Background:

I debated 4 years of NPDA parli in college for CSULB. I have since received my M.A. in Spanish, and am currently a Global Studies PHD candidate at UCSB. I have been out of the circuit for a while, but I think parli is a very important form of debate and I care a lot about equity and access within it.

General:

I am pretty rusty with speed, and I will call slow/clear if I can’t understand you. Please put all your texts for plans, CPs, interps, ROTBs, and alt texts in the chat, and say them slowly. Please take at least one POI in your speech. I like it when teams are respectful, substantive, and engaging. In general, I believe the debaters in the room are the ones who should decide what the debate should look like, and my defaults/preferences are not hard and fast if you decide to argue otherwise .

Case:

Weighing and signposting are very important to me.

I am comfortable with all counterplans and see perms as a test of competition.

Theory:

I think I have a higher threshold for theory than most judges on the circuit, and I am not a huge fan of generic and blippy theory shells. I really dislike theory that discards entire forms of debate such as Ks bad theory. I will vote on whatever layer you tell me to vote on, but I will be much happier evaluating a case or K debate. I default to competing interpretations and am not a huge fan of RVIs.

Kritiks:

I love Ks and have debated them a lot. While I am not up to date on circuit preferences and arguments, I am pretty open minded about kritikal debate. I am widely familiar with most K literature, but please err on the side of caution and be accessible to both me and your opponents with your arguments. I personally prefer materialist arguments, but I am okay with any literature as long as your alt text is clear and your solvency is coherent. Please be especially slow and clear when reading a K, it’s been a while since I have evaluated kritikal debate.

Truth v. Tech:

I won’t Google or verify your claims, and I don’t vote for unwarranted arguments. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but I am very willing to intervene against exclusionary and problematic (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc) arguments.

I believe debate is an important place to discuss real world issues and I am very supportive of debaters centering their experiences in the arguments they read. However, I ask debaters to remain cautious of reading arguments that are reliant on their identity, particularly when it involves making assumptions about your opponents identity. I support every debater's survival strategy and understand that these arguments can be necessary to read, but ask that debaters be explicit in providing me a framework with which to evaluate these arguments and experiences when doing so.

Speaker Points:

I will generally give around 27.5-28.5 points and won’t go lower unless you are rude or exclusionary.

I am a parent judge and this is my 5th year judging for PF. I am comfortable with medium pace of talking. Please state clearly whether you speaking for Aff or Neg, introduce yourself and debate! I do like a civilized and respectful debate no matter how cut throat your competition is.

Good luck and enjoy!

George Bernard Shaw said, "those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

I've never debated, but I do have many years of teaching experience at the college level and I'm used to students arguing in front of me and with me, though usually about their grades. I've also been a volunteer debate coach and I've judged countless tournaments. I'm a big fan of debate because I've seen how debaters often become outstanding college students when they come to college with critical thinking, speaking, and writing skills. And they know how to use evidence to build an argument.

Here are some things I look for in debate:

1) Don't make it hard for me to flow your case. Be clear about contentions, subpoints, and taglines.

2) Don't spread. If I can't follow you, I can't flow.

3) I like cross-ex that is a courteous, intellectual clash, so this is where you can get the bonus speaker points.

4) I like evidence and want to know which card you're citing, especially in PF and Policy.

5) I weigh links and impact, so tie your criterion (in LD) and argument into a nice, neat package for me to admire.

And a few of my quirks:

1) If you're in PF or Policy, be considerate and don't speak loudly when the other side is speaking -- pass notes or whisper to your partner instead.

2) I don't like to shake hands. 

Most of all, show me how passionate you are about debate, and let's have a great round!

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

I debated for 3 years in high school. 1 of these years I spent debating Policy, the other 2 I debated PF. I have judged for the past year.

I am a tabula rosa judge. Impact calc weighs highly in the round for me. I am perfectly fine with speed as long as there is clarity. Tag teaming is fine as long as you don't steamroll your partner. 

Cards-If you want me to evaluate your evidence you Affirmative's must have clear extension of the evidence by author and preferably date as well in the 1AR AND the 2AR. Negative's must do the same thing from the block to the 2NR.

Counterplans-I tend to err negative on a lot of theoretical counterplan objections such as (dispo, PICs, and condo), but I will vote on these issues with an in round abuse story and good impact calculus on theory. Affirmatives will have to strategically invest time for me to vote on counterplan theory.

Kritik-I do not have a problem with them. Specific link analysis will help you earn my ballot. I despise overviews that are over 90 seconds. I think that the alternative must be explained for me to vote for the criticism. If there is no a criticism, the negative should justify their lack of a solvency advocate for explain why the status quo solves. tend to need more explanation of the link/alternative/perm interaction for you to earn my ballot. I tend to need more explanation of the link/alternative/perm interaction for you to earn my ballot.

For LD I look for a strong value/criterion that is established and clearly connected to the contentions. I also like it when a debater attacks the opponents V/C, but also shows how their case achieves it. Clear clash and overview is important. 

I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.

My Preferred Pronouns: she/her

For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.(You do not have to stand during grand crossfire in PF- this is the only exception).

Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not. I will write feedback on the ballot though, including an RFD and other relevant information for you to read. I am a flow judge. Keep that in mind and try not to drop things on the flow.



LD

For novices:

I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.

For Varsity:

Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.

I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.



Public Forum

Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.

Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. If I do not hear an author/date, I typically just write "blah blah" or "no source" on the flow, since I assume you are saying it yourself and it is not coming from a source. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials. Do not drop things on the flow. As a flow judge, that means if you drop something, you agree with it.




Policy

I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)

Parli


Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.