Cal Lutheran University
2019 — Thousand Oaks, CA/US
George Achy Paradigm
Dakota Allen Paradigm
As an experienced edebater who splecialized in Public Forum, I like evaluating a round based on key arguments, stock issues and impacts. Contentions should be clear, concise, and supported by evidence when applicable. Speeches should be organized and coherent. Courtesy is also key, which includes the avoidance of yelling or spreading. Overall, I like to see speakers who know what they're doing, are comfortable, and having fun.
Drew Ashlock Paradigm
Yo whaddup I'm Drew. Currently captain of the West Ranch High School Speech and Debate team. I've got experience in I.E.'s and experience in LD and Parli both at a technical and at a traditional level. I went to Parli TOC and have qualed for CHSSA state champs in both Parli and Impromptu. If you have questions about things not listed here email me at email@example.com for any further questions. Id be happy to answer.
TL:DR: If you both want a lay round, cool I'll evaluate like a lay round. But if either of you want to go tech, im game. Completely tech over truth. I'll vote on anything. Like anything as long as it isn't blatantly racist, homophobic, or sexist. For LD just send your speech docs to me cause although im game for spreading ive got a pretty bad ear for it.
Speed: Speed is fine in both parli and LD for me. Obviously LD speed is significantly faster cause its carded evidence you are reading from so Id very much appreciate it if you sent me the speech doc. For the most part though you can zoom through evidence just slow down on taglines and say your plan text and interps twice. Same goes for parli. That being said, if your opponent is ultra trad and can't keep up make sure to take ultra POIs for parli and for LD make sure to send them the speech docs and be kind in CX. If I need you to clear up, I will yell clear.
Theory: Im game for pretty much everything on Theory. JUST PLEASE FOR PARLI READ YOUR INTERP TWICE. PLEASE. Often times I flow parli rounds and get everything but the interp because the kid was incoherently spreading through the first part. Make sure to link your standards down to whatever voters you are running though. If you are saying fairness comes first, thats rad, just tell me how whatever your standard is that they are violating specifically links to fairness. On the issue of voters, I default competing interps and no RVI but that is easily subject to change depending on how the round goes. If for some reason I do end up being forced to vote on reasonability, Im very receptive to disclosure good, Nebel, PICS bad, and Condo bad. I also default weighing theory before everything. If your opponent is running theory, and doesn't explicitly state that their shells are a priori, dont expect to auto win on them by saying weigh theory against case in the next speech. That being said, if you say weigh theory against case, and they don't respond, then I'll do as you say.
Kritiks: Like I said, open to anything. Aff or Neg I dont really care tbh. I will tell you this though: I have never been a huge K debater myself. That means im not ultra familiar with the lit. Basic stuff like Cap, Security, Neolib I know but if you are running something obscure you better explain it well. Also parli kids i know you dont have to cite evidence but at least reference who founded the ideology. YOU ARE NOT DELUZE DONT ACT LIKE YOU ARE. Other than that just read your alt text twice and be clear on alt solvency and internal links. Also I weigh theory before K unless told otherwise but you probs got that from the theory section.
CP: Cp's are a solid neg strat in some good ole larp debate. Just pls pls pls make sure it is competitive. I hate when a non competitive CP gets run cause then 99% of the time the round just comes down to whether or not I buy the perm. Even if it is a PIC or a delay CP or agent CP just do something that means the Aff doesn't have access. That being said, if Im voting reasonability I will most likely drop those CPs listed above. Just make sure to read some good ole CP text and explicitly outline how it doesn't link into your DA's, how it solves for the AC, and its own net benefits.
DA's and Advantages: Yeah they are cool. Im always down for some good ole Larping. Just give me uniqueness impact solvency with some links in between for advantages and squo link impact for DA and we have ourselves a good time.
Impact Calc: Make sure to do this in the final speech, especially if both sides have offense left. Weigh mainly on magnitude, scope, timeframe and reversibility. If one of your impacts is heavy on any of those, then tell me why that is the most important component of calculation. Otherwise I default magnitude.
Rebuttals: Turns are always optimal. That being said they are hard to do in certain cases. The more you can make offensive rebuttals the better.
Spikes, Truth Testing, Tricks in general: YEET. I love running these, and would love to hear them. That being said they are very susceptible to theory and Kritiks so watch out my dudes.
Speaks: I don't really give speaker points off of how well you spoke. And I also don't really give below 27 speaker points unless you are either repugnant in round or just a debater who needs to work on a lot. That being said, I also dont give 30 speaks unless you either blow me out of the water with how incredible your skills are, have built an extremely intricate and beautiful case, make me laugh in round, or bring me a donut.
LD specifics: I don't flow CX. Just use it as a time to clarify stuff for you and your opponent. Also, be sure to collapse to something. Pls don't try to go for everything on the flow in the 2AR cause then it turns into a big ugly mess. Also if you want to get into a "whose source is more valid debate" pls don't because its dumb but if you for some reason YOU HAVE TO then give me solid reasons why to prefer your source.
Parli specifics: I have no issue with tag teaming. Just make sure if it is your speech that you say whatever your partner tells you to say. Also be courteous and take at least 1-2 POIS per speech. Use POO's wisely. I will protect the flow for the most part but if I miss something you need to be there to catch it.
Other than that, have fun guys. Debate is a phenomenal game to play and an even better community to be a part of.
Isabel Barbee Paradigm
Keiko Cristiano Paradigm
Kleya Dhenin Paradigm
Ashland High School 2017
California Lutheran 2021
TLDR; Tab judges don't exist, so I'm NOT tab, but I will listen to any argument and evaluate it. Debated policy in high school, do college parli at Cal Lutheran now.
I am a grad of a relatively small program in Southern Oregon with four years of policy and circuit PF experience. I am now doing NPDA for California Lutheran University. Last year, my partner and I placed in the top 32 at NPDA. I have done every style of debate, so I am ready to listen to anything. For my first year and a half of debate, I was relatively traditional (politics every round and straight up affs), but I became increasingly progressive as my career progressed (i.e. I ran critical race theory on the PF circuit).
Kritiks: I'm familiar with most and can comprehend anything. Structure is very important to me here because it is very easy to get bogged down in a poorly structured K debate. If you're reading something kritikal, please explain your K whether I know it or not. If you can't explain your K, I'm probably not going to be super compelled by it. I am a firm believer that debate should be accessible to everyone, which means that your poorly articulated BwO arguments will lose to me every time (especially if you can't answer questions about it). All that being said, I was the kid that read genealogical interrogations in PF, so I will be happy with just about anything.
CPs: AFF has to read a perm. It takes less time to say "perm: do both" than it will take your opponent to respond no matter their WPM. CPs should have solvency to be compelling. I'll listen to any CP even if I think it is cheaty.
Theory: I love a good theory debate. Make sure you have all parts of a shell and give me reasons why the T matters. If you're answering theory, I prefer line by line down the shell than a blanket response. I don't think RVIs are the best strategy against theory, but I am willing to listen to and vote on them if you the teams feel it is necessary.
DAs: Before reading the DA you are considering, ask yourself "does this make sense?" If the answer is no, try again. As long as you can articulate uniqueness, links, internals, and impacts, the DA should make sense. I have heard and voted on some out there DAs, but my threshold for explanation remains high here.
Speaker Points: I think they are useless, but I will assign them as the tournament requires. 30 speaks theory takes 10 seconds... do with that what you will.
Everything else: Give me solid impacts and tell me why you're winning. Good impact calc is the fastest path to my ballot. I am fine with any speed and can flow whatever. I recognize that CX is binding, and while I pay attention, I don't flow, so say it in a speech if you want it on my flow.
My general philosophy is that debate should be accessible and equitable. That means a couple of things that could help or hurt you. For one, I am receptive to arguments with an impact in the debate space. It also means I am sensitive to things like gendered language, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. I believe that you should not run an argument that you are not passionate about, and likewise that if you are passionate about something that you should run it no matter how strong your coach thinks it is.
If you have questions, please ask in round!
If I judged you and you have more questions for me that you didn't get to ask in round, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I will do my best to get back to you before your next tournament with anything that might help you, and I am happy to send you my flows if you think they will be helpful to you.
Kaijun Ding Paradigm
Ryan Factora 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.
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.
Steven Gill Paradigm
I am a former high school LD, PuFo, and Parli debater, I also did Parli in college and am a member of Pi Kappa Delta. I have a BA Degree in Sociology with minors in History, Political Science, and Economics. I also coach debate at my former high school and for Simposn College I am currently in a Masters of Arts in Teaching program.
I have been involved in speech and debate for 10 years on and off, and I am a mix of Tabula Rasa and Game judging. I am a flow heavy judge, so reefer back to the flow. Make my job as easy as possible tell me what's happening.
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Spreading- Don't care, read as fast or as slow as you want. I can hear and understand around 350-450 wpm, it honestly depends on my mood and attention that day, PLEASE ASK BEFORE ROUND STARTS!!
Signposting- VERY VERY IMPORTANT. Make my job as easy as possible tell me where you're at on the flow and where you're going, you have 15-30 sec for an off time road-map USE IT!!!
K's- Make sure you run them correctly, appropriately, and make sure they apply (Links Matter). You can K a K. Honestly it's your round just run it.
T's- same rule as K's
Theory- Love it, same rule as K's
Framework Debate- Love it, as a former LDer
Definitions Debate- Love it, once again as a former LDer
Voting issues- Very important, TELL ME WHY YOU WIN
Like I said I am TOTALLY open to anything, 100% Tabula Rasa and Game, whatever I have on my flow is what I use to decide who wins. Sometimes I make weird facial expressions just ignore them, I might be think about how and why i'm writing the way I am or thinking about my pens smooth writing, or anything weird so just ignore my face lol.
Side note: the most important part of this activity is the educational value YOU'RE getting out of this. NO MEME cases, and nothing stupid, I am on Discord and Reddit DAILY so I do know what's going on in the community. Stock issues are VERY important you should know them and refer back to them whenever possible. IF you can prove your opponents are de-valueing the education of the debate that's a big plus(On that note it is important to PROVE that they are de-valuing the education of the debate. DO NOT just tell me they are you MUST PROVE IT). I can't stress this enough DON'T make me do work for you, yes i know all about Kant and Marx and Butler and all the big-wig philosophers and I know how they link to everything but YOU must tell me explicitly your links AND your impacts, they are literally the most important thing in round don't forget to do some Impact Calc/weighing in round. Have fun though everyone, this is an amazing and rewarding activity and do your best. =)
Natalie Grant Paradigm
Kevin Kunes Paradigm
I judge based on the flow. Solid clash and preponderance of evidence is what really does It for me. Dropped arguments and unaddressed points are usually the deciding factors of my rounds but they need to be pointed out to be considered. A priori arguments and Kritiks usually don't work in PoFo so please don't stray from the topic just to derail the conversation. Spreading is frowned upon, but speak at whatever pace you want. If I cannot understand you I will let you know.
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.
Beth Lieberman Paradigm
Miles Morton Paradigm
no cap K
I default mag>prob>timeframe but idk
weigh or lose the round your choice
no 30 speaks theory
Eric Ni Paradigm
Tuan Phan Paradigm
David Phung Paradigm
Prashant Rao Paradigm
Jerome Robinson Paradigm
A. I hate spreading.
B. I appreciate good turns.
C. I judge you on 5 things.
Jane Shi Paradigm
Chandrakant Sontakke Paradigm
Atharva Sontakke Paradigm
Daryn Teague Paradigm
I was a national HS circuit debater in the 1980s (policy) and did a little coaching at the college level in policy as well. As a parent volunteer the last couple years, I’ve judged most events and genuinely enjoy these rounds . . . so have fun when you’re debating in front of me!
A few specifics/preferences:
* I start out with Tabula Rosa paradigm unless/until I’m persuaded to bring a different model to the debate. I’m open to all sorts of arguments, just make sure that you explain to me why something should be a voter — it’s not enough to win an arcane argument, it needs to make sense to me why it should win you the ballot.
* In spite of the above, I’m pre-disposed to treat the “stock issues” (especially Topicality) with reverence.
* I’m all about the flow. It’s not only the road map that I use to keep my brain organized throughout the debate, it’s also my record of the debate for post-round decision making. You’ll make things a lot easier on me (and therefore yourself) if you sign-post clearly before your constructives/rebuttals and make sure I stay on the same page with you during each speech.
* I’m comfortable with speed and will flow whatever I can hear. But one word of caution: I’m more impressed by smart arguments than I am by quantity of arguments.
* I’m old school when it comes to speaker points (let’s just say that 30s were a lot more rare in my day) but I’ll work hard to award them as close as I can to the current points scale. Fastest way to get dinged by me, though, is to be a jerk to other competitors — no matter how good you are. No excuse for rudeness.
* I like to call for evidence after rounds, from obscure definitions of terms in the resolution to cards buried in the middle of contentions. Don’t read anything into the stuff I ask to see, sometimes it’s crucial to my RFD and other times I’m just curious about a source citation.
Last thing to understand about my judging philosophy: I was away from debate for many years, so some of the progressive arguments (e.g., Kritiks) are new to me. I’m open to them, but just be forewarned that you’ll need to explain the theory of your argument and how I should weigh it in the round.
Competitive debate is awesome and will help you in every aspect of your academics, but it also teaches you skills that will be a competitive advantage for you in your professional careers. Have fun!
Daniel Timor 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.