Cal Lutheran University
2019 — Thousand Oaks, CA/US
George Achy Paradigm
Anthony Agama Paradigm
Joseph Apresa Paradigm
Bridget Aragon Paradigm
Claudia Avendano Paradigm
James Benga Paradigm
Kirk Carter Paradigm
David Chamberlain Paradigm
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.
In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.
In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.
In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".
Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.
Brady Connell Paradigm
Maggie Constantino Paradigm
Marissa Contreras Paradigm
Michael Dauber Paradigm
Michael Daugherty Paradigm
I am currently the assistant debate coach for Claremont High School. I have been judging and coaching on and off for the last 8 years since I graduated from high school. In high school I primarily did circuit LD but also did parliamentary debate making it to the semi finals of the NPDL TOC. My background is in science so I will more often than not need extra explanation for philosophical arguments, that doesnt mean I wont vote on them but I am less likely to vote on underdeveloped arguments or simply off a tagline. Also, coming from LD i believe that the framework debate is very important in setting up how the judge should evaluate arguments. Absent of any framework I will resort to net benefits. I have no issues with either theory or Ks, but prefer debates to be accessible to both debaters. For example, I have no issues with flowing speed but if you are spreading simply because you think it will prevent your opponent from responding I will dock your speaks and assume you were too afraid to debate the actual topic at hand. The same should apply to theory and critical arguments, if you are using these arguments because they have a legitimate educational, or otherwise (fairness, preventing harms, etc.,) purpose in the round I have no problem voting off of them.
Tiffany De La Cruz Paradigm
Lauren Dembo Paradigm
Jennifer Dominitz Paradigm
I’m a parent flay judge. I appreciate clear structure and signposting for speeches so I know where I am on the flow.
I have a preference for clear, plain language (not too much debate jargon) spoken at a speed where I can understand it.
Joy Ferrante Paradigm
Iliana Figueroa Paradigm
David Finnigan Paradigm
Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.
Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)
Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.
I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.
Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.
Above all, have fun.
Susan Foley Paradigm
I have been a coach for 7 years at Campbell Hall School in California. I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.
- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)
- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")
- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus
Things that are important for me:
- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)
I do not want you to:
- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document
- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction
- be rude/condescending/curt in CX
I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.
Michael Gam Paradigm
Deborah Gerber Paradigm
Jay Gerber Paradigm
Dean Gerstein Paradigm
Flowy debate judge. Values concise and orderly substantive clash (on warrants, links, and impacts), good time management, consistent strategy, effective use of cross ex, and signposting. Mostly tabula rasa but dings for gross fantasy and adds points for good argumentative use of accurate knowledge of real world. No speaks given for extensive use of debate jargon. Spreading fine as long as the diction is crystalline.
Kayla Gonzalez Paradigm
Carol Goodman Paradigm
Kathy Graber Paradigm
Bradley Grossman Paradigm
- Defense is not sticky
- You must extend. If an argument isn’t extended, it is off my flow.
- Everything said in Final Focus must be mentioned in summary.
- Ask good questions in cross. A good question is WHY?
- For framework you can read it but don’t spend time on it unless it is very different from your opponent’s.
- You can give me an off time roadmap if the tournament allows it
- DON’T SPREAD. Anything that is spread I will not flow.
- I won’t understand theory unless it is something really abusive. Run at your own risk.
- Disclosure theory is dumb
- Be clear when speaking
- Be cool about evidence. Don’t miscut it.
- Have your evidence organized and find it quickly if someone calls for it.
- It’s really obvious if you’re making stuff up so just don’t.
- If you have any other questions, ask before the round
Liangyi Gu Paradigm
Chris Horvath Paradigm
Nicola Kerner Paradigm
Jennifer Kindred Paradigm
Lee LaVanway Paradigm
Alexis Lake Paradigm
David Lake Paradigm
Iain Lampert Paradigm
I realized my old paradigm had a bunch of outdated stuff. This is an update. As of January 2020, I've squirreled in 15-20% of outrounds.
Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand. Debate as a whole may be never able to reconcile issues of access and elitism, but you as an individual debater can try not to actively perpetuate it.
I've watched just about every national debate final round in the NSDA's vault and a fair number of TOC outrounds in CX, LD, and PF. I understand PF pretty well.
Cross-examination should be used to clarify your narrative of the round and clean up any misconceptions about each other's arguments. A hyper-confrontational cross-ex is a waste of time and I'll tune it out.
If you're going to spread anything, I need to be on the email chain. I will assume that the sounds coming from your mouth symbolize the words in that document.
If you're talking fast but not spread-level, slow down for the stuff you really want me to flow. Emphasize it. Sometimes you're reading some card details and all that matters is a sentence or so. If you're leaving out some details, it's up to your opponent to make it clear and show why it matters.
If given the choice between something fast and something slow, I like something slow, but only if it's structured and still follows the basic tenets of debate (references to framework, uniqueness-link-impact, etc.). Some folks have confused 'slow' for 'speak pretty instead of having warrants.'
Make things really obvious. I don't know the material as well as you. You're really likely to lose my ballot when you thought you were winning if you assume that I know as much about the source material as you.
Be careful of powertagging. I called for a couple of crucial cards every round at TOC. Just about every card I called for was powertagged. When I didn't give that misrepresented evidence the weight the debaters hoped for, it often was determinative of my final decision.
When it comes to case debate, I'm biased towards voting for marginal net benefits and against high-magnitude, low-probability arguments. If explaining the link story to my non-debate colleagues would likely raise some eyebrows--if it doesn't pass the 'smell test'--you might not want to run it in front of me. That doesn't mean kick ALL nuke war impacts...just make a rock-solid link story so I'm at least convinced of its MODERATE probability.
I'm somewhat familiar with Kritiks that deal with antiblackness, feminism, capitalism, queer theory, biopower, and securitization. If a Kritik doesn't persuade me of its solvency, I have a very hard time voting for it.
I'm not a completely blank-slate judge. If something is glaringly incorrect, it's not like I'll ignore the argument entirely, but I'll probably do some subconscious work to diminish its weight in the round. I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. I wouldn't call myself tech over truth. At the same time, I don't know if a capital-T 'truth' is out there and I don't expect that my internal understanding of what's 'true' is the same as yours, so I can't confidently say I'm 'truth over tech.' Both matter.
Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I mess up. I like subpoints but I've found that a lot of mid-level debaters will start out referencing subpoints and then just start...like, saying words...in the back half of the round.
Don't tell me to cross-reference different points without doing your own work and telling me how the arguments interact.
Defense is normally sticky. Offense normally needs to be extended. I am unlikely to vote on an argument if it wasn't in the last set of speeches in the round, but never say never. If things are confusing enough, who knows what I'll do? I'm a loose cannon with an axe to grind and nothing to lose.
I believe in the "affirmative burden of proof" in LD and Parli. The AFF gets the privilege of having the last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If debaters argue to a draw, then I tend to "default NEG." This is not true in PF.
For a while, my speaker points were just based on rhetorical presence and fluency. Now, I find it difficult to disregard your strategic choices when calculating speaker points. I think that I'm still more sensitive to rudeness and disproportionate indignation than some other judges on the circuit.
Sarah Lazzaro Paradigm
Lily Liu Paradigm
I prefer an old-fashioned, substantive policy debate; the more detailed and nuanced a plan is, the better.
No spreading, no jargon, no Ks, and minimal theory. Stay away from the abstract and stick to tangible, real-world impacts.
Don't link to nuclear war unless you have a Pentagon threat assessment to definitively back it up.
Demonstrate sound public speaking skills. Show good sportsmanship and exude decorum.
Proper fluency, carefully crafted rhetoric, effective use of pauses, and oratorical delivery will all contribute to high speaker points. Alternatively, any infactual information will tank them.
Rosemary Mahtawossian Paradigm
Laurette Maya Paradigm
Trish Morton Paradigm
Trish Morton Paradigm
Garrett Mueller Paradigm
Emily Murillo Paradigm
Phuong NgoHazelett Paradigm
Aaron Nichols Paradigm
I've assistant coached for 11 years mainly as an IE coach.
In terms of debate the school I coach for mainly runs Public Forum and Parli, but I have judged many rounds of LD.
I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.
I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.
If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.
I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.
I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!
Voters and voting issues in final focus and rebuttals in key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.
These events are my jam. :)
Dean Nishimura Paradigm
Sung Pak Paradigm
Carlos Pelayo Paradigm
Alex Pena Paradigm
Ruben Perez Paradigm
Jenifer Ramos Paradigm
Megan Rayzor Paradigm
Robert Ronne Paradigm
Bryan Ruano Paradigm
Steve Schmidt Paradigm
Craig Silvers Paradigm
Chandrakant Sontakke Paradigm
Bryan Sosa Paradigm
Joanne Stowitts Paradigm
Mark Stowitts Paradigm
Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA
I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for four years, judging it for nine. I like it.
Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in someone using technicalities to tell me why LD or the resolution is pointless. Engage in an argument with the other person's contentions. Don't try to steal the ground of the debate.
I don't disclose decisions or speaker points, though I will give some comments if it is within the tournament norms and you have specific questions.
In more depth:
Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need to spread to win. If you do need to spread to win, you'll probably lose with me anyhow. Good debating should be good public speaking: spreading (staring at a computer screen, gulping air and spitting out words with barely intelligible diction, with no connection to the audience) isn't. Also, it's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear" when you are speaking, and I am certainly not interested in seeing your case. I will flow the debate to some degree, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just covering the flow. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing. I'll try to listen as best I can. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.
Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies.
Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. I will give you the decision, but lower your speaker points if you are rude or antagonistic. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.
Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.
Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to LD. If you want to debate using Policy methods, get a partner and debate Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges LD rules and norms is just overly clever students playing games or showing how they know the jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart.
That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, harms) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept other theory if you are both versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.
Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and most I've seen did not offer alternative or good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. Biopower, capitalism, racism, gendered language, false binaries - I've seen them and generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" I can't think of a good answer for that question.
Other: A "performance" case will lose with me, no matter what. They are a waste of everyone's time. If all you can do is pathos, you deserve to lose. Try OPP
Jill Teehan Paradigm
Mati Timor Paradigm
Anna Valencia Paradigm
John Walburg Paradigm
Robert Walters Paradigm
Mandy Wang Paradigm
Clark Wilson Paradigm
I am currently the head coach for Carter High School. Our team excels in speech events, so that is where most of my expertise is, but I also have extensive experience in coaching Public Forum, Congress, and Lincoln Douglas.
My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round.
Just because I coach debate, don’t assume I know all of your terminology you learned in camp this summer; it’s definitely worth your time to make sure you explain your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. Keep me focused on your tactics and argument and not trying to figure out your fancy debate vocabulary.
The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions.
A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.
I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t.
I am old-school when it comes to LD. I don’t expect, nor do I respond well to, spreading. As a coach, I don’t see the real-world value in talking as fast you can. If your strategy is to be incoherent so your opponent drops contentions, know that I will absolutely drop contentions as well. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.
In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans, but I am convinced this is not good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
I don’t typically enjoy Theory debates. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. In rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.
I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.
Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.
Lastly, don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill, but be nice about it. I won’t respond well to any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, though. I want to be entertained and I often respond well to tasteful sarcasm.
Susan Xiao Paradigm
I do not appreciate spreading.