My priority is communication. I have to be able to understand you, so I would prefer it if you not spread. If not, I have a tendency to disengage. Clarity is key!

Effective claims and evidence not only supplies your own side, but works as a counterattack against your opponent's case. Recency and evidence source will also be considered for any potential bias, implicit or explicit. Be mindful of dropped contentions: any arguments left unanswered will flow through. It is your responsibility to ensure that your case aligns with any provided value criterion. If offering a differing weighing mechanism, be sure to explain why yours should take precedence instead.

That being said, not all arguments ought to be weighed equally when using said criterion. What might be the financial burden and which population would be affected the most? Will this solution be able to work in the short-term and the long-term? Of these includes-but-not-limited-to example questions, there has to be a bottom line. Why does yours matter the most?

I look forward to hearing your well-researched and well-delivered cases. Good luck!

I have competitive debate experience in both NPDA and British Parliamentary (BP) styles at the Community College and University levels. As a debater, I have passed the break at several tournaments, advanced to finals twice, and took first overall with my partner once. I have judging experience both while on a competitive debate team and, now, as a volunteer (NPDA, BP, LD).

First and foremost, debate is not about being "right," but finding truth. It is a fast-paced, fun, and very expressive activity. Keep your speeches professional and do not make it or take it personally. This is not an activity for people who have thin skin or are not receptive to criticism. Admire those with skills greater than your own and learn from them. Some of my favorite and most memorable rounds are also some of the rounds where I was rhetorically annihilated.

Speak audibly...spreading will get you nowhere. If I cannot understand you, then I cannot give you any credit for your arguments. It's as if they don't exist. Two or three strong points are better than fifty-three weak ones.

Attack the arguments, not the person giving them. Also, don't simply say that an argument is "dumb." Deconstruct it and convince me of that without showing that laziness. This is directed more at the High School debaters.

Be friendly. This is debate, not football. We're here to learn from each other - not be jerks to each other.

ROADMAP!!

RESOLUTION ANALYSIS!!

SIGNPOST!!

POINT - ARGUMENT - EVIDENCE!!

If you're going to combine your refutation and new material...say that at the start.

HAVE FUN!!

Multifaceted Technology Leader held positions responsible for the design and Implementation of information technology solutions and Program Management Governance for Information Services at Delivery for Global customers with global teams. Progressively grown with responsibilities on service delivery in companies with global teams with emerging technology solutions for solving complex mission critical business problems in number of key industries (Viz; Manufacturing Industrial Automation, Retail, Health, Financial and Process Automation, SAAS solutions, software product engineering). Driven pre-sale and sale technical and business discussions winning the projects and established global service delivery teams. Governed service execution, quality, schedule and established winning global service delivery models. Technology Consultant with blended Business, Product Development and Management experience over twenty years of delivering differentiated outcomes with large global teams. Worked seamlessly with business, executives, engineering, product development, infrastructure and management and practiced effective communication means to collaborate and produce solutions that helped business grow, sustain the satisfaction of customers. Spear headed the Advanced Solutions, Product Development, Engineering and management of technology solutions to leading Technology driven product, ISV, on-line, Saas, Hi-tech solution offering customers.

Leader in Non-Profit Volunteer Organization like San Diego Blood Bank, Mass Literacy Campaign, Public Education and Women Empowerment. Looking for opportunities to serve as Volunteer Leader, Board Member, Awarded for Product Innovation in Intuit by Governor of State of CA, USA

I like anime

A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are easy to understand and supported with evidence. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.

I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.

This Paradigm is mostly for Parli Debate I have additional LD stuff at the end, so skip to that if it's LD, if you have questions, just ask

TL;DR: Dont spread your opponents out, Theory and K are accepted, and I love good logical weighing and impact weighing. Above all else, please be respectful to your opponents.

Background:

I debated for four years at Crescenta Valley High School mainly in Parli Debate but also competed in Congress, LD, and Policy often. I now do BP at USC and study Industrial and Systems Engineering.

Most Important:

I really like logic based arguments. I tend to way rebuttal a little bit more than other judges because I love it if you can take down your opponent's argument with a creative but clear argument. Overall though, it is parli so I will default to net benefits when judging unless you tell me a different weighting mechanism. So please, tell me why your impacts outweigh. This is crucial. Tell me why your impact is more important than your opponents. And please, terminalize impacts and have a good link chain

Theory:

I like theory debates, but please don't run theory for the sake of running theory

Make your abuse clear and impact them out, why is it so important that I vote on the theory

It should be specific to the round currently, don't just run some generic bs that you just found online

I usually do not take RVI's unless it is clear that if offers a clear time skew that because you had to argue against the theory and the RVI is well laid out.

Kritiks:

I generally did not run many Kritiks in high school, but I am okay to listening to them, just don't go too fast.

However, I generally am less inclined to vote for Ks especially if they: have generic links, spread out your opponent, or it's something that makes absolutely no sense

Also: SIGNPOST

Counterplans:

Counterplans are awesome, run them as much as you like. I prefer unconditional counterplans, but you can run condo plans if you wish. However, if the opponent runs a semblance of decent condo theory against you, then i'll probably default condo bad. However, personally, condo isn't that big of a voting issue

Presentation:

Speed: I prefer slower debates so I'm not bombarded with a bunch of information, but I'm totally fine with spreading unless your opponents can't understand it

Tag-Teaming is allowed, unless the tournament specifically forbids it, but just do not completely control your partner and essentially dictate their speech for them.

POI: I dont flow them specifically, but I will remember it if it was an exceptional question.

Humor and charisma is good

Please dont troll or have personal attacks against your opponent, aka dont be an ass

Value and Fact Rounds

For fact rounds, I default on the criterion of logic which will be mostly based on the coherence of your points, the rigor of your arguments, and the relevance of your examples. Unless of course a team creates another framework.

For Value rounds: I judge based on which value is best upheld. If there are two conflicting values on either team, then I will prefer a team that can show me how they are upholding both values. If neither team does this, then I will vote on which value has been best defended as more pertinent or important. If there is one value, then I will see which side best upholds the value.

LD

Most of the stuff is pretty similar as with Parli, like my preferences on Ks, Spreading, Theory, CPs but here are a few specifics

Framework:

I love framework but make sure that it is something that I can understand. If you run some super complicated framework I will not give you the benefit of the doubt. In essence, if your framework is filled with philosophical theory, explain it clearly.

Speed:

For LD especially, slow down during your taglines and your value/vc.

Non traditional Cases:

Honestly, I would prefer debates on the topic at hand, just because it is more enjoyable personally. However, I won't dock you for running anything non-traditional. I don't have a huge knowledge library of complicated philosophical theory so make sure it is something I can understand with your explanation

DA:
DAs are fun, just structure them correctly, make sure they actually apply specifically to the aff case.

I have close to 40 years judging debate in every format, and was a policy debater in college. Thus I understand how to flow and how to listen. I appreciate analysis and encourage debaters to draw out inferences and applications. I do not work for the debater - thus enthymemes will have little impact. I will adjudicate what I can flow, but I will not fill in blanks - if not signposted, previewed, reviewed and applied by the debater, it doesn't happen in my decision making. I applaud advanced debaters who help less-talented opponents follow by using good tags and clear organization. Pet peeves: asking negative questions in C-X -- i.e. Question: "Don't you agree....?" Answer: "Yes, I don't agree." Ask straight up questions: "Do you agree....?" Going so fast you spit. Rudeness. Lot's of reasons to make a mistake, never a reason to be rude. If I took my principal with me to judge you, and your performance would cause her to question the value of continued funding of a debate program, you will be in deep trouble on my ballot. I like to hear debate about the topic issues and inferences, not about debate, so save your meta-debate for your graduate theses. Your evidence must be impeccable, but the use, application and inferences drawn from that evidence is the great stuff of debate. I also enjoy debaters who can do more than debate across the flow, but also understand the power of debating "up and down" the flow. If you need help figuring that out, that's what coaches are for.