Taia Moreland - MJC

I'm a lay(ish) judge who is currently taking an argumentation and debate class where we have just started participating in IPDA style debates.Ã??Ã?Â

Has some high school policy debate experience.Ã??Ã?Â

Tarren Hyde - MJC

I'm a lay-judge who is currently taking an argumentation and debate class where we have just started participating in IPDA style debates.Ã??Ã?Â

Taure Shimp - MJC

ALL DEBATE EVENTS

Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.

IPDA

I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.

PARLI

Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.

Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.

Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!

Tim Heisler - LPC

I am an Individual Event judge and excel in coaching/judging platform speeches. I will evaluate an IPDA round as it compares to platform speeches. In my mind an IPDA debate is supposed to be clearly & easily understood by an audience unfamiliar with forensics competition. Therefore speakers who employ things like debate jargon & speed will dramatically suffer. Speak clearly, speak cleanly, speak articulately, be organized.

My ideal round looks like the following;

A. Please be kind to each other above all, I strongly dislike debaters who are rude to each other, I think it drives out young and talented people from our sport.

B. Avoid debate jargon. If your aunt, grandmother, boss or co-worker wouldn't understand what you're talking about, then you're not speaking the language of the common folk.

C. Debators are in charge of the debate. This includes keeping track of their own time, knowing the speaking order, and adhering to time limits.

D. When answering questions please be quick and concise. Long-winded answers that beat around the bush are really just tactical ways of milking the clock during Cross-X time. And we all know it, don't we?

Be nice. Be clear. Be fair. Have fun.

Toby Bielawski - Hired

n/a

Tomeka Robinson - Hofstra

n/a

Trace Jones - Weber

n/a

Trent Webb - NCC

n/a

Trevor March - Hired

n/a

Tucker Wilson - Montana

n/a

Tyler Boutte - Hired

n/a

Victoria Meuter-Montijo - SFSU

Waylon Baker - JSCC

n/a

Will Blackmore - Mt. Hood CC

My primary criterion for judging is: the logic of your arguments and clash. Impact your arguments and show how they interact with other arguments in the round.

I expect the framework of the round to be clear, fair, and debatable. Ultimately, i want an educational debate. This is done through clear resolutional analysis at the top and succinct voting issues at the end of the round.

Zach Thornhill - ILSTU

See tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Zach&search_last=thornhill

Zoie Cripe - MJC

I'm a lay-judge who is currently taking an argumentation and debate class where we have just started participating in IPDA style debates.Ã??Ã?Â

2021 Talk Hawk Invitational

Tournament Time: 2:36 AM Pacific

Judge Philosophies

Adrianna Marquez - LPC

Ajibola Hassan - Hired

Alejandra Quezada Sermeno - LPC

Alexis Bondarenko - LPC

Alexis Litzky - CCSF

Alyssa Conroy - Hired

Amanda Johnson - Hired

Amy Hileman - NOVA

Ashley Eastman - LPC

Averie Vockel - Utah

Bailey Coleman - MJC

Bill Lucio - Harper College

Blake Longfellow - DVC

Blake Harris - CCU

Bob Becker - NWC

Brennan Mock - LPC

Casey Hamilton - LPC

Chris Josi - Mt. Hood CC

Claire McAlister - Butte

Cole Brown - CCU

Corey Norton - Hired

Cynthia Ross - Hired

Daniel Broyles - Pac U

Danny Georgiev - LPC

Dawn Fore - LPC

Deanna Constable - Hired

Eden Fuson - Hired

Evelin Pedro - Hired

Frank Polanco - Hired

Gabby Fernandez-Felix - MJC

Gregory Chatham - MJC

Griffin Abrams - CSUN

Harish Rao - Hired

Jaime Rangel - MJC

Jared Anderson - Sacramento

Jason Chmara - Hired

Jeannie Hunt - NWC

Jennifer Conner - Pac U

Jeremiah Baxter - Hired

Jessica Samorano - Hired

Jessica Wilson - Hired

Jessica Sturla - Hired

Jewell Christian Stewart - Hired

Jim Dobson - LPC

Joel Chmara - Hired

Joey Barrows - UOP

John Rosen - Hired

Josh Thompson - Hired

Joshua Bruce - MJC

Joshua Stewart - Hired

Katie Lai - Hired

Kayla Griffin - Weber

Kelly Hutchison - UOP

Kevin Ozomaro - UOP

Kevin Lomelin - MJC

Kinza Muhammad - Hired

Kyle Caprista - Hired

Kyra Tillmans - Hired

Lisa Howard - DVC

Liz Fritz - COD

Margaret Bilos - Harper College

Mario Prado - MJC

Marius Mayer - LPC

Mark Galaviz - Weber

Melissa Garcia - LPC

Meredith Mountjoy - DVC

Mike Ansell - Hired

Nathan Carter - NOVA

Nez Hasanly - LPC

Orion Steele - SFSU

Pablo Ramirez - SFSU

Rajiv Vijayakumar - Hired

Rameesha Muhammad - LPC

Richard Paine - Noctrl

Roma Diseati - NOVA

Rusty Kransky - Hired

Saba Salehifar - Hired