Debating Experience:

      -Did Team Policy

      -Primary Debate Lincoln Douglas

      -Third Tournament judging

Speaker Points:

Speaker points will not affect decision at all. Although it may assist in getting the point accross me better, rounds should not be judged upon your proficiency as a speaker, but rather on whether of not the resolution has been proven or not.

Flowsheet:

Debates will be judged off the flow. However, you as the debater should tell me what I need to write down through emphasis or pauses. If everything within your speech is flat, if there is no variety and nothing stands out, you will find nothing on my flow.  

Speed: 

Only two words. Team. Policy.

Personal Notes: 

Although there is no true blank slate, a judge's bias is flexible. We can be convinced. Imagine that I am the most ignorant person in the room. You can convince me of anything so long as it has magnitude, it is feasible, or it happens within a reasonable time period. I should be pulled back and forth accross the debate, constantly changing my opinion. I don't consider myself the best of judges, but I am at least proficient so, although my personal vote in the debate might be against you, I will give you the best advice that I can provide in the hopes that you win the next round. Use the advice and adapt your case to it and you will become a more eloquent debater, both in speech and case. 

Flow judge, preference to impacts and real world application.

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

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.

*PLEASE READ FOLLOWING NOTICE: I have specific judging philosophies for the different styles of debate (Policy, ld, pofo, parli) For a full record of my judging history, please look for my other account by searching my full name, Mariela Garcia. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on this judge's page. I apologize for the inconvenience.*

General Information About Me

My speech and debate background:

I am currently an senior director for Advantage Communications, a leading speech and debate company that in 2023, had 60% of our students in out rounds at the NSDA championship. I have dedicated the past few years developing district programs in California and Illinois for affluent and Title 1 communities of various backgrounds. I train and advise staff, students, and families, while also creating curriculum with our team of experts. My students and teams are usually in the finals, if not champions. As a coach, I want students to challenge themselves to read material that they wouldn't otherwise read if they were not in this activity. My goal is to ensure all students feel empowered enough to use the stage to say something they truly care about OR that they feel is urgent. I also encourage my students to do at least one event in each category every year if their schedule allows so they stay well-rounded. I train coaches to ensure they bring out the best in students by engaging a growth mindset that keeps them both busy with goals rather than busy work. I work with students from all backgrounds, ethnicities, economic brackets, orientations, races, genders, etc. and it is my goal to ensure all my students feel that there is someone in their corner that is rooting for their success.

My Experience in Debate:

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history, given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments.

My Educational Experience:

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculum. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will lose the round.

My Debate Motto:

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below.

My Speech Motto:

Practice does not make perfect, only perfect practices makes progress. This means that you have to bring 100% of yourself OR communicate to your coach if you cannot do that at a practice because without full commitment, we cannot grow and improve at a steady pace. I believe that students are keenly aware of the world around them and they have a lot that they want to say to adults, so I encourage my students to read articles that will help them better express a message, argument, or idea because it is my job to ensure they sound astute on stage. As for acting, it is one of my passions that I am constantly working on improving so I can better teach my students. Impromptu and extemp are difficult events if you don't respect formulas, but if you take it as a coding project, you can create neuropathways that will easily help you during your prep time. I love to coach and I love to teach others how to coach students.

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD:

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take, especially if you aren't doing TOC or CA style debating. Remember that LD started off as a debate about morality, and not so much policy. If there is a plan, I expect you to provide solvency and the neg can counter with a CP. I will respect the type of debate category you enter and I will also respect arguments about the importance of keeping a distinction between LD and Policy. After all, I do believe that while many teams that experienced cuts to their budget have moved to LD to carry on their policy habits, it is also hurting the policy debate community and their budget when we bleed the two together. This doesn't mean we can't have a K in LD, I mean the criterion/value portion of LD welcomes the K, but it does mean that people DON'T have to have a plan but if they do, then you have the burden to prove it's probability and solvency.

Specificity is key. Don't put your judge in a position where they may need to intervene with their own thoughts or emotions, just prove your point thoroughly and make sure you do it in a way that can easily be flowed and explained. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence:

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.

Diplomacy:

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations(say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary:

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claimswith evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another.I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences:

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

I'm not a debater.  I judge to fulfill my obligation as a parent with a child on the debate team.  That said, I have been involved in the debate community for years.  If it gets on my flow, I will consider the argument.  The organized, debater who makes sound well articulated arguments will likely succeed.

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

TL;DR If you run Ks in anything other than LD, you probably want to strike me. If you run performances or non-topical Affs in any debate event, you definitely want to strike me.

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list several argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas Note: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.).

Style: Keep roadmaps short and off-time. I can’t handle TOC-level speed, but feel free to speak much faster with me than you would with any lay judge. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I have to do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using excessive speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on either. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Unlikely to vote for most, as it's hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework. I will not usually vote for kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them. If you’re blatantly using Ks to exclude debaters with a more traditional style, you’re going to lose.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

- I’ll disclose at every tournament where it’s allowed. If it’s not allowed, I’ll still give oral critiques after the round, if time permits. Whether I’m giving an RFD or not, don’t be afraid to challenge me on anything I say. We can’t learn if we can’t have a discussion.

Name: Sarah Osuna

I competed in LD on the Local and National Circuits for Citrus Valley High School in Redlands, CA from 2011-2015. I coached debate there a bit my senior year of high school too. I was fairly successful in high school, I have won and broken at multiple tournaments. I debated nationally and internationally for the University of La Verne from 2015-2019. I now do some private coaching, judging, and I go to the George Washington University pursuing my Masters.

TL;DR: Evaluate your impacts and do the work for me. Justify all arguments and explain to me how they work in the round. With sophisticated argumentation, make sure you understand the arguments you are running.

General Philosophy:

I evaluate things the way you tell me to in round. I do not want to have to do the work for you, please tell me how your arguments work against your opponents, and what they mean in the round. If there are no voting issues/standards for evaluating the debate, I default to examining who won which arguments and whether that means anything important. Debaters- tell me what you've won, why you've won it and how that means you've won the round.

Also- try not to be an asshole. I understand that a certain level of attitude and snark is enjoyable in round. I will not discredit women debaters for having attitude, because I feel like this activity holds a double standard- i.e. what is considered perceptualy dominant for men is considered being bitchy for women. That being said, do no be mean or rude to your opponent. When debating a novice or someone which you are clearly better than, there is a way to clearly win the debate without degrading your opponent. If you are an asshole, it does not mean you'll lose, but your speaks will suffer.

Framework:

When running stock issues, know the nuances and implications of the stock issues you're running. Its one thing to say that you're running the universal maxim, and another to understand how this functions in the round. The same is true for Util. That being said, I love innovative framework and standards. Think outside the box. I'm pretty open to anything you want to value as long as you can justify it. Valuing Justice because it's just, or the right thing to do is not the same as justification. Additionally, I'm not inclined to buy values of morality, without heavy justification as to why this should be valued. Please compare your framework to your opponents, and explain why you've won. Absent that, I will compare frameworks on my own and evaluate impacts based on the framework I've deemed better. So tell me why you've won your framework, or I'll evaluate it in a way you may not like.

Impacts:

link them back to your framework. Tell me what they mean inside the context of the round. Know the limits, brinks, and scope of your impacts. If you don't impact I'm not going to do it for you.

Theory:

I enjoy good theory. However, I see a lot of really bad theory. I generally tend to view theory as slightly whiny and a way to play a game rather than actually engage in an argument, value, and logic based debate. That being said, please make theory debates (should you choose to engage in them) clear and impact out voting issues. saying "voters- education- drop the debater" is not sufficient. I've seen a lot of 'small school' theory lately. I find it interesting, but also needs to be well warranted.

K's:

I like them. explain the link, brink and the alt, and again, tell me how it works in the round. A lot of times when questioned on the functionality of a K, many debaters do not know how it works. Do not run a K if you do not fully understand it, or if you did not write it yourself. It will be obvious.

DA's:

Run them, explain links clearly to the DAs, as well as inherency as to why your opponent links into them.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed (albeit, i have been out of the national circuit for a while), as long as you're clear. If you're not, I'll yell clear once. If you're still not clear, I'll yell slow once. Then I put my pen down. It's on you to make sure I get your arguments down.

Extensions:

saying "extend the (insert piece of evidence or argument)" and a brief description of said argument is enough to extend on the flow. However, just because an argument is extended does not mean it is impacted.

Voting issues:

I am a big fan of voting issues, you can have as many as you want (I have run 25 in the 2AR and won on all of them) but please make sure they are actual issues in the round. FRAMEWORK IS NOT A VOTER. it is a way in which to view arguments and impacts.

Prep time:

Utilize it the way you need to- I do not let unused prep flow into speaking time. Flex prep is okay

Evidence:

I reserve the right in calling for evidence after the round. I will do so if a) there is a substantial dispute over what the evidence says or b) it is significant in making a decision for the round. I will not call for evidence if i believe it to be falsified/misrepresentative. It is your job to call that out in the debate.

Speaker points:

30- you are quite posssibly the best speaker I have ever seen.

29-29.9 - very excellent speaker, you deserve the top speaker award at this tournament

28-28.9- you are a great speaker, you deserve a speaker award at this tournament

27-27.9 -you are an average speaker

26-26.9 - below average speaking, difficult to understand, ect

25-25.9 - clearly disinterested in the round, or unable to make valuable contribution in a round, gave up when the round was difficult

below a 25- you did something obviously offensive in round.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts! Good luck!

Thesis: I WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY POLICY DEBATE IS WORTH SAVING

Experience: I was a debater for five years (4 years hs, 1 year open college policy) a long time ago. The last time I made a speech or cut a card was in 2009. I judge lots of debates a year. For the past two years I have mainly judged LD, Parli, and PuFo. I do not listen to a ton of fast rounds anymore. I flow on paper.

I like critical/performative debates*. I am a "big picture"-style judge. I don't like the "heg good" debate. I don't like procedural debates.

I don't dig "heg good," "cap good," or full-blast circuit speed very much but I will do my best to place myself in whatever framework you give me (read: Give me one). I have a reputation as a K hack even though I vote on topicality all the time. See below for more detailed thoughts on critical debates.

You won't win the round on defense, but you can beat the offense. One contextual, well-explained perm is better than 2 dropped blippy perms. Perms are a test of competition, but that still means I weigh the opportunity cost of world of the perm vs. world of only the counter-advocacy. "Judge-kick" is not a thing unless you tell me it is, by default I evaluate every world present in the 2NR as best I can.

I think a multiplicity of debates is good. I am usually not persuaded by most arguments in favor of excluding "non-traditional" debate, and generally hesitant to drop a team on T or theory if I can avoid it (unless it's dropped, you prove blatant in-round abuse, or you crush it technically). I don't like playing the debate police. If you're going to go for T or theory in front of me, you need to really go for it. You should have some sort of big-picture abuse story that demonstrates the kinds of debate you wanted to have that they have prevented you from having, and reasons why those debates are important enough to reject the team. To be persuasive, the procedural needs to be the centerpiece (preferably your entire) 2A/NR--I think presence of another decently-developed generic argument in the 2NR could sometimes be enough to solve the offense on T, and case-specific turns or link stories pretty much prove no in-round abuse. Condo can be a voter if there are multiple mutually-exclusive worlds in the 2NR. I am often persuaded by reasonability, and I often reject the argument but not the team. Despite these preferences, don't hesitate to go for these arguments in front of me if you really think they are the best strategic decision, lots of my neg ballots are for topicality.

I tend to be very laid-back in terms of decorum: I really don't care if you tag-team CX or speak from your seat as long as your delivery doesn't suffer. I don't time evidence flashing unless it begins to take an inordinate amount of time. Oral prompting is fine, but I only flow what comes out of the designated speaker's mouth. I listen to CX but usually don't flow it. I don't call for speech docs and will try not to call for evidence unless the quality of specific cards or warrants are explicitly brought up in the round.

There is no 3rd rebuttal: your job as a debater is to clearly communicate your arguments to convince me to sign the ballot your way and adapt a little if I don't happen to be your ideal judge. If you have not done this than no amount of post-debate hassling will change the decision. This is in fact a great way to get a 25 from me.

Notes for surveillance topic: I haven't done research on it, and haven't coached any kids on it. I have judged policy at one bid tournament (La Costa) and two regionals this year. I don't know the commonly used cards by name. You need to be specific and explain stuff to me like I am a small child.

*So here's the deal: I only did critical debate for a couple years and I'm not a philosophy or rhetoric major or anything, but I am into a lot of these authors in an amateur capacity. Don't assume I already understand your k, or know what it is based solely on the author's name. You will need to explain which Žižek you happen to have brought to our debate round, and tell a good clear story about what your k means for the debate. In k debates I tend to prefer the style of delivery to somewhat gel with the content of the argument, so I'd really rather not watch you say you create a critical pedagogy of the oppressed at 300 wpm as one of 3 possible 2NRs. Extending tags and saying "they cause genocide" is not persuasive. I don't like hyper-generic "you use the USFG"-style link arguments and can usually be persuaded by a well-explained perm in those cases. I think that sometimes specific legal reforms can create specific material gains for specific oppressed people that impact their daily lives, but I also think that real radical change probably would require a revolution. I believe no debate is outside the world: this round has a social/historical/spacial location and does not happen in a magical non-place. This applies to both sides of a clash of civilizations debate: your arguments are advocacies in an educational space--external impacts are only valuable as far as they inform debate practices/discussions which may or may not produce good education. This means they do not on-face outweigh arguments which indict the kind of education your methodology produces. This is honestly the only model of debate that makes sense to me, and I'm often at a loss when teams ask me to weigh nuclear war scenarios against the K because they are "more real world." As you may have guessed my natural bias is definitely toward the left but I try my best to vote within a framework laid out by the debaters--that means comparing competing frameworks and explaining what my ballot does and how I should evaluate impacts. I am fine with critical affs, non-topical affs, performance affs, whatever, but like anything else you need to justify what you do in the round. Though I encourage teams to make the debate round whatever they want it to be, I don't feel comfortable when teams ask me to actively participate/intervene in the discussion; this puts me in a weird position in terms of choosing a winner and I don't really feel it's possible for me to participate without in some way telling the debaters what to say. All this means is that in such a situation it is impossible for me to be an impartial adjudicator; I am open to arguments that I shouldn't be--but this is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

If you are running anti-blackness, you should read this article first: http://fivefouraff.com/2015/08/21/on-white-afro-pessimism/

I am a fourth year philosophy and American studies major at CSUF. I competed in LD debate in high school for two years and competeted in policy debate at CSUF for two years. Most of my college debate experience has been that of critical/performance argumentation, however I’ve also had experience running traditional CP’s, DA’s, T and framework arguments. Because I am more used to making critical/performance arguments my feedback for those types of arguments will be stronger, however that doesn’t mean that I will prefer those arguments over traditional arguments. I judge based on how well each team executes their particular type of argument, and will hold them to their own standards.

I don’t mind any kind of debating (whether this be spreading, a performance, or some other creative way of presenting your case), as long as whatever is done within the round doesn’t cause either physical or emotional harm to anyone. I understand that at times particular arguments can personally resonate with someone and cause emotional harm, however as long as what is said within the round isn’t said with ill-intent I will be okay with it.

I appreciate clarity and in-depth analysis. The less work I have to do as a judge the better it will be for the teams I am judging. Also, I like to be able to easily flow the debate, so sticking to the organization of the the way in which the arguments are being presented is important. Because of my experience as a critical/performance debater, I think that framework is a very good way to test the practicality of any argument being made, especially that of a critical aff. So when seeing traditional teams against critical teams or even k’s against k’s I like to see how the teams justify their framework for the debate, since in essence it’s justifying a particular way of approaching a certain issue, which is essentially what debate does as a community.  

Background in Parli, LD, PF, and BP.

Spreading will be tolerated, but not encouraged. I will call out clear twice--if it is needed a third I'll put up my hands and stop flowing. If you see that then something has gone horribly wrong.

Run theory at your own risk. It's mostly done poorly and I don't do work for you.

Procedurals are fine, but make sure that you're not wasting my time and please run them correctly.

Please don't run things with the intent of dropping them later. You made me write it down -- use it.

If you ask a question during CX, you need to allow them time to actually answer the question. Being unpleasant during CX will definitely not win you any points with me.

PLEASE HAVE AND USE A WEIGHING MECHANISM/VALUE. Otherwise, you're leaving it up to me to decide what is important in the debate, and you probably won't like the result.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.

Background: I have five years of debate experience in Public Forum, Parliamentary, and Lincoln Douglas Debate.
LD: Since Lincoln Douglas is a value debate, I would really like to see you (the students debating) make the debate value oriented. Meaning, don’t attempt to turn this into a policy round. Think of the value as a lock, and your contentions as keys. THE KEYS BETTER FIT/GO WITH THE LOCK. In other words, the contentions should definitely coincide with the value. That being said, just because your value is ‘preferable’ doesn’t mean you win the debate. The person who will earn my vote will support all of their arguments with warrants. You can never say because enough. Support EVERY CLAIM.

Speaking: I am okay with faster than conversational speed, but since this is a public speaking event I recommend you treat this as such.

Theory: I am okay with kritiks, and T like arguments PROVIDED you back up EVERYTHING with support. Meaning, EXPLAIN EVERY ARGUMENT as if I haven’t heard this before. In other words, don't just say "PERM" and assume I know what that means. Don’t let me connect the dots. I am lazy and don’t like doing more work than necessary.

OVERALL: I tend to lean towards pragmatic arguments such as real world impacts. In other words, I will vote for (more consistently at least) the team that goes for the way the world actually works, rather than some hypothetical (often unrealistic) world view.

I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.