2026 Western States Communication Association Tournament

San Diego State University - Feb 27-1 | Status: Accepting Entries

Profile Image
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Late Adds   Late Drops   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Alex Silerio - UTEP

n/a

Andrew Yllescas - CSUN

n/a

Annika Fisk - CSULB

I am primarily a speech judge but I have debate experience and I can follow debate. I appreciate strong arguments specifically be very clear about claims and warrents and signpost very clearly. I do not like speeding or spreading when it makes me hard for me to follow the debate. I generally do not like Kritiks and Topicality unless it is done very clearly, and if I cannot follow it I will not vote for you. It is your job to tell me why you won the debate and tell me why your arguments are stronger than your opponents. Please self time and have fun!!

Ashton Poindexter - Utah

I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD throughout my college forensics experience and currently coach at the University of Utah.

I'm okay with whatever arguments you want to run so long as you do clear warranted analysis, argument comparison, and evidence comparison. A couple of key considerations are:
I have a higher threshold for theory if you don't collapse to it.

Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does.
I'll default to topicality/theory being apriori, so if you want me to evaluate something else first you need to make the arguments.
You can't win just because your advocacy could also solve the issue if you haven't linked them to offense.
I'm good with speed, though there's two reservations. First, I often flow electronically now so I need a bit extra time between page transitions. Second, if your opponents ask you to slow I expect you to slow. If you need someone to slow, you should say slow and not clear, clarity I expect them to bite their pallet while still going quick.
In general - I like good arguments, I don't like bad arguments. Pleasemake good arguments and be a good human being while you do it.

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.

Bob Becker - NWC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brett Butler-Camp - Chico State

n/a

Bryan Malinis - SD Mesa

What is your experience with speech and debate?

  • I have coached and judged 2-year and 4-year speech and debate since 2011. I coach all events: oral interpretation, platform, limited preparation, NPDA, and IPDA.

What does your ideal debate round look like?

  • An ideal debate round is one in which debaters perform with professionalism and respect. I do not condone distasteful or disparaging remarks made against opponents, nor insulting nonverbal behavior. Such behavior tarnishes your own credibility as a persuasive speaker. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Insults will result in me dropping you or your team. Above all, make me happy to be in your presence. Have a good time and I will, too!
  • For IPDA, treat me as a lay judge. I firmly believe IPDA is different from all other debate formats in that IPDA is intended for anyone. Do not treat this event like a Parli or LD round. Eliminate jargon. This is pure persuasion, as if we are all sitting at a dining table and each of you is trying to persuade me to take your side.

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

  • For NPDA/LD:
    • I am stock issues all the way! I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-articulated by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. I am not a fan of Kritiks.
    • Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate effectively. I have dropped teams in the past due to their lack of a CLEAR structure. Do not simply tell me that legalizing marijuana leads to dying children. Provide links, internal links, and impacts. Do not assume that I will make the argument/connection for you in my head. I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. Most important, give me clear voters.
  • For all debate types:
    • Your delivery skills are unequivocally tied to my perception of your credibility and competence as a speaker. I pay close attention to your speech rate (breathe like a human), volume, pitch, gestures, posture, eye contact, etc. Since nonverbal communication comprises up to 90% of what we communicate, you must be mindful of all the aforementioned elements during your speaking time. I am comfortable with jargon and technical elements, though I am partial to a more straightforward, narrative debate style.
    • I time everything: roadmaps, thanks, etc.

In alignment with recent PSCFA initiatives, I support efforts to return debate to a more educational and accessible format. While I am open to all forms of arguments, I do not reward excessive speed, generic arguments detached from the specific wording of 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 accessible, 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.

Christian Curtiss - Utah

In my ~10 years being involved in Debate, I've come to understand debate as competitive storytelling. In a round, you're essentially telling me a story about the resolution: who is effected by the res, what happens when we adopt the res, and why that matters. Whichever side best articulates a world post resolution - as well as telling me why that world is good or bad in comparison to the other side's world - wins the ballot.

I want to do the least amount of work possible when making my decision. Your voter speech should make it clear to me what arguments I am voting on, and how I am weighing them in the round. The more that you leave the judge in the dark, the higher the chance the round is just a coin toss. Don't let that happen, make it crystal clear why you win. I don't want to have to sift through the flow to find your winning argument.

Generally, I'm fine with whatever arguments you want to run (Kritiks, CPs, Theory) in any format, as long as you justify that argument well enough. Love me some critical arguments, but please don't just drop "hyperreal" or some equally obscure term and expect your judges and opponents to know what that is.

Any questions before or after round, just ask!

Christian Gutierrez - ULV

n/a

Clara Johansen - Linfield

n/a

Courtney Meissner - SDSU

Hi Everyone!

I primarily enjoy I.E. but occasionally judge debate. I teach public speaking alongside a world of other Communication courses and am very fond of international education and topics, as well as interp events specifically!

ADS and Duo are my favorite, but I am always impressed with how compeitors can bring these skills to other events as well! I focus a lot on the speaker's abililty to evoke and illicit emotion from their audience as well as hone their nonverbal skills (gestures, movement, vocalics, etc.).

I would also much rather see speakers perform confidently rather than speedy. Organizing your speech with a clear structure and pattern will brighten my day as well! But most importantly, I want to see the contestants having a good time and learning from one another in these competitions.

On that note, I wish everyone a great tournament!

Derek Kuhns - SDSU

n/a

Devon Simmons - SDSU

n/a

Duncan Stewart - Utah

n/a

Emma Murdock - Utah

Theory/T: I think that theory is a legitimate check for abuse and prefer if you're running it strategically. Make sure that your voters are terminalized. I don't want just to be told to "vote for education and fairness," tell me why those matter.

K- I don't like them but am familiar with the literature; if you are going to run it, you need to run it well, and it needs to be explained well because it creates better debate about the method of the alternative.

Tell me which impact calc evaluation I should care most about.
Debate should be fun, don't be a dick.

Isaac Ramnani - CSULB

n/a

Isaac Morales - SDSU

n/a

Jackson Miller - Linfield

n/a

Jessica Jatkowski - NWC

I have been judging debate since 2015. However, this is only my first year coaching.

The most important element for me as a judge is to be respectful.

We are all coming to debate with our own preferences for issues, but I genuinely put my feelings and thoughts aside and will look at both sides to see who is giving the best argument. It is in the general framework of debate for you to tell me as a judge what I am weighing the debate on and bring evidence to the round. If you are unable to do so, then my general stance of how I judge is on the quality of evidence that both sides are bringing to the round.

In terms of actual speeches, it is important for everyone to understand what the issues and topics are, so speed may not be a benefit if I have to tell you to slow down.

Joel Lemuel - CSUN

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.

Kiana Shah - SDSU

n/a

Kim Perigo - SD Mesa

I have been competing and coaching debate for 24 years.

I view debate as, first and foremost, an educational activity designed to help students develop their argumentation, critical thinking, and public speaking skills. Debate offers a unique environment for learning through structured advocacy, listening, and respectful engagement with opposing ideas. While competitive success can motivate excellence, I believe the primary value of debate lies in its ability to foster intellectual growth, civic engagement, and effective and appropriate communication. I reward debaters who demonstrate clear organization, sound reasoning, effective persuasion, and professionalism in delivery. Decorum, clarity, and responsiveness are essential elements of successful debating.

In alignment with recent PSCFA initiatives, I support efforts to return debate to a more educational and accessible format. While I am open to all forms of arguments, I do not reward excessive speed, generic arguments detached from the specific wording of 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 accessible, 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.

I am open to any arguments but ask you link to your topic/voting criterion. I believe in presumption and will hold the Government accountable to meeting their burden of proof. I will not intervene in the flow unless you are not being truthful or ethical. Don't assume I understand your chosen organization pattern. I have no idea what to do with "little a"--tell me if it is a harm, internal link, impact, etc. Label! Label! Label! and have fun! :)

Kyle Landrum - Chico State

n/a

Lizbeth Garcia - ULV

n/a

Lynzie Hinman - Fullerton College

n/a

Madison Gillen - Chico State

n/a

Maria Ceballos Paz - NWC

n/a

Mary Joseph - ASU

n/a

Mikayla Holzinger - ULV

n/a

Phillip Leavenworth - SDSU

n/a

Rafael Fogo-Schensul - Chico State

n/a

Rhiannon Lewis - CSULB

I am primarily a speech judge, however I can and will flow the debate. I teach public speaking and argumentation, so I like when you speak with clarity and provide clear warrants for your claims. Explain to me why your argument is stronger than your opponents'. Don't mumble, and don't speed. It is your job to tell me who I should vote for and why. If you choose to not engage with certain arguments, please make sure you make it clear to me why you are doing so. Organization and verbal signposting will make my job easier too, and it is your job as the speaker to ensure I understand you.

Please time yourselves, and have fun!

Samantha Becker - NWC

I have been judging debate since 2021, although this is my first year at Phi Rho Pi. I believe that as competitors, and as humans, we should be striving for excellence. This is my first judging criteria. Excellence in debate includes the absence of filler words, staying within the time limit, and strong arguments (which include factual evidence and good logic). The more excellent your presentation, the more points allotted to you.

Persuasion is my second judging criteria. Who in the debate persuaded me that their stance is correct? Persuade me by using clear and concise language, factual and credible arguments, and a respectful demeanor toward your opponent. If you are rude, or attack your opponent in any personal way, I will take points away. We are all humans trying our best to strive for excellence, so please treat your opponent the way you would like to be treated.

My last criteria is rebuttal. If you are able to acknowledge all of your opponents arguments and successfully answer them, you are likely to win the round. This means you have strong arguments and have thought your stance all the way through to the end results.

Sarah Walker - NAU

Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University

Altogether, I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary Debate.


I have a strong background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed, technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however, I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier judge.

Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c) Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make your arguments clear.

2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items

(a) I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy, not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b) When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those dropped args.
(d) Evidence is evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat. Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan, rather than simply insisting that it can be done.

3) Clipping Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a decision after the review. While I understand why other people proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.

4) Topicality debates: If you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the interpretations of the T.

5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.

Shaylyn Scheer - ASU

n/a