FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alan Fishman - NCFA

I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I prefer technical/progressive/circuit-style debates

Please include me on the email chain or speechdrop if applicable.a.fishman2249@gmail.com- also I strongly prefer .docx to pdf

CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy, theory, and kritikal debate to fact and value debate. Don't make arguments in POI's. Trichot is arbitrary and is best articulated as a T shell. Dont ask POIs if there is flex, but take at least one per speech if no flex.

TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents

TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any

TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense if there is no offense.

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I am fine with speed, but I think you slow down if your opponents ask you to. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should prove you made an effort to get them to slow down and they didn't. Otherwise it can be difficult to prove a violation, but I do think speed bad arguments are good in situations where one team is deliberately weaponizing speed as a tool of exclusion and I will vote on them if necessary.

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I default to fairness over education but I like to see good weighing in either direction.

I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a " you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good

I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's and drop the debater on shell theory or drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round.

COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.

Alex Balingit - NCFA

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!

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.

Angela Ohland - Butte

I'm a fairly new judge to the forensics community. I am primarily an IE judge/coach and have limited experience with debate. As a result, please consider me a lay judge and try to use clear roadmapping and speak clearly and persuasively. I appreciate an impactful opening and a clear preview.

Fairness and respect are paramount for me. My goal is to provide constructive (primarily delivery focused feedback) that helps competitors refine their skills. I look forward to witnessing your talents on display!

Angelica Guzman - UOP

Hello!

I competed in NPDA and LD for the University of the Pacific from 2020-2024. Now I am a graduate assistant coach for the University of the Pacific.

TLDR/Parli

I wasnt that fast when I competed, but I can generally handle speed. A debate is much simpler for me to follow if counter-advocacies are unconditional. I dont like frivolous theory, but Ill evaluate it. I think the Affirmative should be topical, but that doesnt mean I wont evaluate untopical AFFs.

Parli Specific

AFF Cases

I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy and have a lower threshold for voting on theory/framework against an AFF that didnt defend the topic, but I will still evaluate and am willing to vote on AFFs that do not. AFFs that reject the topic need to spend more time explaining and justifying why they are not defending the topic.

Theory/Topicality

Ill evaluate any theory/topicality read in the LOC, and if well explained and warranted will have a low threshold for voting on it. I have a higher threshold for theory read in the MG unless its condo is bad, which I am highly likely to vote on.

CP/Ks:

For the CP, I like them. If you run a pic, delay, or anything related to what may be perceived as an abusive CP I am willing to listen and vote on theory arguments claiming they are. I think if you run a CP, you must be able to solve the AFF otherwise, you have no reason to run a CP. I dont like vague perms, but if I dont understand how your CP solves the aff Im likely to vote on the perm.

I probably dont have a deep understanding of the lit your K is based on, but you can still read it. In the instance you decide to run a K, I would prefer a thesis. I need clear explanations of how the alt solves, otherwise I defer to my uncertainty in your alts ability to solve for the in or out of round harms you claim to solve for. For Ks, if I dont understand your alt and its ability to solve, I am likely to vote on the perm if it is well explained.

Condo

I was never conditional in Parli when I competed and now, as a judge, I prefer unconditional advocacies. This doesnt mean I will auto drop the team for being conditional, but I have a low threshold for voting on condo bad. Ill still evaluate condo bad like any theory sheet and if the neg wins that sheet then they can be condo. If you read multiple conditional advocacies, the threshold for condo bad is much lower and I am very likely to vote on condo bad.

Speed

If you were or thought you were faster than me, then you probably were. This means I need you to be a little slower than your top speed if you want to make sure I get your args.

Disclose. Read what you want.

Email

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions at a_guzman15@u.pacific.edu.

Anna Faalogoifo - NCFA

First and foremost, I care about clarity, organization, and respectful advocacy. Debate should be competitive, but it should also be educational and accessible. I evaluate what is clearly explained and compared in the round not what I assume or fill in myself.

I flow the round and look for direct clash. If you respond to arguments line by line and clearly tell me why your impacts matter more, youre already in a strong position. Impact comparison is huge for me dont just tell me you win, tell me why it outweighs.

On speed:

You can go at a moderate pace, but clarity always comes first. If I cant understand it, I cant evaluate it. I value persuasion just as much as technical skill.

On framework:

Im open to different frameworks, but I need you to clearly explain how I should evaluate the round. Dont assume Ill connect the dots for you.

On evidence:

Quality over quantity. I appreciate well explained evidence more than card dumping. If youre extending evidence, explain the warrant and impact not just the tagline.

On rebuttals and strategy:

I like smart collapse. Pick your strongest arguments and weigh them clearly. Strategic decision-making is rewarded in speaker points.

Conduct matters.

Be assertive, but stay respectful. Debate should challenge ideas not people.

Speaker points:

I reward:

Clear organization
Strategic thinking
Effective weighing
Confidence and professionalism
Engaging but respectful delivery

At the end of the day, I want to vote for the debater who made it easiest for me to understand why they win.

Arielle White - Delta

I did forensics but did not compete in debate. I have limited experience judging debate as of Spring 2026. I try to vote on the flow but do not want to cast a vote for blatant misinformation or hate speech. I am not familiar with debate jargon so make sure to explain things to me in layman's terms and clearly weigh your impacts in your rebuttal. Please ask me questions to clarify before round if necessary. I am not comfortable with speed and prefer conversational debate, ESPECIALLY when you are not reading cards.

Arley Rodriguez - Fresno State

Interp coach with debate experience. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.

Arshita Sandhiparthi - NCFA

Hello!

Quick stuff:debate is cool and should be fun and enjoyable for all. Also see these rankings based on my level of knowledge or comfort voting on, from most comfortable to least:

1. Policy/ case debate

2. Kritiks

3. Most theory

4. Non-T Aff

5. Weird theory

None of that is to say that I won't vote on the lower-ranked things, I'll just need more explanation. Also, I'm okay with listening to RVIs but I probably have a high threshold for voting.

Background

I'm Arshita (she/they) and I'm a recent graduate from UOP. In my last season I was the top speaker at the 2022 NPDA national tournament, but I have not been involved in any kind of debate since April up to the time of editing this paradigm (11/12/22). That said, I have roughly 8 years of debate experience (mostly high school PF, NPDA, and NFA LD) and feel comfortable listening to most things with the hope that you are comfortable with your strategy and are able to present a good quality debate.

I want to include one of my former coach's paradigms here because he's a big inspiration of mine and I pretty much agree with how he views debate.

"The metaphor of the highway patrol:On top of being a decision making robot, I think part of my job as a judge is refereeing but I try to perform that function like a member of the highway patrol. If you are driving 70 in a 65 and no one calls to complain about your driving making them unsafe I am probably going to let you drive along. If you are going 95 in a 65 and I deem that as a clear and present danger to the drivers you share the road with, I will likely feel obligated to get involved. Most of the time that will probably just result in a warning or fix-it ticket unless something particularly egregious occurs. Drive approximately the speed of traffic and recognize that you share this road with a variety of people with different backgrounds, abilities, and experiences that might inform how they approach their travels.

Actual Debate Philosophy Stuff:In an ideal world I believe the Aff should be topical and the Neg should be unconditional. Im partial to defense and think it can absolutely be terminal. I vote on kritiks as long as I understand them and especially their solvency mechanism and mutual exclusivity. I am not comfortable judging on the basis of your identity or anyone elses. I am more likely to have your arguments if you go 85% of your top speed. The PMR should be small, the LoR should be preemptive. I will do my best to protect from new arguments in the rebuttals. Most RVIs are dumb. If the format has rules I take them seriously but assuming neither side cares about those rules I am willing to just let the competitors play. I think you introducing a performance into the round and straying away from traditional debate invites me to make my decision on the basis of whether that performance was particularly compelling or cool."

Parli Specific Stuff

Splitting the block.No.

Protecting the rebuttals.I'll try my best but call the POO anyways please.

Tag-teaming.Don't care but I will get annoyed if you are feeding your partner their speech.

Presumption. The neg gets this unless there is a CP/alternative in which case the negative has the burden of proving their advocacy is better than both the aff and the status quo.

MG theory.This is fine and sometimes even cool.

Competing Interps vs Reasonability. I default to competing interps unless I'm compelled to evaluate under a different standard. You don't need proven abuse to win your theory shell unless I'm evaluating under reasonability. And please tell me what reasonability means.

Permutations. Please read them. I don't think these are advocacies, but are tests of whether the CP/alt is competitive with the aff.

For other things, you should ask me. My email isarshita.237@gmail.com.Have fun!

Bertha Reyes - MJC

Bertha Reyes' judging philosophy

My experience in public speaking has been from volunteer work in my community, volunteering has helped me speak in public in the community with others for a bout three yeras now.
I find myself to be a flow judge, I am learning the process and find myself following the flow style of the speaches to be what i lean towards.
I dont have any expertise in communication, but i am getting closer and more confident in this area. I have an associate degree alerady and studying to earn a second associates in communication.

threshold for speed in debatefor me is for a person to speak confident but slower, sometimes when they are talking to fast, for me it tends to not make too much sense. The speed should not be too fast but it should not be too slow either. I would overall like for the speaker to speak loudly but slower, at times i cant really understand if they are talking to fast, so slow it down a bit, but make sure you are speking loud.
What does your ideal round look likean ideal round for me, looks like the argument is making sense and there is data and sources to back it up, I am learning myself how I should present the round, but overall a great round sounds like the person made their research and that they are speaking with facts and not just theirthoughs.

Brendan Sullivan - LPC

n/a

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

n/a

Chloe Ayabe - NCFA

n/a

Cyril Bhooma Goud - SJSU

My judging philosophy is straightforward. I look for well-constructed arguments backed by solid evidence throughout your speeches. Additionally, make sure to have good citations of your sources. It is vital that you stay on point; please avoid tangents or arguments that have little relevance to the topic at hand.

Regarding delivery, do not spread or speak at a high rate of speed. I flow the round by hand and want to ensure I accurately record every point you make. If I can't write it down in a reasonable amount of time, I can't weigh it well. Finally, be nice. I value a competitive round, but it must remain respectful and professional.

Daniel Lopez - Hartnell

Prof of Comm specializing in cultural and critical comm. Please be kind, organized & easy to follow. I like a solid argumentation supported by polished delivery & performance.

Danny Cavallero - Hartnell

Prof of Comm specialising in Interpersonal. Please be kind, organized & easy to follow and flow.

Dev Mehra - USFCA

n/a

Diego Paez - NCFA

My experience in the debate is based on doing parli and LD for 4 years total. 2 in community college for SJDC and 2 years for the University of the Pacific. Now I'm coaching at SJDC under the wing of Jeff Toney and Steve Farias. Take that as you please on how I see the debate.

For parli, I am an ESL so speed is not my stronger suit, I can hang with the average debate speed but more than that you would lose me. I believe access to debate is more important so if your opponents ask for a slow down or a clear please do, don't be rude pretty please.

Arguments:

I love topicality debates, That was my to go strat in community college so I'm very happy with them if you know how to run them and how to win on them.

I'm familiar with most Ks in the area but I'm always open to new ones, you just need to explain it very well if you see me lost (I stop typing, that's your cue)

Impacts: I appreciate a clean impact weight in the rebottle, Tell me why you win this and how your opponent loses on their impacts. The less work I need to do the better for you

For the rest, I'm open to any type of argument and I enjoy creativity and spicing up the debate. Bring me some decol, some anti-capitalism, some imperialism, bring some flavor to the debate space.

Any other questions feel free to ask before the round.

Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY..DOUG FRALEIGH FRESNO STATE (he/him/his)

Background

Co-Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Co-Director, Fresno State Prison Debate Program. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Also coached and judged NPDA, IPDA, LD, and individual events. For the past three years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.

Overview about debate genres

My judging philosophy originated as a policy debate paradigm. It applies equally well to LD. Based on the NPDA rounds that I have judged post-COVID, it is my belief that NPDA has evolved into NDT/CEDA debate, but with a new topic every round. And every team had evidence, so it seems that the community has performatively overturned the "no evidence" rule.

I think it would be nifty if IPDA remained an alternative for students who are new to debate or would rather debate in a format where there is less emphasis on speed and the arguments are more real world, especially given that there are plenty of policy-like options for students who would prefer that type of debate. In IPDA rounds (especially novice) I will give more weight to delivery and be less flow-centric than in other genres of debate.

What Should You Know About How I Judge?

I am not opposed to any genre of argument. In IPDA, there is less time for constructive speeches (and only a single constructive in one-on-one debates), so arguments that require extensive development may not be the best choice. I will judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round, rather than my general familiarity with a position.
I flow debates and the line-by-line arguments are important. However, I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. T is an RVI, fairness), even if it is dropped.
I am not looking for speed in IPDA. It could benefit you to briefly explain the story of your argument, especially if it is a major position you plan to go for in rebuttals.
Theory arguments are ok, but I do not look forward to them with the enthusiasm that some of my colleagues do.

What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?

Clash with your opponents arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.
Although debaters are not supposed to "read evidence" in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. For example, instead of just saying you are on the case or the disad and mashing all your arguments together, identify the specific argument you are rebutting or extending. If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.
Good delivery is a plus. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit and emphasize the most essential arguments in final speeches, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.
Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner (in some debate formats anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege (this is especially true at nationals); have fun and enjoy the journey.

Procedural Considerations

Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument in the next speech and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.
I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.

Policy Resolutions

For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff a 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.
On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in your last rebuttal) and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than policy rounds.
Counterplans can be a very good strategy, but they should be explained in the same detail as an affirmative plan. (Affirmative permutations also need the same detail, don't string together three or four permutations without analysis or explanation.) Your CP needs to be non-topical and competitive.

Fact and Value Resolutions

The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
The negative is welcome to dispute the affirmatives classification and/or criteria. My default is that non-policy resolutions which contain a subjective term like "best" or "more important" are value resolutions not fact.
In neither side clearly wins the resolutional analysis issue, my default method for resolving the conflict is which teams vision for the round promotes a more educational and equitable debate.

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.

Elidex Landaverde - NCFA

n/a

Emma Schumacher - CCSF

n/a

Eric Martinez - Contra Costa

n/a

Eric Fletcher - FCC

Many decades of CEDA/NDT/NPDA/BP and IPDA coaching. I do respect the uniqueness of each activity as well as their requirements and expectations. Feel free to ask me specific questions.

Eric Cardenas - UOP

n/a

Erika Farias - NCFA

n/a

Evan Lingo - UC Berkeley

Introduction/Background

My name is Evan (he/him) and I'm currently a speech coach for the Mountain View Los Altos Speech and Debate team. Im also a college student competing in persuasive and informative speaking. Before college, I competed in parli debate for about 5 years from 2018-2023. Before high school, I did duo interpretation for 3 years (I highly recommend doing duo btw it was probably the most fun I had in speech and debate ever, sorry parli). Ive been outside of debate-land for a while, so I would currently put myself in the washed flay judge category.

I mostly did lay and technical case debate, but I occasionally ran some theory (mostly in response to other theory or Ks).

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round!

Speech Paradigm:

I'm open to speeches that break with conventions, as long as they abide by the rules of the event. I think it's really cool to see students stretch the boundaries of what's considered possible in a given event, so don't be afraid to try something new!

In general, my rankings and feedback will focus on the content of your speech (in events where you had to prepare the content of your speech yourself), and the delivery of your speech (in all events). I will do my best to let nothing else influence my decision. That being said, I think it's pretty much impossible to judge speech (or debate) objectively. I'll do my best to judge everyone on the same general standards, but with people presenting a variety of unique pieces, Im inevitably comparing apples to oranges. So please dont read into rankings or feedback too much. Its ultimately just my opinion.

As with any opinion, Id ask you to hear it out, but I dont expect you to agree with all of it. Use the parts that are useful and discard the parts that arent! And most importantly, remember to keep up the amazing work, strive to grow into the speaker that you want to be, and never let anyone convince you that youre not capable of greatness, because you are.

Also remember to have fun!! Rankings are just numbers on a computer that you'll forget by the time you leave high school. Skills, friendships, and memories those can last a lifetime. That's what makes speech worth doing (at least in my opinion).

IPDA Paradigm:

Off-time road maps are fine, and competitors timing themselves and each other is encouraged (although I will also have my own timer just in case)! No need to say "thank you"s before every speech, unless you really want to (I won't stop you). I appreciate the sentiment, but it won't affect my decision or speaker points, and I often think just saying "good debate" at the end of the round is enough to show your appreciation for your opponent and the judge.

I will evaluate IPDA rounds in much the same way that I evaluate parli rounds, so see my parli paradigm for more specifics. The gist is that I will do my best to resolve the debate based only on the arguments made in the round and how the debaters leveraged those arguments to prove their points.

In IPDA, though, I will expect speeches to be delivered for a general audience. In general, this means speakers should not go too far above conversational speaking pace and should not rely on debate jargon without explaining it. This also means it will be a lot harder to get me to vote for technical arguments like Ks or theory. Given the event description of IPDA, if you run Ks or theory, I'll expect the argument to be explained in a manner that a lay audience could understand. For Ks in particular, you will have to explain your argument very clearly and very well, and I will be very receptive to commonsense responses from the other team, even if they aren't dressed up in the technical language of normal K debates.

While cross-examination may affect speaker points, I will not allow arguments made in cross-examination to affect my decision unless those arguments are referenced during one of your later speeches. So, if you make a point or got an answer in cross-ex that you want me to consider, please bring it back up in your next speech!

Parli Paradigm:

TL;DR - Be nice and have fun!!! I prefer technical case debate, but I'll do my best to evaluate any arguments you present. I consider myself tech over truth. I'm most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and leveraging dropped arguments. Theory is cool. I dont like frivolous theory, but I will vote for it if you win it on the flow. Ks are cool too, but I do not feel confident about my ability to properly evaluate them. It's probably best to assume that I'm not familiar with your K lit, and I probably wont vote for an argument I completely don't understand :(

What do I think is a strategic argument

I think a strategic argument is composed of a clear claim, good evidence to support that claim, and a well-explained reason why your claim being true means I should vote for you.

How to win arguments (at least in my book)

In my opinion, the best ways to prove that your argument beats your opponent's argument are:

Leveraging dropped arguments! If your opponent doesn't respond to one of your arguments at all, I will consider that argument to be true. Given that, tell me how the dropped argument proves that your opponent's side is wrong in this debate. But remember, (at least in my opinion) an argument consists of a claim, at least one warrant (which can be a cited warrant or a logical warrant), and an implication. Be warned: even if an argument is dropped, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have each of those 3 parts!

Weighing! Tell me why your warrants (logical or "cited") are better than your opponent's warrants and/or tell me why your argument matters more.

Using "even if" scenarios! This means tell me why you're winning "even if" I believe that their argument (or at least some part of their argument) is true. Often, your argument can't win if I believe everything they say is true, but do your best to pick as many parts of their argument as possible and explain why you're winning even if I believe all those parts you picked!

New Arguments in the Last Speeches (LOR and PMR)

I'll do my best to protect the flow (meaning I won't consider new arguments made in these speeches), but calling the POO (Point of Order) is still appreciated!

I count new metaweighing arguments as new arguments in the last two speeches, even if they're technically "just weighing". Otherwise, I think aff would win every round with new metaweighing in the PMR (last aff speech).

Other than metaweighing, I think new impact weighing/comparison is generally fair game in the last two speeches since they're supposed to be summarizing and crystalizing the round.

Theory

I'll default to evaluating theory using competing interpretations. If you can prove that their interpretation is bad I don't really see why you need to read a counter-interpretation though. If you don't read a counter-interpretation, I'll just assume you're defending the debate status quo (which is usually just their interpretation but replace "must" or "must not" with "may or may not"), kind of like I assume the neg is defending the status quo if they don't read a counterplan.

Remember when I said I dont like friv theory. That's probably true in most cases where you don't know your opponents. But, if you do know your opponents and you know everyone in the round will have fun with it, then go for it! I'm not the fun police (I hope). But, if both teams aren't really comfortable with it, I'll be sad.

Kritiks

Ks weren't really my thing in high school, so I don't have too many thoughts on them. I'll probably be more receptive to common sense responses than the average tech judge, even if these common sense arguments don't have the technical jargon commonly used in effective K responses.

Please explain your arguments clearly! Both so your opponents can effectively engage in the round, and so I can do a better job evaluating your arguments. Assume I don't know your K lit because I probably don't!

If you can tell your opponents you'll be reading a K before the round, it would be great if you do. It would be even better if you disclose your advocacy or the thesis of the K you're reading.

That being said, I think disclosure theory debates can get messy since the violation debate is hard to resolve without just taking one team's word for it. If faced with disclosure theory I'll do my best to evaluate it based on the arguments made in the round, but in all honesty, Id probably feel forced to intervene if I had to reach a decision on the theory shell, so I'll do my best to find something else to decide the round.

I do think I'll probably be a little more receptive to TUSfg/Framework T than the average tech judge, (but if you run framework T you'll certainly still have to work for the win).

I consider the ROB (Roll Of the Ballot) the thesis of your framework section. In my view, the arguments you make in the framework section are the evidence supporting your ROB. If your opponents effectively respond to your framework, but they don't explicitly answer your ROB, I won't consider your ROB conceded (because I'd consider the evidence behind the ROB refuted).

Other random thoughts

Please don't respond to an argument by saying, "This claim doesn't have any evidence, so you shouldn't consider it" and then moving on! They may have no evidence that their claim is right, but if you move on I'm also left with no evidence that their claim is wrong! Your evidence doesn't need to be from an online source. In my opinion, especially in parli, logic is considered evidence. So, if you point out their claim doesn't have evidence and then ALSO give me some logical reason that their claim probably isn't true, you're golden!

When it comes to speed, remember that I am washed. I can probably handle a fast conversational pace (maybe 200 words per minute). If you go too far above that, I might miss the content of your warrants, but I'll hopefully catch the main ideas for most of what you're saying. I'll slow or clear you if I really can't keep up, but even if I haven't said anything it's best to slow down if there's anything really important that you want to make sure is on my flow and you've been going fast.

Tag teaming is fine! I'll only flow what the designated/current speaker is saying though (so the current speaker will have to repeat whatever their partner said if they want me to consider it). My definition of tag-teaming is when a person talks during their partner's speech, usually to give them an idea or tell them to respond to some argument.

I won't flow questions asked (or statements made) during POIs or during flex.

Francia Carrillo - MJC

Francia CastelarJudging Philosophy

My personal experience with public speaking started with my first speech class. Coming into this class I was super nervous because I was the youngest person in the room and everyone had already taken a College class before and this was my first time taking a College class I juts remember looking at the Syllabus and thinking to myself I am going to fail this class.... but I didn't my teacher was so helpful and understanding.
I consider myself a flow judge because I like to have a plan and be organized.
One of my areas of expertise would be working with children and being able to communicate.

Speed - I personally like when the speaker is slow and takes there time explaining the order of speech it helps me create a visual in my head on what side they are on. I appreciate a well organized speech with slow and clear language.

Ideal Round - My ideal found is both parties have well organized information they are ready to ask questions . Both parties are active throughout the speech

Haley Woods - Chico State

n/a

Hannah Branch - Nevada

Hannah Branch (she/they)

Hello! I debated in IPDA for my three years of undergrad, and did Public Forum and Big Questions debate for all four years of high school. I generally apply a blank slate to every round, but if you engage in bigotry through your argumentation or your behavior in the room, I will vote against you. I believe in creativity and authenticity in this activity. If you're engaging in legitimate argumentation, I will weigh creative/unorthodox arguments and styles.

IPDA:

IPDA is designed to be an accessible format that anyone can judge. I am voting on the flow, but if all other factors are equal, I am more likely to vote for the debater who makes their arguments understandable and digestable. If your opponent makes a reasonable request for you to explain a complex/jargony argument and you can't, I am unlikely to weigh your argument.
It's up to you to tell me how to decide the round. I will default to the Aff's Top of Case if the Neg doesn't provide one/clash/tell me why theirs is preferable.
I am not opposed to counterplans, but if you want me to vote for one, please show how it pertains to the topic and clearly outweigh the Aff.
In order to vote on ground arguments, I need to hear that the ground is unfair, and how that impacts the debate. Even if I think the ground is unfair, I won't vote on that issue unless you tell me to, because I don't want to impose bias.

NPDA:

I did not compete in NPDA, and I don't know the norms. I understand argumentation and debate, but I won't be able to make the shortcuts that experienced NPDA judges can. Please explain your arguments clearly and do not rely on me to understand implicit connections based on jargon/theory concepts that are not fleshed out.
I can typically keep up with speed, but will raise my hand/otherwise indicate if I can't understand you, and will vote against you if I can't understand your arguments because of speed.

The goal of this activity is to learn, and I hope my feedback is helpful to that end. Tournament rules permitting, you are always welcome to reach out to me for clarification or further support based on a ballot. Thank you for being here and happy debating!

Hannah Schroers - DVC

n/a

Jackie Blair - Sacramento

Experience. I have competed for four years at California State University of Sacramento in the following events: National Forensics Association Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, Public Forum, and Impromptu.Additionally, I have participated in the Communications 111 class rookie tournament for four years as a coach and a judge.As a rookie coach, I have worked on debate evidence in the following areas: as a writing coach, case writer, rookie tournament judge, research student, and on-case and off-case writing for constructive and rebuttal speeches.Lastly, I have competed in the affirmative/negative debates at the local city council's online reading practices.

Debate Judging Philosophy.My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate round based on policy maker paradigm, critical paradigm, and/or rule-based theory.I believe that both the affirmative and negative must meet their burdens with well-developed arguments.This means that the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language and evidence.Next, I believe debates should be followed in a recognizable format and should provide greater knowledge with the use of analysis and refutation.I will evaluate the round based on advantages, disadvantages, and weighing of impacts.Speed is Okay.

Individual Events.The mechanics of speech must be observed faithfully –poise, quality, use of voice, effectiveness, ease of gesture, emphasis, variety, and enunciation. In addition, the participant must be able to interpret the full meaning of the oration and be able to carry the interpretation over to the audience.

Jacqueline Osorio - NCFA

n/a

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. My timer is the official timer for the round. You should time yourselves, but check your time against mine. Also, when you are ready to begin speaking, just start speaking. I don't need any "on my first word" or countdowns.

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.

Jasmine Avila - NCFA

My paradigm is asfollows: Rules are good, love it when there is a clear direction to go in the debate. Love a good impact weighing, and always try-or-die for the affirmative. I don't really enjoy K arguments or anything super dense, if you do decide to run a K you'll have to do a lot of work to explain it.

Jay Villanueva - Nevada

I have 14 years of debate experience. I have 2 years of high school LD, 1 year of Policy, and finished with a year of Senate. In college I competed in NPDA, LD, IPDA, and BP at the University of Nevada, Reno. I am experienced in debate, so don't be afraid to run technical arguments. That said, I prioritize accessibility, so if your opponent cannot handle spreading, you should make a meaningful attempt to not spread or be incredibly clear. I will make it a voting issue if presented as a theory argument. That said, the interp, standards, and voters need to be fleshed-out and time must be dedicated to it if you want me to vote on it.

Quickly: For speech events, I evaluate based on how much evidence you use, how well memorized/performed it was, and your speaker's triangle, depending on the event of course.

Pronouns: She/Her

I plan on judging high school and college debate. Please refer to the appropriate section. Thank you!

--------------------------------

LD: Connect your contentions to the (V)alue and (C)riterion. Probably should justify your V and C as the most important/relevant V and C for the RESOLUTION. You can use an analytic, but carded evidence to uphold your V & C would be stronger. You can run your case like a Policy case, but keep it in the format of LD (Value Net Bens through the Criterion of Cost Benefit analysis for example). You can run Ks, just connect it back to your V and VC. You can run whatever really, just justify the argument to me. I'm still not used to hearing CPs in LD, but go for it! I have Parli, Policy, and college LD experience, I can keep up. Be nice to each other.

PF: The only high school debate event I never competed in (before BQ was a thing). Be straight-forward. You have evidence, tell me why it matters. Be nice to each other. I often default to preponderance of probability (more likely than not).

Policy: Run whatever (K, DA, CP, Aff-K, Performance, Topicality, Theory, etc.) butbe inclusive. Arguments need to connect logically between cards. Don't make leaps in claims. Have links and internal links for Neg. Be nice to each other.

--------------------------------

NPDA: I competed in NPDA for 4 1/2 years at UNR. I will be upfront by saying that I was not nationally competitive. I did not do well at NPDA (Nats) nor NPTE and have difficulties flowing Elim 2 and beyond at either tournament. That said, I can keep up with most and usually flow on paper.

Here is how I evaluate the round:

T/Theory comes before the K unless there's enough work on why the K should come first. I default to competing interps. If you believe the T/Th to be abusive or problematic, I will vote on an RVI for both equity and education. Don't waste my time spreading out your opponents with 3 T/Th and collapsing to the under covered one. That said, I'm more likely to vote the argument down and not the team on an RVI. So at least it's not a one-shot kill(?)

Ks are an important part of critical thinking, and thus important to education. However, I also believe that in a world where the resolution is the only guaranteed point of research, and where Debate should be about having equal access to good education, you need clear links to the resolution. This includes Aff Ks. I think performances face a unique problem in this case. I say, contextualize your perf to debate or the world around us and explain why it's a more pressing issue than the resolution if your perf is not topical. Give your opponents options to compete against your performance. Disclosing your perf at the start of prep could easily resolve competitive equity claims for me.

The second part of Ks for me are Solvency. I have a hard time buying K solvency. Unless it's rooted in fiat, K solvency often sounds like it's some high theory, PoMo, Ivory Tower analysis that I can't wrap my head around without having prior knowledge on the subject. That said, I try to be tabula rasa, but I obviously have my knowledge bases. I understand Security, Borders, EcoFem, EcoSec, Queer Args primarily, although not exclusively.

RoB/RoJ: I think these are fine, except when you're aff and you also run a Plan alongside the K. Just because your read "PT: The res" does not mean you are doing the res. Unless you are. If you are just saying it to answer back a Theory Interp by saying, "we did read a PT" without actually integrating it into your K args, then you're just wasting your time in my opinion.

Also, give me reasons why your RoB/RoJ is preferable, even in the PMC/LOC.

CP/DA: On the perm, is it feasible to do both? Is it preferable to do both? What are the advantages of doing the CP alone (the DA that goes with it)? What are the DAs of doing the CP and the Aff? What are the ADVs of doing the CP and the Aff?

ADV: I need a clear link story. Internal links are helpful here. Solvency is fine instead of IL. Critical impacts will win my heart, but magnitude, probability, and timeframe are definitely also important. I'll vote on any of the three if you explain why in this round one matters over the others. Or go for all three, whichever.

IPDA:As a competitor, I did not take this event super seriously. I only did this event a handful of times, and they were often collapsed with JV (which proved to be easy Gold). That said, I have had a year of experience judging, including at Nationals (Jan-Dec 2025) and my opinion has drastically shifted.

Framework:Have a clear FW. The Aff should set the FW, but the Neg can rebut if the FW is abusive. Otherwise, the Neg should try to work with the FW that the Aff presented.

1AR:I am not a fan of the two 3-minute Aff rebuttal speeches. They're too short to say much. That said, please at least bring up your own case contentions, even if just the taglines. If you don't, I evaluate it as a dropped arg.

NR: Line-by-line for half the time, crystallization for the other half. Weigh your impacts via magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

2AR:I would argue that this is the most difficult speech in the round. I don't know the "correct" strategy, but I prefer hearing strictly impact weighing with a clear link story to how you reach those impacts. Compare the two worlds of the Aff vs the Neg. This should be much more conversational and less line-by-line.

Don't be rude. Don't attack the opponents, attack their arguments. Be clear in your delivery. Signpost. Have fun. Learn a lot! :D

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.

Joey Barrows - Delta

I competed for three years in LD and one semester in Parliamentary debate. I was primarily a case debater and did not run many critical arguments. I try my best to vote strictly on the flow and have voted for K's even though I don't particularly like a lot of them. I have a tendency to lean towards the K not having an ability to solve whatever the harms are (if that's what is being claimed). Aside from that, I think I am pretty straightforward in most positions. I am not incredibly fast and I flow on paper, so if I say "slow" or "speed" and you do not adjust then you risk the chance of losing me. Please ask me any necessary questions before the round to clarify something you don't understand here or to address any of the things I did not mention. Thanks!

John Hanecak - DVC

n/a

Jonathan Reyes - NCFA

What's up!

I competed in NPDA and LD for University of the Pacific from 2019 - 2023, and was a graduate assistant coach from 2023-2025.

TLDR/Parli

I like topical advocacies. I like when counter-advocacies are unconditional. I like clever and strategic theory. I can handle speed but I wasn't the fastest debater so keep that in mind.

Specific Arguments/Parli

AFF Cases

While I prefer when AFFs defend a topical advocacy, I am still willing to vote on AFFs that do not. Those AFFs will just have to spend more time explaining their argument and their justification for not defending the topic. With that in mind, I do have a lower threshold to vote on theory/framework against AFFs that don't defend the topic.

K/CP/Condo

For the K, you can read whatever you want but I probably don't have a great understanding of the lit its based off of. A thesis would be great. I also tend to think that most alternatives don't actually solve the in-round/out-of-round harms they claim that they do so clear explanations of how the alt solves is best.

For the CP, I love them. If they are abusive or could be seen as abusive (like delay), be careful because I will be receptive to theory arguments claiming that they are.

For condo, while I prefer unconditional advocacies and probably have a lower threshold than most to vote on condo bad, I won't auto drop the team for being conditional. I will still evaluate the condo bad sheet and if the neg wins this sheet than they're good to be as conditional as they please. With that being said, the threshold is much lower when the neg reads multiple conditional advocacies.

Theory/Topicality

I have a pretty low threshold for voting on any LOC theory/topicality, even frivolous ones, if it is clear and strategic. I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger but it definitely makes it a lot easier to vote for you. I have a higher threshold to vote on MG theory except for Condo Bad, which I am much more likely to vote on.

Speed

Im decent with speed and Id like to think I can hang, but I wasnt the fastest debater so probs go a lil slower than your top speed.

Read what you want. Disclose.

Email

If you have any questions feel free to email me at j_reyes21@u.pacific.edu.

Jordan Rosales - NCFA

Im open to any argument. This is your time and your space, so feel free to run whatever youd like. Ive been out of the debate world for 10 years, so I probably wont be able to keep up with spreading. That said, debate how you want, just be prepared for me to miss or drop arguments if they are too fast.

I love a good theory debate, and kritikal arguments are some of my favorites, but dont be discouraged from running a strong DA/CP. There are few things in this world as beautiful as a flawlessly executed PIC.

That being said, everything is debatable. Think PICs are abusive? Convince me and your competitors why. Above all, please be respectful of your fellow competitors.

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Josue De Leon - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Kanan Prashar - SJSU

Debate: I judge mainly on the weighing mechanism and expect all arguments to return back to this in the last speech. I place more value on logic based arguments rather than evidence based arguments. I will for the most part be tabula rasa.

Kathleen Bruce - NCFA

Background: I debated in Parli from 2003-2007. Asst. Coach at Pacific from 2007-09. DoF at Delta College 2011-2019. I prefer policy style debate over value.

debate is a competitive game. Have fun and kick some ass. Dont be rude... I was rude when I debated; no good came from it. Be better than me.

What I like: clash. A plan. Realistic Probable impacts. Rebuttals that make me want change religions. A PM that makes eye contact during their PMC. Debaters that debate to the audience instead of their egos. Ks. Tag lines. Warrants, I love warrants. Evidence, at least some. Sarcasm. Penguins. Oh and topicality, this argument used to be so cool! Lets bring it back 2020!

What I hate: two ships passing in the night. Bad speed: debaters who go fast to be cool, but they cant be understood because they are bad at it. Rebuttals that just summarize. Not answering POIs. Expecting me to be persuaded by you when I have yet to see the whites of your eyeballs. I hate nuclear war as an impact... is that still a thing?...if so dont run it, I dont buy it... no really stop thinking illl buy it from you...youre a dirty dirty liar and the truth is not in you! If your opponent runs nuclear war- collapse down to your opponent is an idiot that doesnt understand international politics and they should lose the ballot. I will probably vote for the team that doesnt say the word nuclear

okay, so probability over magnitude impacts wins my ballot. Nuclear war is an automatic loss. And yeah beyond nuke war have fun. Ill flow ya, just speak slower than 260 WPM.

Kim Yee - Ohlone College

I like my debates like how I enjoy my toast in the morning, no spread and all buttery.(t-shirts coming soon!)

What this means is that I don't like having to be Robert Langdon (professor of symbology and art history at Harvard) and have to try and decipher what you're saying. But in all seriousness, I am an IE judge and I much prefer the quality of argument over quantity. I also appreciate it when delivery is engaging and tangible. In the real world, there's no point in rushing through your case if no one can understand you. Accessibility is important to me and I value it when students are able to educate and connect their arguments to me as an audience member and judge.

Other than that you know what you need to do.

May the Force be with you!

Kyle Landrum - Chico State

n/a

Kylie Duncan - SFSU

n/a

Leah Getaneh - USFCA

n/a

Lindsay Walsh - SJSU

I am primarily an IE coach, so I'm looking for clear, organized arguments with evidence and impact. Why does this matter? I can infer, but lay it out. Delivery and conduct with your opponent is something I consider. Keep things professional, courteous, respectful, and energetic. Have fun with it!

Mack Sermon - Chabot

I have about 40 years experience in competition, judging and coaching, mostly in the Great Northwest. I have significant experience with IEs, NDT, CEDA, NPDA, IPDA and NFC-LD.

Debates should focus on Aristotles Big 3: ethos, pathos and logos- and keeping it fun and educational.

-Your character, ethos, is established in and out of the debate by your behavior with opponents, teammates, me and others. Please treat everyone with respect and friendship.

-Emotion, or pathos, is demonstrated by the conviction and selection of your arguments and fairness to your opponents. Your delivery should make me believe that you really care about the issue.

-To me, logos is most important. A case must be logical. This requires that you make a claim, provide proof of some sort, develop a warrant, then pull it all together for a case. Please, please, do not simply make claims and expect me to accept them as truth.

-Speed: Sure I could talk as fast as any of them, but I really dislike debaters who purposely garble their presentation. I tolerated it in policy debate because at least I could look at their evidence after the round. In NPDA, what am I supposed to look at, your flow? Also, you can be persuasive when speaking fast.

-Im fine with counterplans if you meet the requirements of a counterplan- Im bored by agent change, study, and delay counterplans. But Ill listen.

-I will listen to Topicality, procedurals or structured definition arguments but since you are basically accusing your opponents of breaking the rules, presumption is with the AFF. I sort of like Specification arguments but I dont always vote for them.

-Im not opposed to the concept of the Kritik but I only voted for them about 30-40% in true policy debate-- less in NPDA and IPDA. There just isnt enough time in the shorter forms, without substantial evidence, to perform the type of dialectic discussion that Aristotle advocates, so a Kritik is often too complex to work. However, you are welcome to give it a shot.

-Its unlikely that you will win on a single dropped subpoint- unless its really, really important. Give me a framework to evaluate the round. Show me the big picture to justify my ballot.

-I really prefer a straight up debate on the heart of the topic. Case versus Disads, impact and link comparisons. Straight refutation. Im old-school, yes, and just generally old. But, I think I am a fair judge and willing to evaluate the debate without using my preferences against you.

Malika Amin Mirador - Solano CC

Firstly, I put respect for other competitors and teammates above all else; I really dont like disrespect in round, whether that comes from ad hominem attacks, rude behavior, or making other people in the room feel uncomfortable. In order to make sure the debate space is as accessible and inclusive as possible, Ill drop any team/debater that does not respect the other people present.

On the actual debate stuff, Im a parli debater, so most stuff is okay with me. Ill vote on theory and procedurals (I really like good T debate), as long as everything is clear, and there is proven abuse. That being said, I also really like RVIs, and will vote on them. This is the same thing with spec and trichot, as well as aff positions like condo bad, PICs bad, etc. As long as there is a clearly articulated reason to vote on it, Ill weigh it. With K, just make sure to be extra clear. If theres no signposting, Ill probably miss most of it.

When it comes to case debate, again, please signpost or I will get lost. Im tabula rasa, and willing to hear pretty much whatever as long as 1) its not disrespectful, and 2) has a rationale behind it. I like weird arguments, econ arguments, environmental arguments, etc. I just really like case debate thats super interesting and has a lot of clash.

On speed: I really dont mind. Usually, I can keep up pretty okay, as long as you start off a bit slower than top speed so I can get used to your speaking. Overall, I see speed as a tool to get a bunch of quality arguments in BUT, if opponents call clear/speed, just make sure to slow down or clear up; sorta goes back to that whole accessibility thing again.

ALSO, I view parli and IPDA as two different kinds of debate. Im okay with most parli things being in IPDA, but I do think that running theory and procedurals, or trying to spread your opponent out of the round in IPDA is abusive. Also, because IPDA has no mechanism for actually making sure this is fair (i.e. no points of order), I dont flow new arguments in the last rebuttal speech unless it was the first opportunity to respond to it.

TLDR: Im cool with pretty much everything as long as everyone is kind to each other :))

Manahil Syeda - DVC

n/a

Maryam Mohammadi - CCSF

n/a

Marybelle Uk - SJSU

I am not a technical judge. While I do have limited debate experience in high school and undergrad: please treat me like a lay judge in debates, quality arguments are greatly preferred over the quantity.

My biggest focus is education, fun, and fairness for all involved.

Maximus Renteria - UOP

4 years HS policy

4 years NPDA/NPTE

maximusrenteria@gmail.com

While debate may be more of a technical logic puzzle rather than a truth-seeking activity, this doesn't let you invalidate people's experiences.

Judge instruction -- Tell me how and why to vote instead of making claims that are impossible to evaluate in a vacuum. That just means weigh and compare everything (impacts, warrants, etc).

Aff -- I don't have a preference between policy or kritikal affirmatives. If rejecting, give a reason why it's necessary.

T -- I would be more receptive to reasonability arguments than most. This probably means topicality arguments geared toward the plan rather than a vision of the topic are more convincing.

CP -- Aff doesn't need a theory shell to tell me why your CP is not legitimate. Tell me how a perm proves no competition rather than just tagging.

K -- I generally think Ks are research methods that determine the desire-ability of the plan. I think whoever wins framework will probably win the plan v K debate. Leverage your frameworks to exclude when you are winning it. "Theoretical" justifications for fw like moots 1ac are cop outs especially from the aff; methodological justifications are much more convincing even for reps/epistemics Ks. This probably means Ks of epistemics/justifications need implications on the endpoint of the plan (it's very easy to just say "internal link turns case") even if "justifications bad" is a legitimate reason to negate. I like plan specific links but generic res links are fine if you can still explain uniqueness. I don't think perm-double bind arguments are convincing.

Michael Traina - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present.

Michael Andreas - Butte

I come into every debate with a curiosity and desire to see what I can learn from you, it is your job to convince me well reasoned analysis and evidence, which means I cannot and will not ignore a patently false claim, so support your arguments accordingly. While spreading may be somewhat unavoidable, replacing bulk info with well reasoned analysis would be my preference. Running topicality for topicality-sake is a sham. If you are going to make that claim, make sure there is something behind it, otherwise you waste all of our time. Show me some clash, debate hard and don’t give up, get creative, and most of all, show me you are having fun!

Michael Sullivan - LPC

n/a

Millie Kinnamont - Chico State

n/a

Mostafa Aniss - NCFA

I would consider myself an experienced forensics judge, particularly with individual events. I competed in parliamentary debate at the novice level. At the open level, I competed in individual events like impromptu, after-dinner speaking, and persuasion. As it pertains to judging debate, I heavily lean on the qualitative side of judging arguments. This means that I prefer a MEDIUM-SLOW RATE of speaking so that I can fully grasp the the argument that is being made. If you speak too quickly, I will drop my pen, signaling that I am no longer listening. By and large, I am familiar with the debate jargon (e.g. topicality, solvency, etc.). I will only disclose if I am 100% certain of my decision by the time the round ends. This is generally not the case with me. I typically look at my flow and think about which debaters persuaded me best.

Natalie Cavallero - Hartnell

Prof of Comm/DoF specializing in argumentation. Please be kind, organized & easy to follow. I like a solid argumentation supported by polished delivery & performance.

Nathan Wensko - Clovis

My main focus in the area of all debates is to focus on how the debate is defined for each of its categories. I like to adhere to the guidelines presented for each format. So, Parli is Parli and has jargon, IPDA has some emphasis in delivery and sure be attempted with less jargon, NFA LD has priority of stock issues, and so on.

Beyond that, my philosophy is grounded in structure and clarity so that I can let the arguments do the work instead of myself and my perceptions.

The main focus within constructive speeches is looking at links, impacts, and solvency. I believe these to be highly persuasive elements.

In refutation, I look for the clear line drawn by the speaker from the point they are making and its relation to the point they are addressing.

In Rebuttal speeches, I do like to hear clear Voting issues and why they matter and a comparative approach to the status quo versus changing it.

Regarding Topicality and Kritik. I am open to these arguments; however, using them just to throw everything at the government is problematic for me. Essentially, there must be sound cause to introduce such arguments into the round.

Partner Communication should not be disruptive to the speaker.

Finally, I also enjoy seeing collegiality and community in rhetoric and language. I know that the heat of a debate can be invigorating and can be healthy, but if there are any ad hominem arguments, I will take this into account as a voting issue.

In any Individual Event, I am open to anything presented to me.

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.

Nicholas Adair - UOP

Parli/LD

I am an old school flow judge (pen and paper) so if you spread me out of the round, I will drop arguments because I cannot keep up.

I am also not a tabula rosa judge. I will believe most arguments that are based in fact, but if you tell me untruths, (ie. Turkey should become a part of NATOit's been a member since 1952) I will not flow them. Make sure that your arguments are rooted in fact and evidence, because that is the only way to achieve both education and fairness in round.

I am not a big fan of topicality/counterplans/Kritiques. I feel that most rounds should be fought straight up with ADDs, and DAs, as most topics are debatable by design. Using theory /CPs feels like an underhanded way to skew the Aff out of its ground. However, that does not mean I will not vote on theory. If Aff brings an inaccessible plan/definition/actor to the round, I find myself voting on T/CPs often, even though I would rather not do so. One last note for T, if you say Topicality is a-priori and then kick it in the MO/LO, it will flow against you as the neg. Either it excluded you from the round, or it didn't. Both cannot be true in the same world. If you dont say a-priori, I will simply treat it as an additional DA, which I do not mind voting for.

IPDA

IPDA is not Parli or LD so do not try to make it such. This event is supposed to be accessible for any person, so dropping hyper specific labels, ie. links/uniqueness is a quicker way to my ballot. That said, you should not let the debate become unorganized either. Using language like contentions, or main points is highly recommended. In IPDA I will evaluate the round as competing extemp speeches. I desire performance and persuasiveness as well as excellent clash and contextualization of data surrounding the topic. If you have competed in public forum as a debate event in high school, I view this event as the 1v1 version of that event. One last note for this event, I will not vote for Krtiques/Topicality/or any theory under any circumstance. This does not mean the Aff gets to bring in obviously skewed definitions, and the neg should be ready to have an alternative definition if the round needs it.

Limited prep

Speeches with less filler words shine above the rest. While most speakers don't use ums or likes, most extempers do use now and well. These are still filler words, and they become noticeable quite quickly. Also, bring your own personality and fun to the event. Far too many limited prep speakers are too robotic in their delivery. Humor is always a plus.

Speech events

What I look for in speech events is a well-polished piece with excellent blocking and a good story/argument. Some of the best speeches I have watched, hit all these points as well as engaging with the audience/judge if applicable. I am not a fan of superfluous blocking for the sake of blocking, but I will appreciate the effort. Overall, well-polished pieces are what I look for first, a clear argument second, and well done blocking third.

Nick Amezcua - Butte

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.

Ornaldo Gonzalez - Fresno State

Recently graduated former competitor. Please be kind, ethical, and logical. Please refrain from spreading and using exceedingly technical arguments. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.

Paul Villa - DVC

Updated: August 2024

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 asked to

- 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 Co-Director of Forensics 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, and I coached the most successful NPDA team of all time. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.

Rafael Fogo-Schensul - Chico State

n/a

Rebecca Deleon - MJC

Rebecca Deleon IPDA Judging Philosophy

Background & Experience I am currently a student taking an Introduction to Debate course at Modesto Junior College. I have been actively learning and participating in IPDA style debate this semester. My experience includes giving 1AC speeches, competing in class IPDA rounds, and watching about eight full debates. I have also completed an inclass IPDA judge training and have experience judging Team and individual IPDA rounds.

Approach to the Round Because I am currently studying debate, I am a very attentive listener and I do keep a flow. To help me evaluate the round fairly, here is what I look for:

Signposting & Organization: Since I am flowing the round, clear organization is crucial. Please signpost clearly so I know exactly which argument you are addressing on the flow. If I lose track of where you are, it will be harder for me to vote for your arguments.
Delivery & Speed: IPDA is a public debate format, so I appreciate a conversational, persuasive delivery. Please keep your speed at a moderate, accessible pace. If you speak too fast, I might miss key points on my flow.
Jargon: While I am familiar with the basic structure and terminology of IPDA, I am still in my first year of debate. Please keep highly technical debate jargon to a minimum, or briefly explain your terms if you need to use them.
Impacts & Weighing: Don't just tell me that your opponent dropped an argument; tell me why that matters in the context of the round. At the end of the debate, clear up the flow for me and explicitly tell me why you have won the round.

General Note I am excited to be judging at the NCFA Spring Championships! I value respect and professionalism in the round. Have a great debate, clearly explain your arguments, and have fun.

Robert Hawkins - DVC

I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in high school LD and sometimes judge Parli & IPDA. I am not a technical judge in NFA-LD. I am not big on complicated language. I am more impressed if a student understands the argument and can make adjustments to different judging pools. I would classify myself as LAY judge for debate, but I can hang if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.

Ruth Kimes - NCFA

n/a

Ryan Guy - MJC

Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!

Video Recording & Online Tournaments

In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.

I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!

A Little About Me

I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.

I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.

How I See Debate

1. Sharing Material

If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.

2. Speed

Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.

3. Procedurals & Theory

Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.

4. Kritiques

I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
- Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
- Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
- Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.

5. Organization & Engagement

Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.

6. Oral Critiques

If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.

7. Safety & Well-being

Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.

IPDA Notes

Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.

How I Decide Rounds

Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.

Specifics for NFA-LD

File Sharing
- SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
- If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
- Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.
Disclosure
- I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
- If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
- Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.
Cardless LD
- I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.

Speaker Points

Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.

Topicality

Please make an honest effort to be topical.
T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.

In Closing

I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.

Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!

Ryan Wenzel - Santa Rosa

I am open to whatever you present. However, I am a newer judge, so make sure I can keep up.

Sarah Campi - UOP

n/a

Sean Thai - Delta

I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE: clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.

I need clear perm texts, e.g. PDB is not a valid perm text for me. If you get called out for, I will not accept the perm.

Text copying happens during flex time, unless the interpretation or text is significantly long. I WILL enforce the rules on time and prep, as per tournament invitations.

Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations and net benefits without some other D-Rule. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I will always try to use the criterion + impact framing from the round if possible. I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. This isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold.

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.

General

Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

Im willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.

It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.

LD:

I have trouble with implied clash, and it marks it harder to evaluate debate rounds. Please signpost clearly where you want your arguments.

Tech is a form of truth.

Flex time answers are binding.

"Email me for cites" is NOT a form of disclosure to me. If that is the extent of your disclosure, there is a much greater chance you will lose on that argument.

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

Stephanie Eisenberg - Chabot

I debated and coached at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. My competitive experience and some of my coaching is in policy debate, lately most of my coaching and judging is in NPDA & IPDA.

I have been "out of the game" for the past 4 years so keep that in mind when it comes to speed, understanding current norms in your event, etc.

I am first and foremost a judge of arguments, regardless of the debate format. I value argumentation over delivery style but will also adapt to the different expectations of each debate format.

I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for teams who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over teams who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them.

I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply "reject the team" and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy a well applied, smart disad debate with real world scenarios and clear, coherent links to the aff. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it's an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate.

I'd say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. I'm very sympathetic to "reject the arg, not the team."

I'm fine with cross talk and partner communication so long as one partner does not dominate the conversation or consistently talk over the other. If that becomes an issue, it will certainly affect your speaker points and may affect my decision.

I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the "style". I look forward to watching you do your thang!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

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

Section 1: General Information-

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

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

Section 2: Specific Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 General Information

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

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

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

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

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

Section 2 Specific Inquiries

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

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

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

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

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

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

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

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

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

Sydney Alexander - DVC

My specialty is in individual events, and that is most of my background when it comes to forensics. But, I enjoy watching, and judging debate events. When it comes to speed, I can keep up, so that's no problem. But if I slow you then please slow. I think organization in debate events is really important. Clear signposting throughout the round is a must for me. All things considered, please respect each other and have fun.

Ta'Niyia Smith - NCFA

I am not a flow judge really, so ideally if we can steer away from spreading that would be preferred. Can definitely have some speed but obviously within reason. If you have your case in a Speechdrop that I can follow that would make my life a lot easier however not a requirement. In terms of in-round behavior not a big fan of passive-aggressive behavior (i.e. snide remarks you may think are said under your breath but everyone can hear you) so please be polite, and play fair. Any problematic or ill-mannered behavior will cause me to give the ballot to your competitor.

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!

Tehreem Khan - NCFA

Be realistic, analytical, and provide me a strong link story. Your impacts dont matter unless you provide me a clear connection to the link. I have done Parli for years and am very familiar with various strategies. I would rather you run a T than a K but if you run K, I dont care just make sure your opponent can keep up and it links. I need to see clash but don't be unneccesarily rude to one another. If you're later than the jduge, I will take time off your speech so come prepared. Please just make sense and in your final speeches, give me clear reasons as to why you're winning and your opponent is losing, don't be repetitive. Also, I don't want to hear you scream, my hearing is just fine.

Tierra Smithson - NCFA

*updated 10/29/2024**

Hi there! My name's Tierra. I competed in LD for 4 years in high school, then did LD and Parli for 4 years at the University of the Pacific. I coached Parli & LD at UOP for two years as a graduate assistant coach. Below are some of the things that might help you understand the way I think about debate and how I evaluate certain positions.

Affs:

I think the affirmative should ideally be topical. I think critical affirmatives can be achieved without outright rejecting the topic. For AFFs that decide to forgo this and decide to reject the topic, I need clear explanations for why you are doing so, why it is necessary, etc.

Topicality/Theory:

I understand topicality as how individual words in the resolution ought to be interpreted for the best debate.

The negative should have a clear definition/interpretation, and the affirmative should make sure to make we meet arguments and offer competing definitions/interpretations. For theory, I have a higher threshold for frivolous theory, especially when its used as an exclusionary tool or a time suck, but I am receptive to theory that seems warranted given the nature of the topic i.e. PICs Bad, No PIC on a whole law, condo bad, etc.

This means that I tend to default to competing interpretations over reasonability, even if I think the aff might be good in some way for the debate (ie reasonability). This means that having arguments like why competing interps is bad or why reasonability is good are strategic.

CP/Ks:

CPs or Ks should be unconditional, and I can be persuaded by condo bad arguments. That being said, I still expect these to be warranted out and WEIGHED, which means I dont just auto drop teams that are condo. I also think that when the negative has read either a CP/K, they have the burden of proving why their alternative choice is preferable, and thus for me, presumption would flip Aff.

I like policy debate, and think counterplan-disad debates can be really interesting, but often underutilized.I ran Ks when I competed, but Im probably not deep in the critical literature youre reading. This means you can run your K but if I dont understand how to evaluate it compared to the Aff or reasons why the alternative is preferable, Im likely to be persuaded by the perm (if one is made) and the aff leveraging their advantages. I think perms need to be explained, and Im not a fan of vague perm: do both arguments without any additional explanation of how its possible or what that means.

Speed/Clarity:

I dont think speed should be used to exclude anyone from the round and that you should slow or clear if someone says slow or clear. Im a fast talker, and might be able to keep up, but you at your top speed is probably too fast for me. If you want me to get your arguments, you should slow down a touch and try to punch your tags.

Also for funsies, here is a list of my previous debate partners who probably were better than I was. Do with that information what you will: Arshita Sandhiparthi, Jonathan Reyes, Ravi Prasad, Marlu Reyes.

General things:

I'm not around debate all the time anymore so if there's been a new trend or norm, I might not be 100% up to date on it, so either ask me questions before the round or just assume I probably don't know. This community is really important to me, and I think rounds should be welcoming spaces - have fun and be kind and respectful to each other.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out! My email is tierrans@gmail.com

Timothy Heisler - LPC

I am an IE judge who specialized in platform speeches, specifically Informative and Persuasive speaking. As such, clarity of message and organization is paramount in receiving my vote. So.speak slowly and clearly. Be organized and offer signposts. Explain very specifically in your closing speech why you think you won the debate. And, please for the love of all that is good and holy, do not use debate language, jargon or terminology.

IPDA was created for and meant to be evaluated by NON-Forensic people. If we (the audience) need to be trained to simply understand what youre talking about, then, sadly, youre doing it wrong.

Looking forward to seeing/hearing what you have to say..even more looking forward to being able to understand it.

Tony Escalante - NCFA

n/a

Tyler Gardner - Sacramento

n/a

Tyler Sasabuchi - Solano CC

Hello! Tl;Dr at bottom for those panic checking paradigms during prep. Longer version: Ive
done debate, parli + IPDA, you wont lose me with jargon or theory stuff, most likely I can
keep up with your speed but make sure its still legible and actual words. If your opponents
ask you to slow or clear, do. Debate needs to be accessible. I vote on T+K. On T, I prefer
proven abuse, but will buy potential abuse if you can provide a very clear and solid line of
thinking to the abuse. For K make sure your K is logically consistent, and use examples that
actually support it. Not the biggest fan of pie-in-the-sky theory Ks (vote neg to embrace fate,
out there multi-verse theory) but in rare cases maybe. I prefer on/off case direct clash, and
love weird or off the wall stories to get to impacts, as long as the story makes sense and has
good impacts. If youve got weird stuff you want to try, please feel free. I will be mostly tabula
rasa, barring very obvious things (dont tell me the sky is purple and expect me to fully buy
that without significant evidence). Love historical examples to support points. Please enjoy
yourselves and have a good time, a bit of humor goes a long way in a round, but isnt
necessary.
Tl;Dr seasoned debater, ok with jargon/speed, dont mind theory. T doesnt need proven
abuse, but potential needs strong through-line. K is fine, but make sure It has logical
consistency, and lets not get too crazy with theory. Big fan of clash, prefer it to theory, you
can run whatever wild stuff you feel like as long is makes sense. Be nice and polite to each
other, preferably lets have some fun so we dont go insane.

Umbreen Khan - NCFA

n/a

Veda Dean - Sacramento

n/a

Zachary Waters - SFSU

n/a

2026 Northern California Forensic Association Championship Tournament

Tournament Time: 5:10 AM Pacific

Judge Philosophies

Alan Fishman - NCFA

Alex Balingit - NCFA

Alexis Litzky - CCSF

Andrew Morgan - DVC

Angela Ohland - Butte

Angelica Guzman - UOP

Anna Faalogoifo - NCFA

Arielle White - Delta

Arley Rodriguez - Fresno State

Arshita Sandhiparthi - NCFA

Bertha Reyes - MJC

Brendan Sullivan - LPC

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

Chloe Ayabe - NCFA

Cyril Bhooma Goud - SJSU

Daniel Lopez - Hartnell

Danny Cavallero - Hartnell

Dev Mehra - USFCA

Diego Paez - NCFA

Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

Elidex Landaverde - NCFA

Emma Schumacher - CCSF

Eric Martinez - Contra Costa

Eric Fletcher - FCC

Eric Cardenas - UOP

Erika Farias - NCFA

Evan Lingo - UC Berkeley

Francia Carrillo - MJC

Haley Woods - Chico State

Hannah Branch - Nevada

Hannah Schroers - DVC

Jackie Blair - Sacramento

Jacqueline Osorio - NCFA

Jared Anderson - Sacramento

Jasmine Avila - NCFA

Jay Villanueva - Nevada

Jim Dobson - LPC

Joey Barrows - Delta

John Hanecak - DVC

Jonathan Reyes - NCFA

Jordan Rosales - NCFA

Josh Hamzehee - Santa Rosa

Josue De Leon - Santa Rosa

Kanan Prashar - SJSU

Kathleen Bruce - NCFA

Kim Yee - Ohlone College

Kyle Landrum - Chico State

Kylie Duncan - SFSU

Leah Getaneh - USFCA

Lindsay Walsh - SJSU

Mack Sermon - Chabot

Malika Amin Mirador - Solano CC

Manahil Syeda - DVC

Maryam Mohammadi - CCSF

Marybelle Uk - SJSU

Maximus Renteria - UOP

Michael Traina - Santa Rosa

Michael Andreas - Butte

Michael Sullivan - LPC

Millie Kinnamont - Chico State

Mostafa Aniss - NCFA

Natalie Cavallero - Hartnell

Nathan Wensko - Clovis

Nathan Steele - CCSF

Nicholas Adair - UOP

Nick Amezcua - Butte

Orion Steele - SFSU

Ornaldo Gonzalez - Fresno State

Paul Villa - DVC

Rafael Fogo-Schensul - Chico State

Rebecca Deleon - MJC

Rebecca Deleon IPDA Judging Philosophy

Robert Hawkins - DVC

Ruth Kimes - NCFA

Ryan Guy - MJC

Video Recording & Online Tournaments