AJ Edwards - UCSD

n/a

---

AJ Khim - UCSB

n/a

---

AJ Moorehead - LAVC

---

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

---

Abdraheem Sheriff - HJ

n/a

---

Abdul Sheriff - El Camino

n/a

---

Adam Mchiri - SDSU

n/a

---

Adrian Luna - El Camino

n/a

---

Adriana La Fuente - Cerritos

I value clear, organized argumentation that connects claims to evidence effectively and emphasizes logical impacts. Nonverbal cues matter to me strong eye contact, vocal variety, and confident body language help convey credibility and connect with the audience. I dont flow spreading; clarity and persuasion come first. In debate, I appreciate well-developed arguments with clear impacts, strong refutation, and respectful engagement. I strive to create a supportive judging environment that encourages growth, critical thinking, and effective communication.

---

Aedan Stokes - UCSB

n/a

---

Alex Hepburn - UCSB

I put strong emphasis on quality and quantity of sources. Explain simply and make reasonable arguments, I'm not likely to believe far fetched ideas unless well explained.

---

Alex Sur - UCSB

n/a

---

Alex Velez - IVC

n/a

---

Alexa Contreras - UCSD

n/a

---

Ali Saqebi - El Camino

n/a

---

Alissa Duong - Mt. SAC

Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means

• Clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow.
• No spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you!
• You are courteous to your opponent. Bonus points for kindness.
• You make it clear why I should vote for you.

Excited to see you all debate!

---

Amie Clarke - GCU

n/a

---

Anastasia Serova - UCSD

n/a

---

Andrew Jassick - Grossmont

---

Andrew Yllescas - CSUN

n/a

---

Andrew Salazar - Chaffey

n/a

---

Anna Weber - PLNU

n/a

---

Aracely Tobias - UCSD

n/a

---

Aryanna Morales - UCSD

n/a

---

Avanthika Ramasamy - UCSD

n/a

---

Bailey Clements - UCSB

n/a

---

Ben Mason - El Camino

TLDR: Run whatever you want, I'll vote on the flow and whatever fw you want me to evaluate. I'm a 4th year undergrad at CSULB studying Communications. I debated for El Camino College in NPDA / IPDA / Limited Prep Speeches / Interps for 2 years. If there are any questions or preferences let me know. Communication: Communication with your partner in any manner is fine, but I will only flow whatever the present speaker says. Be respectful to your opponents and your partner. Speed: I don't mind speed, just speak clearly and concisely. I won't call clear or slow because it's your time and you can use it however you want, but I may give nonverbals to indicate you are going too fast or are being unclear. Kritiks: Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear fw for evaluation, a K without fw is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I primarily ran anthro when I was competiting so I may be a little more critical if thats what you run, but I don't pretend to be an expert or anything. Identity tix are cool and fun arguments are beneficial to debate and individual agency, however, they can also easily be used to bully, silence, or provoke reactions from other teams when weaponized incorrectly. I won't tell you how to run identity arguments but know that it's somewhat of a grey area for me as far as voting. Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as that it's properly structured (interp viol stds voters). I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is clearly just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). MG theory is fine, should be fleshed out though. I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory. RVIS: I don't hate RVI's or IVI's but it's not the most compelling argument. If a team is reading 7 blipped out T shells and 3 blipped out specs then yeah run an RVI but other than that, all instances of spec T and other theory are not cause for debate collapse or abuse. Signposting: Please have brief taglines for your arguments, I can't vote on an argument if I don't know what to call it, where it fits, or why it matters. Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but be sure to make sure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

---

Bennett Beltramo - SDSU

Experience:
Ive been involved in speech and debate for several years as both a competitor and a coach, working across platform, limited prep, and NFA-LD. I love this activity because it teaches clear thinking, persuasive speaking, and respectful discourse.

Ideal Round:

My ideal round is professional, respectful, and engaging. Debate should be competitive but not combativeso keep it civil and make me want to listen. Personal attacks or rude behavior will result in drops for conduct.

In IPDA, treat me like a well-informed lay judge. Keep jargon to a minimum and focus on clear, conversational persuasionlike were talking around a dinner table about an issue that matters.

For NPDA/LD:

Im a stock issues traditionalist. I appreciate organized, well-tagged debates with clear clash and strong analysis. I welcome topicality, but make it airtightdefine, violate, explain, impact. Im not big on Kritiks, but Ill evaluate them if clearly linked to the resolution.

Signposting and structure are everything. I only flow whats explicitly said, so connect your arguments and give me clean voters.

Delivery:

Your presence matters. I value clarity, pacing, posture, and tonedebate is about communication, not speed for its own sake. Sound confident, not mechanical.

I time everything (yes, even roadmaps), so keep things concise.

Final Thought:

Be organized, persuasive, and respectful. Make the round enjoyablefor both of usand Ill be happy to reward strong, clear argumentation.

---

Blake Longfellow - HJ

Judge Philosophy Blake Longfellow

I have nearly 25 years of experience in forensics as a competitor, coach, and judge, but at my core I am a speech coach, not a technical policymaker. Because of that, I put a premium on clear, compelling, persuasive delivery. If I cant follow you, I cant vote for youclarity outweighs speed every time.

I evaluate rounds through a blend of flow and real-world persuasion. Make warranted arguments, clash directly, and give me clean weighing at the end. Theory and hyper-technical debate are fine only if you explain them accessibly. Otherwise, the more persuasive, organized, and audience-centered team will have the advantage on my ballot.

Speak clearly, extend your key arguments, tell me why they matter, and make the round easy to evaluate. Do that, and youre in a strong position to win.

---

Brian Masse - UCSD

n/a

---

Brian Feng - UCSD

n/a

---

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.  

BG:

I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. 

Impacts:

You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. 

Case Debate:

I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. 

Disadvantages:

Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. 

Counterplans:

Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. 

Conditionality:

I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it. 

Kritiks:

I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than they used the state.¢? I am not saying this cant be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I dont like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. 

Identity Arguments:

With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. 

Theory:

I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Dont just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. 

Speed

Speed is fine but please be clear. I dont see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. 

Defending the Topic:

Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument. 

Speaker Points:

If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.

Miscellaneous:

Be organized and sign post. Dont assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round. 

As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time. 

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory. 

---

Brooke Warren - UCSD

n/a

---

Caitlin Drees - IVC

I am an argumentation professor who has a very little experience with debate in competition. I do not know all the technical jargon so it will not help you in the round. You will want to explain your arguments and how they matter in the round. If you need me to understand the jargon you will need to explain it. Also be polite and nice to each other because I hate rudeness.

My forensic experience as a competitor was limited prep events.

---

Cam Rittenberg - UCSD

n/a

---

Cat Conroy - El Camino

n/a

---

Christiaan Pipion - IVC

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

---

Clarisa Mutia - UCSD

n/a

---

Cody Hagemeier - El Camino

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P_kjcw4S3vbKWv15VlVvgDXz7vGEGmQWBz770deGNdw/edit?tab=t.0

---

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

---

Corey Romero - UCSD

n/a

---

Dana Lee - Moorpark

n/a

---

Danielle Kabboul - El Camino

I competed for 3 years at El Camino College in NPDA, IPDA, LD, extemp, impromptu, informative, and persuasive, before transferring to Yale University, where I currently compete in APDA and BP.
I believe debate should be practiced in ways that translate to real-life skills, which means I value clarity, persuasion, and well-developed argumentation. I evaluate the round strictly on the flow and assume nothing unless you explain it; make sure to tell me why an argument matters and why it matters more than others. I prefer debates that engage with the topic and on/off case, but am receptive to theory where actual abuse is present. Ks arent my favorite, but Im open to hearing a unique position that relates to the resolution rather than recycled links. Speed is totally okay as long as you respect clear/slow calls. Partner events are such for a reason, and Im okay with partner-to-partner communication in the form of verbal prompts or paper notes during your own speeches. Have fun!

---

Das Nugent-Odasso - SD Mesa

Das Nugent 

Debate Judging Philosophy

 

(1) What is your experience with speech and debate? 

I have competed in all styles of IE’s and have taught and judged NPDA for well over a decade. IPDA is a form of debate that does not sound like or use any kind of debate lingo. It is for the everyday man. It is absolutely NOT Parli or LD; please do not treat it as such. 

 

(2) What does your ideal debate round look like? 

The debate should be ethical, and there should be a good on-case clash. If you run anything outside of the debate topic, you should know how to persuade me.

 

(3) Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?

Some of my best friends are debaters, and they tell their teams to watch my face - apparently, I am expressive. I think debate jargon is overrated. I think that the speed of speech (in every type of debate) should be the rate of a platform speech. I take into consideration Ethical /Logical violations as voting issues. Finally, be clear as to why your team wins the debate. 

---

David Zahnd - HJ

n/a

---

David Khashchuk - El Camino

n/a

---

Deborah Perez - CSUN

n/a

---

Deborah Perez - HJ

n/a

---

Drew denDulk - CSUN

n/a

---

Dron Nikam - OCC

n/a

---

Duane Smith - LAVC

I neither did, nor have I ever coached debate. I am all about the individual events. So, performance value is very important to me. Don't speak at me. Speak with me. The easier, more clearly, I can follow your flow, the better you will do.

I also want to enjoy myself. Even though its debate - ITS STILL A PERFORMANCE, and A BATTLE OF WITS. So dont just try and out argue the other team - but also seek to be clever, and have a good time, so that those observing everyone in the round enjoys themselves, while also learning something!

---

Dylan Heist - Moorpark

n/a

---

Edric Chang - UCSD

n/a

---

Ella Wang - UCSD

n/a

---

Emily Gao - UCSB

n/a

---

Emma Chavez - OCC

n/a

---

Ethan White - GCU

n/a

---

Evan Carter - UCSB

n/a

---

Eyal Cohen - Moorpark

n/a

---

Frances Jereb - UCSB

n/a

---

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10.

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn.There arelots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, butI try notto bring them into the round.Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you can lose a round if you drop one little argument, though it's unlikely unless your opponents blow it up, but if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework argument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool, or ask me to vote on real world impacts, I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have been "won." A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up or lie. In LD, I will read evidence, including that which the debaters don't read and will not give the ballot to debaters who misrepresent authors.

Because I try to base my decision based solely on argumentsthat are madein the round,I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad.Likewise, you don't have to run only conventionally believed positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or if they are "true."In general, know that I don't believe that debate is a search for the truth; I believe it is a game. As when you play all games, you should have fun!!!

BUT . . . if you are excessively rude or bullying, I will probably drop you.

2023 Update: after 3 yrs of competing and 23 years of judging, I have decided that I am over the k. My mindet has not changed; society has not changed. College students, who went through the application process, which by its nature excludes some, speaking for others has become old. I'm not saying I will never vote for a k again, but it will prob have to be different from the versions on a theme that I have heard for the last 30 years. Plus it's really killing parli which makes me sad. :/

---

Gavin Serr - Moorpark

n/a

---

George Talavera - SCC

Competitive Experience:
4 Years of Parli Debate: IVC 2 Years CUI 2 Years. | 4 Years of LD

TLDR: Debate to me is a game and you should play it to the best of your ability. If you're a K team or debater, you should read the K in front of me. I am also a huge fan of theory but I debated all of the types of debate during my time as a competitor; you should feel comfortable going for whatever you want. Lastly, I default to condo being good but won't hesitate to vote for condo bad. I generally tend to vote for the team that does the better debating.

Speed:

Feel free to go as fast as you would like. I will say clear if I can't understand what you are saying. If/when that happens That being said, this is not a requirement to go slower, only to go slower only to be more understandable, which may require you to slow down.

Theory:
Of all of the different facets of debates, I find theoretical debates to be the most
fascinating. You should have an interpretation and a violation that clearly explain
the thesis of your claims. Your claims should be supported by impacted standards
that explicate what fairness or education looks like via the violation. I generally
believe that resolving issues about the rules are a prerequisite to evaluating other
portions of the debate. All of that being said, I think that theory debate exists as a
space where debaters get to challenge one anothers actions and choices through a
channel of fairness and/or education.

Counter Plans:

I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the
negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly
I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Do not
mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you cant justify
your instance of condo.

Offense/Defense:

Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. However, I still believe that
the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance. This
does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with
effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if
you are behind on the uniqueness debate. There are two scenarios where I
think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness
debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic. Poverty exists in the
United States. If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases
poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact. (2) If you add a systemic
impact as a part of your link turns. If you lose the uniqueness debate on
helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.
However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any
increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make
the link turn an offensive argument. Argument comparison is necessary in all

debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I
just described.

Kritiks:
I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other
arguments, is there a link and what is the impact, how does that team
resolve the impact?

Functionally all the framework page does is provide
impact calculus, it just explains ahead of time which impacts should be
evaluated and which shouldn't so as a result, your framework should have
a role of the ballot explanation and if you really want to make me happy
that ROB will be your FW interpretation. Beyond that, I prefer kritiks
which interrogate the material conditions which surround the
debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to
view the world from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually
of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the
impact framing applies at the in-round level. There are probably words
you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so
it's a good idea to define some of those concepts on a thesis page of some
sort.

Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the
process by which they do that is up for debate. If you're reading
framework arguments about the resolution being a springboard then your
interpretation of how to be topical should be different, right? Beyond that
affirmative kritiks still need to read links, which should link to the topic or
activity directly.

Performance:

Teams that want to have performance debates: Go for it.
Read some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why
your performance is different from the other team's performance and how
that performance resolves the impacts you identify. Teams that don't want
to have performance debates: I think you have a lot of options for how to
answer performance debates and while most of those are theoretical and
frameworked arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance
of the performance and thesis of their claim at some point.

IPDA and Thank Yous:

I never debated this style of debate so do your thing and know that I will listen to your arguments. I am not a fan of long-winded thank-yous, they are not necessary and are arguably a waste of time. Please keep thank yous concise.

---

Greg Gorham - GCU

---

Hannah Sutton - UCSB

n/a

---

IS Beltran JR - CSULB

Please treat me as a lay judge.

I value Pathos, Logos, and Ethos in that order. All 3 are important, but I do favor Pathos a tad bit more than Ethos. If you can get me to care, you will have an edge in the round.

****Please regard the following notes as tentative guidelines rather than strict rules for my paradigm. After completing a course on equity in education, I became more aware of how implicit biases can undermine equitable assessments. Consequently, I now make a conscious effort to remain open-minded and as felixible as possible.****

+DEBATE:

Please do NOT run a "fact round."

Although this will NOT affect your score, the patterns typical of "fact rounds" tend to be less effective for me, and competitors who use alternative framing usually avoid these patterns. In the interest of equitable assessment, I recognize that some competitors are trained to use this format, so you will not be penalized. However, those who adopt different framing approaches often gain an advantage in my rounds.

Additionally, while I understand the strategy behind speed reading and spreading (regardless of whether you distinguish between the two), I ask that you slow down. If I can NOT follow your arguments, it will not be beneficial. Always treat me as a lay judge. I primarily focus on elocution in debate (i.e. how well you present your arguments often matters more to me than what the arguments are). I've found that focusing on delivery helps me minimize personal bias and evaluate rounds more fairly.

+Interpretation Events:

I subscribe to Nietzsche's claim that everything we know is metaphor.

For me, interpretation events (IEs) are far more art than arithmetic. While I can articulate what I value, there is no inherently right or wrong way to interpret a piece of literature. What matters most is how well your performance aligns with the argument you are trying to make.

I view IEs through an argumentative lens. An argument must include: claim, evidence, warrant. Your Intro serves as your CLAIM. Your EVIDENCE is the literature you find to support your claim. Your performance functions as your WARRANT it gives form to your interpretation and bridges your message with the text you've chosen. A compelling performance, in my view, is one where emotional, intellectual, and aesthetic choices all support the message you are advocating.

Again, I see IEs as artistic expression, not a technical formula. The round often comes down to what moves me most. I understand this can feel nebulous or even frustrating to read, but I encourage you to perform with conviction and purpose. You may not always win the round, but you will always have a platform and an audience that is required to listen.

+Limited Prep:

Like with debate and IE's, I intend to primarily focus on elocution. Because time signals are a personal weakness of mine, I tend NOT to judge speakers harshly on time management alone. Think of time allocation skills as bonus points: if you manage your time well, it can boost your score, but if you struggle with time allocation, it will not affect your overall score.

+Public Address/Platform:

If youve skipped or scanned until this point, heres the one word you need: DELIVERY. If you've read everything thank you.

Public Address (PA) is, admittedly, the trickiest category for me to judge. Unlike interpretation events, many PA subcategories have structural and strategic expectations that are less open to personal interpretation. That said, elocution remains the core of how I judge all speeches. How well you deliver your message matters as much as, if not more than, the message itself.

Persuasive (PERS):

This is the one event where I judge almost entirely on how well you persuade the audience. I'm looking for both effectiveness and rhetorical strategy. Arguably, every event in speech and debate is a form of persuasion, but in PERS, that expectation is front and center. Your goal is to convince, and I weigh your delivery heavily in determining how well you achieve that.

Informative (INFO):

I approach INFO similarly to PERS, but theres one key distinction: NO CALLS TO ACTION. If your speech includes an explicit call to action, you will lose points. I understand the temptation to advocate. It often happens unintentionally, but I encourage you to let your audience arrive at their own conclusions. Think of an INFO speech as an ENTHYMEME: an argument thats implied, not overtly stated. Your job is to inform, not persuade. There is a key difference.

Rhetorical Criticism / Communication Analysis (RC/CA):

Ah, CA or RC or both. Regardless of how you label it, I judge this event with one primary lens: I want to be taught something. I'm interested in your artifact, your application of scholarship, and your critical judgement.

That said, my criteria remain consistent with other categories: elocution drives everything. I'm focused on how you present your analysis just as much as the content of that analysis. The more clearly and compellingly you communicate your insights, the more likely I am to be persuaded by your presentation.

I hope this is insightful and helpful.

Apologies in advance if I am the squirrel judge in your round. I am notorious for being the squirrel, unfortunately.

---

Isa Galvao - UCSB

n/a

---

Isaac Ramnani - CSULB

n/a

---

Isaac Morales - SDSU

n/a

---

Izzy Rocha - Moorpark

n/a

---

Jameson Morgan - Moorpark

n/a

---

Janiel Victorino - Fullerton College

n/a

---

Janiel Victorino - HJ

n/a

---

Jasmine Winter - HJ

n/a

---

Jen Page - Cypress College

I am an educator and the Director of Forensics. I am also a former debater, platformer, and interper and have been a part of this community since the late 80s. I teach and coach all events. I love it all!

Just a few points: IPDA is not a version of Parli-LD or NFA-LD. The resolution in IPDA is what the debate should be about. Please do not turn IPDA into something it was not meant to be.

Please dont expect me to make arguments for you or draw conclusions. I judge based on what is said/happens in the round. Links, impacts, etc.... Articulate any abuse. Stock issues are important. QUICK road maps are appreciated and are not timed. Please be kind to your partner and to your opponents. Speaker points do matter if competition is fierce. Dont run T just for the sake of running it, in hopes that I may buy the argument. If there is no reason to run T (and/or you dont make the argument clear), it is a waste of your time. Running Ks...sure. But explain, justify, link, and dont use it as a strategy to confuse your opponents. Dont make assumptions that anyone else in the room has read the lit/info on your K. Clash in round is good. Speed...ok. BUT, if you out-spread your opponent, there is no debate, and I see this as a form of abuse in the round. (See previous comment about judging based on what is said/happens in round.). Dont call a point of order unless its an actual point of order! Remember the opposition block in Parli. Again, be kind, have fun, and tell me why you should win.

Persuade me with your arguments and logic, knowledge, humanity, wit, and sense of humor...just as long as you arent abusive to others in the round.

---

Jennifer Yomogida - UCSD

n/a

---

Jessie Weiser - El Camino

n/a

---

Jocelyn Coenmans - El Camino

n/a

---

Joe Faina - Hired Judges

n/a

---

John Loo - SDSU

Background:

• I've coached speech events for about 12 years and NFA-LD for 6 years.

Philosophy:

• I evaluate rounds tabula rasa: if it's said and extended, I'll consider it true unless refuted. Dropped arguments can be decisive, especially framework or round-defining claims.
• I do not assume anythingimpacts must be explained (e.g., why climate change, nuclear war, etc. matter). Debate is not a search for truth; it is a competitive game.

Exceptions:

• I won't vote on arguments that require me to insert my personal beliefs (use the ballot as a tool, etc.).
• I won't reward dishonesty. In LD, I read cards and will not vote for debaters who misrepresent evidence.
• Excessive rudeness or bullying will result in very low speaker points and likely a loss.

Ks and Theory:

• I am largely tired of kritiks in their traditional forms. You can win one in front of me, but it needs to be distinct, well-applied, and not a generic recycling of the same arguments I've heard for years.

Other Notes:

• Speed is fine if clear, but only flow what I can understand.
• Framing and weighing are essential: tell me what matters most.
• Above all, debate should be competitive, respectful, and fun.

Speech Events

• Clarity of Story/Argument: Clear throughline guiding the audience.
• Organization: Clear structure and logical flow.
• Depth & Research: Strong analysis, evidence, and reasoning.
• Purposeful Blocking: Movement enhances performance, not just for show.
• Polish & Professionalism: Well-prepared, confident, smooth execution.
• Audience Impact: Voice, expression, and connection elevate the piece.

Overall: Prioritize clarity, organization/depth/research second, thoughtful blocking third, and polish/impact last.

---

John Symank - CUI

n/a

---

Jules Bruetsch - IVC

n/a

---

Julian Mackenzie - SDSU

Note: This is all for guidance on what I would like to see. At the end of the day, have the debate you want to have, and I will do my best to evaluate it. All sections are bolded for your ease as a reader. Do not read more than you have to, please. I know it's a lot, but I wanted to be as clear as possible.

Background: Hi my name is Julian Mackenzie, I participated in Speech and Debate for a total of 9 years as a competitor, and now I'm a Coach for SDSU.

1. In high school. I competed for four years in mostly Interp, Extemp, Impromptu, LD, and Pufo for Helix Charter High School. In my senior year, I was a debate captain for my high school team.
2. I competed for two years for the Grossmont Community College team in NPDA, IPDA, and Extemp, where I won top competitor for the 2021-2022 school year.
3. After that, I competed for UCSD for three years in NPDA, IPDA, Pufo, and TIPDA, and I was the President of the team.
4. Now I Coach and I am the Director of Debate and Limited Prep at San Diego State University.

All formats:

1. I like Lay debate or fast and Technical debate.
2. I will take any argument into consideration as long as the argument is backed up by logic or evidence.
3. Both teams/competitors in your last speech please give me clear voters, so that I can make an informed decision.
4. Have good clash
5. Please signpost
6. Please be as organized as possible tell me exactly where you are on the flow.
7. Please be respectful to everyone in the round.
8. Have Fun!

IPDA:

1. I prefer tech over truth, but I will not accept arguments that are a lie and do not have evidence or some truth.
2. Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments.
3. Please speak with a clear and calm pace.
4. Label each of your arguments.
5. Avoid technical debate jargon.
6. Keep Cases and arguments simple and clear

NPDA:

1. I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
2. I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
3. I love Value and Fact rounds, so please do not define a round as policy if it does not have should in the resolution.
4. K's work in Policy Rounds, run Phil if it's a value round.

NFA-LD:

1. Run a good and sound plan
2. Tricks are great, but please keep them at the top of the case.
3. I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
4. I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
5. Share your doc with me if you are going to spread, please.
6. Please have your card doc ready to show your opponent's cards

Ks: I want to start off by saying that I love ks and I think that they have a solid place in debate. Taking a critical approach to the structural systems that dominate and oppress everyday citizens is something that should be supported and not diminished. That said, I dislike when Ks are just badly structured and used as a gamey tactic instead of a real advocacy for change. Have I run bad Ks? Yes, did I win? No. I will not reward Ks that are badly structured. Please make sure your K is well-written and thought out. With solid link work that truly connects the K to the topic at hand, if your links are weak so is your K, and I have no problem rewarding the win to the opposing side if they show me the links do not connect back to the topic. Also, if an Aff K is ran T-Framework is a very strong response. Please define every word in the resolution if you are going to run a T-Framework, even words such as the or of.

Theory/Topicality: I love both theory and topicality, and often times found it to be a fantastic strategy on the neg side. I think if you are running a theory or a topicality in a round, it should be well structured, and there needs to be proven abuse. That said, I oftentimes find teams that run a theory or topicality without proving that some form of abuse has taken place, which makes it easier to vote on a wemeet or a counter interp. In those cases, it is often easy for me to be convinced by an RVI, especially time skew since it is probably going to be kicked out of in the MO. In that case, the MG must put as much offense as possible on the theory or topicality to make sure that the MO has to spend time on it. In that case, the MG will even the playing field, allowing for the debate not to be one-sided. In addition, my interpretation of a priori is that it must be evaluated first before I evaluate the debate. Thus, if I am given an argument that if I buy the theory or topicality, I must vote neg, I will. If I do not get that argument, or the aff convinces me otherwise, I will evaluate the theory or topicality, then the debate. Meaning if the Aff wins on the case even with the new theory interpretation in the round, I will vote aff. This is rare and only usually occurs when there is a challenge to values. Although I should mention that I do not throw out the case debate without a justified reason to do so.

Phil: I love Phil and feel like it is underutilized in debate. In order for me to vote on a Phil argument in debate, the literature needs to connect back to the resolution or the arguments that are being made by the aff or neg. Make sure to pick a strong value that your literature connects back to. If you need to run T to make that happen, please do so, and give me proof of abuse or reasons to prefer your value over that of the affirmative. I should mention I know a lot of phil arguments have devolved into extinction, good, and thats an argument that could work, but it often is not rooted in a solid literature base, which ends up making it a weak philosophical argument.

Trix: I think tricks are incredibly smart in debate and can be a very strong aff argument. This was my go-to argument, especially on the tech side of debate. I think while tricks are strong in NPDA & NFA-LD, they are strongest in IPDA. If you are able to convince me that you win because of X top of case reason, it makes my job evaluating an IPDA round a lot easier. If you are going to use a trick, please keep it at the top of your case. In addition, please dont just say, for example, vote for Aff on presumption; give me a reason that presumption flips to the Aff side.

Speed/Spreading: Not a fan of speed as a tactic to make debate inaccessible. Everyone needs to have equal opportunity to engage in debate, and if speed or clarity hurts someones ability to participate in this activity, it should not be used. I am ok with speed as long as both debaters/teams are comfortable with it. If I or your opponent needs to clear or slow you, please do so. If not, speaker points will be docked.

Speech:

1. As for speech I judge like any other speech judge on content and performance.
2. Please do not "can" your speech in Impromptu. If I find your "canning" I will place any off-the-cuff speech ahead of you.
3. I will not automatically rank you lower if your speech is shorter than 10 minutes.

---

Justin Perkins - Cypress College

My name is Justin Perkins, I am the Co-DOF at Cypress College, where I am primarily responsible for Debate events including Parliamentary Debate, IPDA, and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically/intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 50 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in a subtly similar yet beautifully different ways.

Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game, and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. However, I am persuaded by debaters exercising and explaining what they know that I know that they know, you know? That means explain everything to the point of redundancy. My brain is mush by the end of a long tournament. I like criteria based arguments, meaning that all warrants should frame the data supporting your claim in the context of the criteria agreed upon in round.

With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round.

This leads to the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, its your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out clear for you to speak more clearly, Speed to speak more slowly, and Signpost if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't pull through incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.

I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and dont really recognize reverse voters for numerous reasons. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. I don't discourage the practice of fact and value debate, in fact, I consider the degree of difficulty in running those cases to be higher. I will entertain as many points of order as you call. You may state your point, and I will entertain a response from the other side, before finally giving you a brutally honest decision to the best of my ability and will encourage my fellow judges on panels to rule on important, big round arguments in rebuttals at their discretion. It is a team activity, but I will only weigh arguments made by the speaker, feel free to repeat partner prompts or pass notes. Give me your best and have fun, I'll be giving you my best and ensuring we have an ordered and fair round.

---

Kaitlin Auster - UCSB

n/a

---

Kashfe Rahman - UCSD

n/a

---

Kasino Guillen - Moorpark

n/a

---

Katie Rittenberg - UCSD

n/a

---

Katya Azzam - SD Mesa

In alignment with recent PSCFA initiatives, I support efforts to return debate to a more educational and accessible format. I do not reward excessive speed, generic arguments detached from the topic, or behavior that undermines the collegial spirit of academic competition. Debaters should aim to engage the resolution directly, present well-developed and topic-specific arguments, and maintain courtesy throughout the round. My ballot will favor teams that make debate enjoyable, comprehensible, and instructive for both participants and observers. Ultimately, I strive to make decisions that uphold debate as a space for learning, growth, and mutual respect.

---

Kayla Mercure - Saddleback

Although my specialty is primarily in IEs, I have over 8 years of experience in forensics.

Debaters, I care most about quality of evidence and delivery of your arguments. I am particularly looking for strong LINKS. Don't force your audience to do the work for you!

I do not appreciate spreading at all and I tend to drop those who do.

That being said...be a good human! Be respectful! Have as much fun as you possibly can!

---

Kevin Colorado - UCSD

n/a

---

Kiana Shah - SDSU

n/a

---

Kim Wang - UCSD

n/a

---

Kyle Rivkin - OCC

I am primarily an IE Coach, however I also appreciate a good debate.

Spreading: Dont do it. It defeats the purpose of the educational nature of this activity. Speak to be heard and understood.

Organization: Be clear in your structure; show me how the arguments fit together and be sure that clash is occurring between your and your opponents arguments; roadmap your speeches and label your components,

Kritiks/Topicality: Im game as long as they make sense. Dont do it to do it. Do it because it makes sense.

IPDA: This event is meant to be distinct from Parliamentary Debate; I think about it as competing extemps; this means that style is an important component that must be utilized. You should also avoid highly technical language and treat me as a lay judge.

NPDA:You may use more technical language with me; however, this does not mean you may spread (see above).

Off-Time Roadmaps: Keep them brief

Partner Communication: Keep communication to a minimum while each partner debates; you may pass notes, but the person speaking is the person that needs to be the one making the arguments

If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them.

---

Kyuin Lee - UCSD

n/a

---

Lauren Keane - UCSB

n/a

---

Leane Hepburn - UCSB

I've been judging irregularly for over a year now, although I never competed in debate. If you want more details you can ask me in person!

---

Liliana Armas - UCSD

n/a

---

Mariah Naea - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Marina Hu - UCSD

n/a

---

Mehra Ziatbari - El Camino

n/a

---

Mia Phung - Moorpark

n/a

---

Michael McHan - Grossmont

I'll try to keep this as brief and simple as possible.

For Parliamentary Debate:

• Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
• Structure, structure, structure.
• The PMC speech should contain a clear and fair resolutional analysis. Be very clear when providing the voting criterion (V/C) and articulating how the judge should weigh the round. *Remember, if the Gov. team fails to offer a V/C then the Opp. has the right to do so for them.
• Please make sure you are signposting and clearly labeling your arguments.
• Not a fan of Ks.
• Okay with Ts, but not when levied as a strategy to take up time.
• Both sides should have clear, numbered voters in their final speeches. Don't just summarize existing arguments but TELL me why you should get my vote.
• Ultimately, I like to hear a clean debate, with ample clash, and arguments properly linked and warranted.

For IPDA Debate:

Since IPDA was created for a lay audience it is important that debaters keep their cases as simple and clear as possible.

• Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
• Very important to speak with a clear and calm pace.
• Signposting and labeling your arguments is a necessity.
• Please do not get too fancy with the voting criterion.
• Avoid technical debate jargon.
• Offer numbered voters (reasons why you won the debate) in final speeches.
• Be kind and respectful to each other.
• Smile and have fun!

For other Speaking Events:

• One of the elements I notice first is delivery - I tend to focus first on verbal and nonverbal variety, then command of gestures, then how well you engage your audience (if appropriate for your speech).
• Second, content. How well does your content flow, how organized is it, and how much do you enjoy /belief what you are saying.
• Third, have fun and entertain me! Typically, at any given tournament, I am observing 10-20 debates/speeches, and I like to be entertained by what I am judging. Have fun!

If you have questions about something that was not mentioned in my judging philosophy please do not hesitate to ask me before the round begins!

---

Michael Marse - CBU

I adopt a real-world policy-maker paradigm, which means:

• I give leeway to either side to point out deliberate obfuscation and/or spread as a procedural voter.
• I give leeway to the affirmative to argue that critiques/kritiks should be treated as disadvantages.
• I believe the resolution has primacy, so unless the affirmative rejects the resolution, the negative has no ground to argue for the resolution by offering a topical counterplan.
• Value resolutions should aim for clarity with arguments used in support of a side.  Values can not, generally, become facts through argument.
• Fact resolutions should rarely be argued since the required objective verification is difficult with no pre-written evidence allowed.
• Affirmatives in a policy round should provide enough detail to allow the negative to make arguments, but are not required to provide absolute certainty.  So, an expensive plan should generally state what the source of funding should be, or which types of programs will be cut to pay for the plan.  Specific amounts and line items are not required.

I flow arguments, not responses. So, a claim of "no link" with no grounds will be ignored.

Ties go to the best arguments, and in the case of argumentation being close, the win will go to the best (most effective in a real-world scenario) delivery style.

---

Michelle Gironda - Saddleback

The one rule to rule them all: Dont be an asshole.

Background:

I competed in all forms of debate at Orange Coast College for 2 years before moving to Loyola Marymount University and competing in BP for a year. I graduated from LMU with a BA in Communication Studies in 2018.

IPDA Generalities:

I generally believe that this form of debate should be accessible to the lay judge/person-meaning: minimal jargon, no spreading, and no mini-parli rounds. This is a separate form of debate and I will be treating it as such. While I welcome some parli structures such as plan and solvency-the should be parsed in a way that stays accessible to a lay judge. This should be a way to persuade the audience/judge that your case is the better option to choose.

General Philosophies:

Please don't spread. If you speed up towards the very end of your speech, thats fine but please don't spend all of your constructive spreading-it will end in an immediate loss on the ballot. Kritiks are very seldom going to fly with me, this is especially true for IPDA in which I really dont ever see how a Kritik would apply-so if you do it better be the most well run and effective K you have ever done. That being said a K will not immediately lose you a ballot. In Parli, I fall under the tabla rossa ideology, however in IPDA I take this stance but with a more relaxed view-in that I take into account generally wide known things that any lay person would know about or understand and will use that information to help fill in some gaps. That being said-don't expect me to fill in your case with critical details and ideas. Any case should be fleshed out to include all critical details, examples and main points of argumentation/contention, and clear structure. Make clear any voting issues as such-voters. I want to see why your case is more important, more impactful, has more magnitude, etc. Impacts are huge for me-make them clear and understandable but also extended out. Give me a clear way I should evaluate the debate and make sure your case ties back to this. Think criteria and impacts linked to that, amongst other ways.

I tend to have what many friends have lovingly called a RBF, but I do tend to show my feelings pretty clearly with my face and nonverbals in round-use this. Part of the job of a good debater is to persuade and part of persuasion is taking into account your audience and how they are receiving what you are speaking about. This holds especially true for IPDA.

TL;DR: Make a clearly structured case without abusive arguments and spreading but with good impacts and be clear how I should evaluate the round. Use all tools of persuasion within ethical and regulatory boundaries. Don't spread. Don't make debate not fun or educational.

---

Miles Montero - Moorpark

n/a

---

Mira Langin - UCSB

n/a

---

Natalia Stadnik - UCSD

n/a

---

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the DOF at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of national circuit NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching college debate since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:

1. I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will result in me understanding maybe 20% of what you are saying, which is not conducive to your chances of winning.
   
   
2. My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I mostly ran straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.
   
   
3. I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative (!) impact calculus, and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.
   
   
4. I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.
   
   
5. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them.
   
   
6. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
   - Whining: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
   - Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...
   
   
7. In policy rounds, the affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.
   
   
8. Parli: I don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

I am happy to answer specific questions before the round starts. (But please note: "Do you have any judging preferences?" is not a specific question).

---

Nicoleta Enciu - Cerritos

n/a

---

Oli Loeffler - SDSU

(they/them/theirs)

• Coach for IPDA, NPDA, Impromptu, and Extemporaneous Speaking
• Competed nationally and internationally in the same events
• 10 years of coaching experience (K-12 and college-level)
• Competed for three years on the community college circuit

Judging Philosophy:

• I prioritize access and education in debate rounds. Please provide clear organization in your initial constructive speechesthis sets up the framework for the round. At the end of the day, debate is about you having a fun, competitive outlet. If this means heavy tech and theory, great! If this means straight-up policy, also great! Just tell me how to evaluate the round.
• I judge primarily off the flow. If you're going faster, maintain clarity. If youre responding to arguments, tagline as much as possible so things dont get lost.

Argument Preferences:

• Theory: Im fine with most theory, but strategic moves shouldnt be uniquely abusiveIll do my best to engage with it.
• Framework: Please give me a clear framework for evaluating the round.
• Policy vs. Kritiks: Ill evaluate bothjust signpost well and make sure I understand how to weigh your arguments.
• Speed: Totally fine, clarity is key.

IPDA & Other Formats:

• My IPDA philosophy is nearly identical to my NPDA philosophyso just apply accordingly.

Other Notes:

• Speaker points: Based on clarity, strategy, and round engagement.
• No preference on sitting/standing do what makes you comfortable!
• I will do my best to protect, but call your POOs to be safe.
• Taglining is your best friend.

---

Peter Delamaggorie - UCSD

n/a

---

Preeya Govil - UCSD

n/a

---

Presley Newton - Moorpark

n/a

---

Rachel Alarcon - Mt. SAC

n/a

---

Rachel Kwak - Mt. SAC

n/a

---

Rebekah Symank - CUI

n/a

---

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

---

Riley Vaughn - PLNU

n/a

---

Rita Rafael - SCC

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

---

Rohan Krishna - UCSD

n/a

---

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

Background: I am the Director of Forensics at Grossmont College, for the past 30 years. I have been judging and coaching Parli for at least 20 years, and coaching and judging IPDA for about 10 years, or since southern California started competing in this event. I am not an NFA/LD coach or judge.

Educational Activity: I believe that debate is an educational activity that teaches some very important skills from the areas of argumentation and public speaking. I want to hear clear, well structured, arguments. I want the speaker to label their points/sign posting throughout. I need a road map, throughout the speech, not just at the top of the speech. I want to hear arguments that have claims, with reasoning/evidence. I still believe that this is a speaking event, and using some clear structure to you debate is important to me.

Regional Differences: At a state or national tournament, I know that there are different terms/jargon that have developed from individual regions. Therefore, dont assume that everyone should know the same terms. If you use a term, quickly explain it, the first time you use it. I welcome an opposing team to ask the other team for explanations of their terms. I do not expect that team to respond with something like, everyone should know this term. If that is true, give us the definition. I see far too many debaters misusing and miscommunication about jargon.

Topicality/Spreading/Ks: Of course, I expect to occasionally hear a topicality argument, when warranted. I dont want to hear a kritik for the sake of using it, or because you have nothing else to offer. However, if warranted, I may be open to one.

I believe there is no place for spreading/speed in Parli or IPDA. Everyone who continues to encourage or allow spreading is encouraging poor communication skills, defeating the purpose of Parli/IPDA debate. It isnt about my ability to flow, it is about your ability to communicate logical, argumentation to any audience.

During rebuttals I am looking for very clear voters, to tell me why your team wins the debate.

IPDA specifically: I have watched the progression from CEDA to Parli and now IPDA. I would like judges to follow the guidelines for IPDA, which says that there should be lay judges for IPDA. This means that even though I am a Parli judge, I should listen without expecting to hear jargon. I do think a well structure speech is required to be successful.

Having said all that, I love judging Parli debates. I am excited to hear your well structured, lively, debates.

---

Ryan Van Mouwerik - PLNU

n/a

---

Ryan Zhang - UCSD

n/a

---

Sabrine Heilman - Moorpark

n/a

---

Sam Daftary - UCSD

n/a

---

Sam Pirasteh - UCSD

n/a

---

Samantha Rashkovan - UCSB

n/a

---

Sarah Hules - Moorpark

n/a

---

Sharon Smith - El Camino

n/a

---

Shiloh Tamir - SD Mesa

---

Skye Prince - Moorpark

n/a

---

Sofia Hhuffine - Moorpark

n/a

---

Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF

n/a

---

Steven Suarez - IVC

n/a

---

Sydney Do - Mt. SAC

n/a

---

Sylvia Ho - UCSD

n/a

---

Taz Hellman - Saddleback

I believe debate no matter the form should be educational and respectful at its core. This is an academic event and should be treated as such.

Regardless of the type of debate I am watching, I do not like speed, rudeness, unnecesary procedural arguments, or critical positions. If you are spreading please keep in mind that I also have to be able to flow in order to properly judge. If you speak so fast that I cannot then I will just stop flowing.

Dont try to read my facial expressions on how you're doing in debate, not even I am aware of half of my expressions and it could mean literally anything. Stay confident in yourself and you will do great.

I also believe in the rightful distinction between debate events. IPDA is to be accessible to the lay audience while Parli has the room to be more technical. I appreciate signposting/good structure so if you do that I will be a very happy judge!

I will vote solely based on what is said and what is on the flow. I will not make inferences that are not stated if it takes a lot of jumps in logic. I do flow Cross-ex and Points of Information as I believe they are just as much a part of debate as anything else when it comes to the flow.

Feel free to ask any neccesary questions before the round.

---

Toby Ngo - HJ

n/a

---

Trevor Santiago - SDSU

n/a

---

Victor Casas - Moorpark

n/a

---

Videsh Jiwanmitra Shrestha - HJ

n/a

---

Vitoria Silva - UCSB

n/a

---

Yair Sanchez - Moorpark

n/a

---

Yancy Duncan - LAVC

After 40+ years in Speech and Debate....

I want clear direct arguments, no silly games. I'm not going to assume anything for you, or draw conclusions without you leading me there. I prefer a sincere persuasive style over being blasted with 10 arguments trying to cover everything possible. Don't try to change boats mid-stream.

You'll happily take me as an IPDA judge - most other types of debate make me grumpy.

---

Yixuan Li - UCSD

n/a

---

Zaynah Robb - El Camino

n/a

---

Zion Kandel - El Camino

n/a

---

Zipporah Marse - CBU

n/a

---

Ziyi Yang - UCSB

n/a

---