Alexander Ellis - LPC

n/a

---

Andrew Morgan - DVC

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Bailey Coleman - MJC

---

Ben Krueger - Nevada

Ben Krueger (he/him/his)

University of Nevada, Reno

I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.

General Debate Views and Preferences

1. I come from a traditional policymaking background, but I'm open to multiple frameworks and interpretations of debate. It's up to you to defend and justify your framework choices in the round.

2. I don't do well with speed. The faster you spread, the more likely it is that I'll miss arguments on the flow and make a decision you won't like.

3. Structure is good and I appreciate signposting, but remember that it's not a replacement for substantive argument. Having a catchy tagline is not the same thing as having a well-developed warrant that supports your claim.

4. Rebuttal speeches should "zoom out" and give me a big picture overview of what's going on in the round. When the rebuttal is simply a line-by-line analysis, I inevitably have to do more work to weigh the issues myself.

5. I viscerally dislike "gut check" arguments and won't vote for them. Instead, give me more specific analytic reasons why I shouldn't believe a specific claim (for example, it doesn't have a clear source, it's based on a post hoc fallacy, it's based on a faulty analogy, etc).

6. Don't be jerks. It is possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity.

My views on Parli

I rarely judge Parli anymore, but in case you encounter me in a Parli round, there are a few things to be aware of about how I approach the event: (1) I hate stupid T arguments and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards unless there's something really wonky going on. (2) K's absolutely must have clear links and clear alt-solvency that I can weigh against the plan. If they don't, I will have a low threshold for accepting any plausible-sounding answer to them. (3) I will not vote for poorly-explained technical arguments just because they're on the flow if they aren't properly weighed or impacted out.

My views of IPDA

IPDA is NOT parli-lite! If you treat the round that way, I will at minimum tank your speaker points.

I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon as much as possible. I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like top-of-case and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory or witty comebacks alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of definitions reasons to prefer a specific criterion.

Although uncommon, I find myself giving more low-point wins in IPDA than I did in Parli. If I give you a low-point win, it typically means one of two things happened: (1) you clearly won on flow, but there was a major issue with your delivery/presentation style, (2) you weren't winning on flow, but your opponent collapsed to the wrong voting issues or made some major strategic blunder in rebuttals that led me to buy your voting issues instead.

A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)

In light of recent developments in national politics, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man. Please be mindful that resolutions about legal rights of specific groups (such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or racial minorities) can be triggering to competitors and judges when framed as a binary either/or choice between maintaining civil rights or eliminating them. In such rounds, I will grant leeway to both affirmative and negative teams to frame their arguments in ways that avoid a morally problematic division of ground. If you find yourself on the "bad" side of such a resolution, some ideas for you how might reframe include: state-level counterplans, constitutional amendments, constitutional convention, secession, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, etc.

---

Benny Mock - LPC

n/a

---

Bill Lucio - Harper College

---

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.

---

Brandon Wood - COD

Did you persuade me with complete arguments? Did you make this seem like a general audience could follow and enjoy? Did you treat your opponent with respect? Did you speak passionately and compellingly? Did you not talk about the value of education? If you answer yes to all of these then you have mastered my criteria.

It is highly, highly appreciated if opponents greet each other by first or last names and I will only mark refutation on my flow if a specific name is attached to it during the constructive. Personally, I don't respond well to rhetorically being told what I have to do as a judge. This likely isn't an LD round where I'm not being shown a document of cut research that compels me have to vote for someone because of decades of debate theory. Whether it's parli or IPDA you should avoid words like, "you must", "you should strike this", "you have to vote for our side because we did this/they didn't do this", or "here is why we won". Every time I deduct 3 speaker points and will likely be unable to pay attention for approximately 30 seconds of your speech because I will be writing what I've already written here, and therefore, will not be flowing. Don't meet competitor hostility with hostility unless you want to assure a hostile ballot.

For me, arguing that something is or is not"educational" and therefore must be rejected is ultimately a weird form of hyperbole that has infected debate. Experiencing something that is unfair, like circular arguments or bad definitions, is educational. This activity makes it almost impossible to not engage in an educational experience, in the worldly sense. While I won't buy the education-has-been-removed-from-this-debate-round argument, I absolutely will accept issues regarding abusive definitions, incomplete argumentation, denial of ground, moving goal posts etc...

FAQ: Speed? = me not flowing. Jargon? = To me it creates assumed enthymemes and sloppy debate (usually). Technical elements? = will accept them as needed (in Parli). Partner communication during constructives? = Really, really dislike it now that flex time exists because it just decimates your percieved credibility in my eyes ( your ethos is the unspoken contract to accepting information at face value). Role of the judge? = Parli- Tabula Rasa , except when it comes to trichotomy. Lingusitically, resolutions come with burdens that most often are objectively implied ("should" is policy for example) as policy, value, or fact. I flow the entirety of the constructives and dropped arguments are a big deal. IPDA - I am a general audience member and enter each round with my complete knowledge as a human. I approach the resolution with an open mind and a desire to be persuaded but factual errors, fallacious argumentation, and hostile debate styles will not be flowed. I take notes that summarize the debates progress rather than the technical flow I would use for Parli/LD/CEDA.

---

Colby Bettis - LPC

n/a

---

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

---

Elise Elizadele - LPC

n/a

---

Emil Tamm - LPC

n/a

---

Fabian Silva - LPC

n/a

---

Garrett Alsup - LPC

n/a

---

Harish Rao - Hired

n/a

---

JP Escarcega - SFSU

n/a

---

Janene Whitesell - Solano CC

I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:

1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.

2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.

3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.

4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.

5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.

6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.

7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.

8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?

9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.

---

Janet Brehe-Johnson - Hired

n/a

---

Jason Chmara - Hired

n/a

---

Jeff Przybylo - Harper College

---

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.

---

Justin Magnano - LPC

n/a

---

Kacy Stevens - COD

I will listen to every argument a debater presents. However, as much as I try, I do find it difficult to divorce myself from my knowledge of fallacious argumentation. Thus, I tend to focus on logical links and how they tie back to the weighing mechanism of the round. If there are links to nuclear war or other hyperbolicscenariosthatare easily broken, I am unlikely to vote on such unrealistic impacts, especially if they have been delinked.

IPDA should be dramatically different than parli. When a debater turns an IPDA round into a parli round, I am likely to vote for the OTHER debater in the round. Delivery, organization, and ethos matter significantly more in IPDA than in parli.

I highly value courteous and respectful debate in both parli and IPDA. I believe strongly in the idea that one of the major distinctions between debate argumentation and "verbal fighting" is the high degree of respect debaters show each other in and out of rounds. Ethos has its place in debate and respect to others does impact ethos. I strongly believe in the distinction between fact, value, and policy resolutions. The burdens for each are vastly different and require teams to focus the debate in drastically different ways. I hold true to the idea that setting up a case using the correct resolutional type is a burden of the government team.

In voting in parli, I equally weigh prima facia issues and the weighing mechanism of the round. I expect debaters to impact their arguments directly to the weighing mechanism established in the round. IMPACT, IMPACT, IMPACT

In parli, speed sometimes occurs, but should not be relied upon. I will make it clear when the speed becomes so quick that I can no longer flow the debate by simply putting my pen down. It should be a clear nonverbal indicator to every debater that I am no longer flowing the debate because of speed, and therefore will not vote on the arguments that are not on my flow. However, I will pick back up my pen and continue flowing when the speaking rate becomes reasonable enough to flow.I also believe that speed impacts credibility. While debate relies heavily upon logos, ethos and pathos should not be ignored. Beyond speed, I also highly encourage debaters to use strong organization including, taglines, roman numerals, capital letters, etc. Labeling and numbering arguments is one of the easiest ways to ensure that both teams and the judge(s) are on the same page. Jargon alone does not make an argument; a debater's explanation of the jargon makes an argument. Jargon alone will never be voted on by me. I expect debaters to explain why the jargon is significant to the round and how it should impact my voting. Technicalities can matter but only if the debater(s) impact out why the technical elements have a bearing on the round itself. Procedural arguments are a part of debate for a reason but should not be relied upon solely to win rounds. If procedurals are present, debaters should feel free to run them and IMPACT them, but not force them to work.

---

Ki Singh - SFSU

n/a

---

Klarissa Cuenca - LPC

n/a

---

Kristina Sanville - CSU Chico

---

Mahima Tanksalker - LPC

n/a

---

Margaret Bilos - Harper College

---

Mark Faaita - CSU Chico

In all forms of debate I prefer arguments that are well reasoned and have supporting evidence. I am open to just about any kind of argument, but I think that more abstract/philosophical arguments typically run the risk of being easily leveraged against the team deploying them in the round. There are few to no arguments that I think will hear in a round and immediately disregard. i vote for arguments I don't like/disagree with all of the time. Please, please, please do not be rude to your opponents. It's just not a good look and creates a tension in the room that doesn't need to be there.

---

Megan Koch - ILSTU

---

Nathan Steele - CCSF

Have fun and claim the space-time of the debate round as belonging to you. Aspire to present clearly organized and supported arguments in your constructive speeches. Your general approach should be to invite dialogue over controversy and offer clear reasoning why your position is preferable. Provide criteria by which I might evaluate the arguments in the round. When inspired, embrace your creativity and wit. Share the time with your opponent during cross-examination. Use rebuttal speeches to extend arguments as you see fit. It is good practice to provide some key voting issues or summary of the competing narratives within the debate to illuminate my decision-making process (i.e., my pathway to voting for you). Delivery doesn't factor heavily into decision-making. Be yourself. Focus on conveying the arguments so your opponent and judge understand. I may comment on features of your nonverbal communication on a ballot, but you'll win the debate with the argument(s).

The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Focus on the arguments during the round. Be good to yourself too. Debate can be difficult at times. Keep bringing your best and youll get better.

---

Oliver Tripp - SFSU

Updated for NPTE 2022

On me as a judge:

- I was a critical policy debater in college and currently coach policy, parli, and LD at SFSU.

- I default to being a technical judge but am happy to judge differently if you tell me why I should. I don't protect the flow, please call out any new arguments in the rebuttals.

- **Speed is fine BUT now that we're virtual, please make sure you're speaking clearly if you want to spread. Audio quality can be poor when debating online, so enunciating is really important for me to catch exactly what you're saying.** It is most important that your opponents can understand you so they can engage with your arguments. If you're intentionally going for full unintelligibility or rejecting the English language as part of your performance, I commend your dedication and carry on; just give us enough so I can weigh it against your opponent.

- I dock speaker points for being rude in flex/cx, making excessive faces during your opponent's speech, or straight up interrupting your opponent's speech. As long as you're respectful, my speak ranges are usually 27-29.5.

On types of arguments:

- I'm drawn to critical and unconventional arguments. That said, I care more about seeing you debate what you believe in and are passionate about than seeing you craft a case you think will please me - if that's traditional policy for you, please keep doing you. This is your education and your debate experience first.

- I love critiques, but you need to establish clear, strong links. I love performance, but you need to establish and extend what your in-round performance is. I'm familiar with most K literature, but you need to make sure your opponent fully understands your K/literature so they can engage with your case. I am a judge who wants to hear your critiques, but if you are not a K team, you are not at a disadvantage with me. I've voted against Ks just as often as I've voted for them.

- If you're neg against a critical affirmative, I want to see you engage with the critique as you would engage with a plan. I will vote neg for dropped theory arguments and/or for proven abuse if the aff refuses to explain their literature to you, but if you collapse to theory and the aff does answer it, you will have a hard time winning my vote.

tl;dr:

- Ks good, inaccessibility bad, flow judge

I'm trans so please keep that in mind if trans issues become part of the debate. :^)

Please use speechdrop instead of email chains! My email is oli.tripp@icloud.com if you have any extra questions after round.

---

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.

---

Patti Keeling-Haines - Hired

n/a

---

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: September 2023

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

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

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

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

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

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

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

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

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

---

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

---

Philip-Izac Enguancho - Ohlone College

---

Sage Russo - SFSU

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.

---

Scott Ault - Hired

n/a

---

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

---

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! :)

---

Travis Silva - LPC

n/a

---

Trevor March - Hired

n/a

---

Ty Rivas - LPC

n/a

---

Vialsy Esparza Cabrales - LPC

n/a

---