Judge Philosophies
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.
Derek Kuhns - SDSU
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- After that I competed for UCSD for three years in NPDA, IPDA, Pufo, and TIPDA, and I was the President of the team.
- Now I Coach and I am the Director of Debate and Limited Prep at San Diego State University.
All formats:
- I like Lay debate or fast and Technical debate.
- I will take any argument into consideration as long as the argument is backed up by logic or evidence.
- Both teams/competitors in your last speech please give me clear voters, so that I can make an informed decision.
- Have good clash
- Please signpost
- Please be as organized as possible tell me exactly where you are on the flow.
- Please be respectful to everyone in the round.
- Have Fun!
IPDA:
- I prefer tech over truth, but I will not accept arguments that are a lie and do not have evidence or some truth.
- Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments.
- Please speak with a clear and calm pace.
- Label each of your arguments.
- Avoid technical debate jargon.
- Keep Cases and arguments simple and clear
NPDA:
- I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
- I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
- I love Value and Fact rounds, so please do not define a round as policy if it does not have should in the resolution.
- K's work in Policy Rounds, run Phil if it's a value round.
NFA-LD:
- Run a good and sound plan
- Tricks are great, but please keep them at the top of the case.
- I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
- I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
- Share your doc with me if you are going to spread, please.
- Please have your card doc ready to show your opponent's cards
Speech:
- As for speech I judge like any other speech judge on content and performance.
- Please do not "can" your speech in Impromptu. If I find your "canning" I will place any off-the-cuff speech ahead of you.
- I will not automatically rank you lower if your speech is shorter than 10 minutes.
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.