FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aislin Flynn - LMU

n/a

Alexa Canchola - La Verne

n/a

Alice Hoover - Lewis & Clark

TLDR; Be nice or your speaker points perish, a good pun gets you 30 speaks (no, puns do not counteract being mean). Do what you want; I’ll weigh the round how you tell me and all positions are pretty equal in my mind as long as they are probably. I’m more likely to vote on a probable conventional war scenario that kills 50 people than a nuke war scenario. Speed: I’m decent on speed, but don’t stress, I will clear or slow you if I can’t keep up. While I don’t mind if you go fast, don’t be a jerk to the other team, slow down at least a bit. Also, don’t abuse clears. Use them when needed and I’ll do my best to protect both teams. For example, if one team is all speed and the other is a fair bit slower, y’all should try and meet in the middle so we can have a good debate. DA’s/Plans/AD’s: Keep them organized and well explained and I’ll be happy. I don’t have a huge preference for the style; I’m just as likely to vote on a kritical advantage and I am to vote on a heg disad. My one qualm is, if you’re reading politics, make sure the link is clear and the specific scenario is explained well in your first speech. I dislike when I don’t know who the lynchpin of the politics scenario is until the member speech and dislike when the reason X politician will dislike something is “just cuz”. K’s: I like K’s but prefer them to be well explained. Don’t just throw out a name, explain the line of analysis. For K aff’s I prefer if you either are topical or just reject the topic; no point trying to shoehorn arguments about why you’re kinda upholding the res if you aren’t. For a neg K, make sure the links are solid and unique to whatever the aff team reads. Don’t just say, you use the USFG and so bleh!-give reasons that their plan is uniquely problematic. Theory/Fw: Condo is bad, that’s just the truth. I like theory and Framework, but I don’t like pointless theory. So if you read a theory on no neg fiat, it won’t have much weight for me. However, if the theory position seems like it does have some bearing in the debate, I’m willing to weigh it how y’all debate it. Framework can be a good way to answer the K and does not always have to be prison guarding. I prefer if the framework shell you read has some weighing comparison to the K framework. Speaker points: Simple rules, I will try to be very gracious in my speaker points, but if you are rude or mean to the other team or your partner, I won’t hesitate to give you 11 speaker points. A little bit of sas is fine and all, but the animosity in debate rounds usually gets out of hand and devolves into pettiness. Debate should be enjoyable, we’re all smart people and can win arguments without being buttheads about it. I also love puns, so if you make a pun, you almost guarantee yourself 30 speaker points (and no, being a jerk, then making puns does not make your speaker points better). If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - PLNU

Overview: I am a flow critic and believe that debate, although it has numerous benefits outside of competition, is at its core a game.  Specific Arguments: Run what you want but I enjoy econ, politics and procedural positions. I accept both competing interpretations and abuse paradigm but you have to be the one to tell me how to evaluate the position. I enjoy the K but do not just name a theorist or throw out tag lines without explaining what they mean. There are thousands of authors who have multiple publications that sometimes even contradict themselves as time goes by so make sure you reference a specifc argument so that I can follow along. I have no preference between Kritikal or straight up debate but I did write my MA utilizing critical methodologies and am focussing my current research on Rhetorical Criticisms with a focus on critical gender studies. Run your K's but make sure you repeat your alt text, your ROB, and perms. Speed: I am fine with speed but don't intentionally exclude your oponents. Please repeat all texts, advocacies, ROB's, interps, etc.  Closing Remarks: Be kind to one another. Be respectful and use warrants. I am fine with high magnitude low probability impacts as long as there is a clear well warranted explanation of how we got there. That being said, I will vote where you tell me to so make sure that you use your rebuttals to summarize the debate and not as another constructive.

Ashley Lyons - Palomar

Ashley Johnson - Biola

Ben Soleim - Lewis & Clark

Bonnie Deal - Palomar

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon Rivera - SMC

Brianna Avalos - Palomar

CLS Ferguson - Hired X

n/a

Caleb Moore - PLNU

Pronouns: He, Him, His TL;DR: You do you. More TL;DR info is highlighted in longer paragraphs. I competed in four years of high school policy in KS and then 4 years of parli at Point Loma.  I believe that it is my job as a critic to adjudicate the round that the debaters want to have without bias; although, I know this is easier said than done, so here are some specific feelings I have about things:   Delivery/Partner Communication: Speed can have two functions. It can add depth to a debate in a way that positively contributes to the competitive nature of the activity, or it can be used as a tool of exclusion to cheaply win ballots. If it is the former then I am all about it. The latter will lose you a lot of speaks. For partner communication, parli is a partnered activity, as long as there isn’t parroting it isn’t a problem. I will only flow the argument that the person speaking says.   Please read all texts, interps/counter-interps, and perms slowly and twice. If you want to, it would also be helpful to just write me a copy; although, I understand if that takes you away from your flow for too long.   Case: Case debate is tragically underutilized. I am not saying you have to go 8 minutes of case out of the LOC (but hey it’s super fun to do that), but teams often don’t dedicate enough time to generating offence against the PMC. I think that is a mistake.   The K: I ran the K in about half of my rounds while debating. If this is your preferred strategy, I encourage you to go for it. All I ask is that you don’t assume that I know your literature, to be honest I probably don’t. I can’t vote for a position I don’t understand. It is very important to me that you explain exactly how the alternative functions, what a world of the alternative looks like, and how the alternative resolves the links. That means that solvency isn’t a good time to just throw out jargon and be vague/generic. On the aff, I feel like K affs are a legitimate strategy. Resolutions often only seek to reform or uphold structures that are oppressive to large populations of people. For this reason, I understand why people feel uncomfortable defending the state; however, don’t think that just because I am sympathetic to the importance of the K Aff that I will ignore a well articulate Framework argument. Justify why your framework comes first and why there is not a topical version of the aff you are running.   Performance Arguments: If you want to run a performance based position that’s fine, but I don’t love positions where the performance itself is the advocacy. If you are running a performance, please give me a concrete advocacy or statement of method to vote for. Someone sharing their narrative, poetry, or performing requires an amount of vulnerability that is not usually present in a debate round. It is important to honor that vulnerability and recognize that their narrative specifically isn’t up for debate (like, don’t be that person that impact turns a narrative). A narrative can garner some unique solvency but to vote for/against someone on the basis of their narrative and its specific ability to solve feels like a unique form of ontological violence. A concrete advocacy makes the debate about the method and not about the person and both gives the other team access to method based offense and doesn’t put the judge in a position where their ballot affirms or denies the ontological existence of a debater.   Topicality: T is fun. Don’t be afraid of T. I default to competing interpretations, but am open to other ways to frame the position. I believe that T is always A-priori (in a straight up debate) but I still want you to say it. I don’t need articulated abuse but it does make the argument a lot more persuasive.   Theory/Procedurals: I don’t have a lot of predispositions on theory. I am up for pretty much any theory you might want to run and should be relatively unbiased when evaluating it. For things like SPECS my threshold is a little bit higher. It becomes harder for me to vote for these arguments if there is no articulated abuse.   CP’s: I understand why cheater CP’s are super abusive, but I also think they are really fun. I think it is probably important that a team be able to defend the entirety of their aff, including the timeframe, actor, and each part of the bill, but I also understand how difficult it is to generate offense against these positions. PICS, delay, and consult are all fine to run in front of me, but be ready for the theory debate.

Charlina Humerick - Palomar

Chathi Anderson - CSUF

n/a

Chelsea Chapman - Palomar

Christiaan Pipion - Long Beach

n/a

Christopher Rueger - USC

n/a

Cody Campbell - Glendale CC

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

Experience:  Director of Debate at the United States Military Academy at West Point.  Program competed in both CEDA and Parliamentary Debate.   8 years of NDT debate in high school and college.   Overall:  I enjoy a round in which the issues are well analyzed.  Speed is fine, but I prefer few, well articulated arguments than a multitude of non-case specific, poorly analyzed arguments.  I will generally decide the round on the policy-making issues and not on who is the better speaker.  My decision in Value rounds will be based on whoever is the most convincing, which often means whoever is the most enjoyable to listen to.   Topicality:  I will base a decision solely on topicality, however; I will offer the Government some leeway in how they interpret the terms of the resolution.   Plan Permutations:  I don’t like to hear the plan change unless the Opposition has offered a plan-plus counter-plan, then I may consider the permutation.   Counter-plans:  I like good counter-plans that are not plan-plus and not topical.  The Opposition needs to demonstrate the net added benefit of selecting their CP.  I find conditional counter plans less effective.  Any DA’s offered should be unique to the Government’s plan and should not impact the counter-plan.   Fiat and Funding:  I accept the notion that adoption of the plan by fiat is acceptable because it “should” be adopted.  However, I’m not a fan of claiming funding by normal means.  How money is raised in a policy round is a serious consideration that is unfortunately too often overlooked.  If the Government defines funding by normal means, I will allow the Opposition to define what that means even if the Government subsequently objects.   DA’s:  I want to see good links and real harms.  If they don’t exist, the Government will have an easy time of convincing me to disregard the arguments.   KRITIC:  Generally I am not I big fan because they are seldom well presented.  If presented, the analysis should be specific to the Government’s case.  Do not present a generic Kritic brief with no explanation of its impact.  If you do, you are wasting precious time.

Daniel Wheaton - Hired X

n/a

Daniel Young - Palomar

David Romanelli - Loyol Chicago

David Romanelli School: Loyola Chicago   Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. I have been judging for 22yrs (Old CEDA, NDT, CEDA/NDT and now Parli). I think the resolution is the focus of debate. If the government team does not support the resolution I have a very low threshold for voting opp.  I like a well-organized flow. I prefer line-by-line debate. I prefer well developed arguments to warrantless tag line debate. I am not a fan of K debates unless the wording of the resolution demands it (the resolution is the focus of the debate).  I do not think performance debates make sense in this forum. Speed up to a point is fine (slow down on plan text, theory dumps etc.). Debaters should adhere to the guidelines of their institution and that of the host.       Section 2: Specific Inquiries   Please describe your approach to the following.   1.       Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?                                 There is no specific answer for this. I go to a variety of tournaments. At better tournaments I see better debaters who often get higher points.   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?                                 Contradictions can cost you the debate if the other team knows why. K affs are generally not welcome unless the resolution demands it. That does not mean that the impacts have to be war etc.…. You can and should make arguments about how impacts should be evaluated. 3.       Performance based arguments… No thank you.     4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I have no problem with T. There are a variety of ways you could win it. That being said, most will not. You need to explain how it works and answer their arguments. A well explained definition and violation with clear standards is the key to my ballot on T.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? C/P status is conditional unless explained or asked about (I would ask). Net benefits are my default for competition.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) I really don’t care, just don’t waste time.   7.       In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?                                 If we get to this neither team has done a very good job and you get what you get. T and K’s would most likely come before ads/das.   8.       How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? If this happens neither team has “won” the debate and I am now forced to intervene. No one is going to be happy including me. I have no set way to decide these issues. Lots of dead bodies normally = victory. I promise nothing here though. It’s your fault if you don’t weigh things out. As noted above, the debate doesn’t have to be about a body count.

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Diego Perez - Concordia

Dustin Wong - USC

n/a

Edward Haven - Los Medanos

n/a

Eliza Hensley - Palomar

Emily Beach - Palomar

Evan Zieglar - Hired X

n/a

Frankie Antillon - La Verne

n/a

Ged Valenzuela - PLNU

I am open to whatever you want to do, the round is yours as long as you can justify why I should prefer viewing the round in your way.     I do not like doing work for competitors, so please extend your arguments in your rebuttals.  Otherwise I will just go off who dropped the most arguments, and that is never fun.   With regards to topicality and procedurals, I don't need proven in-round abuse, but it definitely works in your favor.   I enjoy hearing kritikal arguments, but I especially like when teams emphasize their links and articulate how their opponent's arguments specifically interact with yours.    Be kind to your opponents.

Greg Gurham - Grand Canyon

Haley Courtney - PLNU

I competed for Point Loma Nazarene University for 3 years and have been judging and coaching at Point Loma for 3 years.  First and foremost, this is your debate round and I will listen to anything if you can show me why it is relevant to the round. I love learning, so even if it is a position I am not familiar with, I will always do my very best to engage your arguments.   I like procedurals and have no problem voting on them if they are run well. I’m down with rules of the game. If you’re breaking them, tell me why it’s okay to do so. If the other team is breaking the rules in a way that makes it impossible for you to engage in the round, please tell me about it.   I do like Kritiks. I will listen to them and engage them, but I will not fill in the blanks for you while you run them.  I really appreciate knowing that teams genuinely care about the positions they are running, and this especially comes out in criticisms. It bothers me when critical discussions are devalued or dismissed in rounds because teams refuse to try to engage. That being said, I understand that debate is a game, but I also would really love that if you’re running something, it matters to you. That’s just a personal preference.  Just like in a straight up round, if I don’t understand how your criticism works or why it links, or most importantly, how you are actually gaining any solvency (in round or otherwise, just depends what you’re going for), I won’t vote on it. If there is no obvious link, you’ll probably have to work a little harder to convince me of your ability to have that particular discussion in that particular round, but don’t let that stop you from going for it.   That being said, I really value creativity and strategy. Have fun with debate. No matter what you run, critical or straight up, impact weigh. If you’re going to run an out of the ordinary position, just explain why it matters and how to vote on it. Show me why you’re winning in a tangible way. Impact calculus is super important. Tell me exactly where and why I should be voting for you.     Speed: I’m cool with speed. I have no problem keeping up with speed, but you need to be clear. If I can’t physically hear/understand you, I’ll let you know, but if I or the other team has to clear you and you make no change, it’s irritating. At that point, I can’t get all your arguments because I literally don’t know what you’re saying. Don’t use speed to exclude your opponents.   That being said, pay attention to my nonverbals; I’m expressive, I can’t help it. Mostly, I really want to know and understand what you’re talking about! If I don’t understand your argument initially, I will probably look at you while processing it and trying to understand it. Use that to your advantage, just clarify briefly.   Finally, please read me your plan text, counterplan text, or alt text at least twice so that I can get it down. It is extremely hard for me to weigh arguments being made for or against a particular text if I don’t know what you are doing. If you want to write me a copy, that would be cool, too.

Hannah Haghighat - OCC

Hannah Harrer - Palomar

My background is in communication. Masters student in communication studies at SDSU. I teach public speaking. Have been judging Parli debate for 1 year. Competed in LD debate and IE events for two years. I judge based on clarity of the argument, and who presents the more logical solution based on credible evidence. Speaker points (25-30): The debater who is competitive, yet polite, assertive, confident, appears most prepared, and has logical and clear arguments will be awarded the highest speaker points.

Holland Smith - CSULA

Isaiah Washington - CBU

n/a

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Concordia

Jason Edgar - Palomar

Background: DOF at San Diego State University. Been involved with Policy Debate in some capacity since 1996. I default to a Comparative Advantage framework unless told otherwise. You can run anything in front of me as long as it is structured well. I don't connect dots for you, and I don't flow well if you speed poorly. The faster you go, the more clear I expect you to be. 24-30 speaker points with most congent arguers typically getting higher speaks. Please do lots of impact calculation in the rebuttals. Lots of clarity and clash is expected from all competitors. In the end, do what you want and have fun. If you be polite, give a strong effort, and respect my decision making, we will have the best round of the day. Email me if you have further questions jedgar@sdsu.edu

Jean-Michel Habineza - Pepperdine

Jerri Strickland - Palomar

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Jonathan Veal - Palomar

Basics -- Take at least one question during constructive speeches. -- I prefer unconditional arguments and I will listen to conditionality bad arguments. -- Have a copy of the text for advocacies and perms and repeat them at least once. -- I recommend your advocacy engage the topic in some fashion. If you do not, you need justification for why the issue you are discussing comes prior to the resolution and prove there is not a topical version of the aff. -- Avoid delay, time travel and any other artificially competitive counterplans. -- Points of information check back against most spec arguments. -- I enjoy seeing K arguments and policy based arguments alike. Just treat me as if I am not steeped in the lit of whatever argument you’re making. (I am probably not) I am a second year Graduate Student at SDSU studying communication and rhetoric. I was a competitor for four years in parliamentary debate on the national circuit at Concordia University. I spent a year coaching debate at the high school before rejoining the college circuit. I should be fine with the speed your comfortable speaking at, but I value clarity first. I will be sympathetic to teams sitting across from an incredibly unclear or disorganized debater even if I am familiar with the argument. On theory I default to competing interpretations. Debate is a game but games are not fun or useful without clear limits. Competing interpretations allows me to determine those limits. With criticisms, please be clear on what the alternative does. Additionally be clear on the links of the K so I can evaluate a debate with clash. K’s without links will likely lose to the perm. For affirmative K’s use your advocacy to affirm the topic in some way or explain how your K is prior question to the resolution. Debate is inherently performative and I will not discriminate on the nature of that performance. If you have something unique to bring to the table I am willing to listen. If anything I am partial to critical arguments. Disadvantages are great. I want to see disads with strong uniqueness claims and reasonable impacts. Don’t say, “…the economy collapses and nuc war kills us all.” Explain your scenarios thoroughly. Also I have a high threshold on tix scenarios. Make sure there is a specific election or bill that is actually on the docket and explain it thoroughly. Counterplans are cool as long as they are competitive and the timeframe is now. I enjoy the perm debate. Also, perms are a test of competition and a bad perm is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Have fun and ask any questions you may have.

Joseph Laughon - Concordia

" I debated for five years, 2 for Moorpark College and 3 for CUI. I part time coach parli for CUI. I am a fairly straight up critic. A few points though;   - The K Despite my reputation during competition, I do not discourage it and towards the end, Will and I ran it fairly often. I am familiar with most generic kritiks (cap, whiteness, militarism, Virilio, borders, coercion, the gift, etc...) and have no problem voting on it. However my threshhold for defense on the k is likely lower than most judges, though not extremely so. You can't win on defense as much as I might sympathize with your struggle to do so. For me the vast majority of frameworks are poorly written and debates exclusively about this are fairly boring. Debates on the alt solvency/alt offense/perm solvency/perm NBs are far more interesting and will help you win more often.  For those who are really into the K, please be topical. Most Ks on the aff can easily be topical. Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad." Also understand I do not spend even 1/25th the time you have spent reading the literature for your K (unless its cap or coercion). Be gentle with it.* Lastly I see debate largely as a game we do largely for fun with the side benefits of being smarter/well rounded. I do not see it primarily as a catalyst for revolutionary social change.   *Language Ks I am not super sympathetic on and I will usually buy an apology unless its particularly egregious. Obviously thats up for debate but whatever.    - The Performance No clue what is going on with it. Honestly. In 5 years, I saw it twice. Once was in practice and the other was in a prelim my first year. The prelim we got ourselves waxed and most of the practice round I spent my time rolling my eyes and yelling at Bear.   -DAs. Obviously I'm a fan. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.  Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. Please do that.   - Counter plans. Competition is good. Personally I prefer NB competition as I think its the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not. Shockingly, unlike Robear, I am not a fan of philosophical competition.    Impact Calc: If no one tells me how to judge straight up impact debates then I revert to magnitude and then probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. some one feels bad about themselves). Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa.  I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc. Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.   Theory Most theory debates are fairly boring to me but that won't stop me from voting on it. I am not likely to vote on specs. Topicality: I enjoy good T debates and by good I mean the debate focused on the field contextual nature of the word in contention. Critical Ts I am less sympathetic to.  Condo: I am pretty sympathetic to someone arguing against conditionality however I am not a stickler for it, despite Kevin's best attempts.    -House keeping Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. POOs: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a fit, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to POO this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

Josh Vannoy - Grand Canyon

Joshua Vannoy – Grand Canyon University Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood has heavily influenced my views regarding debate. General: Debate is a game.  There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make.  I am the current director of debate at GCU and this is my second year as a judge. <ul> <li>One question should be answered during each constructive.</li> <li> If you read my favorite Ks (Marx/Symbolism) I will have a higher threshold regarding them, since I ran them so much.</li> <li>Partner communication is fine, but do not puppet your partner.</li> <li>Be friendly!</li> </ul> Theory: Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All standards should be read slowly twice, or I won’t be able to flow it.  I do not need articulated abuse.  Competing interps is my go unless you have something else.  I most likely will not vote for “you must disclose” arguments. Case: If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg.  If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say “poverty” without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you. Performance: So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not “perform” anywhere else I will wonder why it was argued in the first place.   I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. The K: When I first started debating at CUI I was afraid of the K, towards the end of my career I loved it. All K’s should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces are missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better).  The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates.   Like I said above I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K.  I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is, name dropping means nothing to me. Non topical Affirmatives: So if you decide to run a Non topical affirmative I would keep a couple of things in mind when arguing them in front of me. I am not a fan of militarized agency and find it difficult to weigh the debate when it becomes Arguments vs People. I do believe the topic has some importance in the debate, since it arguably is one of the only stable locust that both teams have access to, if you are going to run a non-topical affirmative a discussion of why the topic is problematic/harmful to debate would be needed. If the neg argues that there was a topical version of your affirmative (and its true) it would be pretty easy for me to vote on T. CP Theory: Is condo bad? Probably… Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this is the argument that stuck with me the most. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate) Never run delay. 50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so. Pics are awesome if done well, and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice.  If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down, things will not look good when I make a decision. Permutations: I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1 – 2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 4 – 8 perms.  If your perm does not solve links to the DA’s/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition. Speaker Points: I honestly do not know how I will be with speaker points. When judging high school, I always leaned on the higher side of speaker points, I most likely will keep things in the 27 – 29 range.  Odds are I will not pass out 30s often unless you speak like Richard Ewell or topically find a way to take out Kim Jong-un.

Justin Kirk - Pepperdine

Justin Kirk Assistant Director of Debate at Pepperdine University 15 years judging experience @ about 40 rounds per year in policy debate "I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." – Scott Harris General philosophy – Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate.  Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.  I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate.  That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out.  What really grinds my gears are teams that answer arguments in the speech document that were not read in the debate.  Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team.  The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off of speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation. Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate.  Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument.  Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me.  It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine.  The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.  One final note - I have heard and seen some despicable things in debate in the past few years.  Having a platform to espouse your ideas does not give you the right to make fun of other debaters' limitations, tell them to die, blame them for other's deaths, threaten them with violence (explicitly or implicitly), or generally be a horrible person.  Debate as an activity was designed to cultivate a community of burgeoning (and aging) intellectuals whose purpose is the pedagogical development of college students.  If you think that something you are about to say might cross the line from argument into personal attack or derogatory statement do not say it.  If you decide to cross that line, it is my interpretation of the event that matters and I will walk out of your debate and assign you an immediate loss.

Kasey Gardner - Los Medanos

Gardner, Kasey Los Medanos College   Experience: 9 years of Parliamentary Debate (Moorpark/Western KY/LosMedanos)   In order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance or super generic critiques (cap, state) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they can be defensible.  Feel free to use whatever positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly   Speed is typically not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole.  I will probably look at you with an inquisitive look if you are going too fast, unlikely but possible.   I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability.  I encourage the use of other methods or analysis too, irreversibility or systemic impacts as well.  What I am not interesting in is hearing bad dueling oratory about which –ism is the root cause of problem.  Be more specific.   I’ve found myself being very disappointed with the consistent use of generic strategies instead of any critical thinking.  Debating the case is a lost art that should be found.  I will evaluate your fism/states counterplan, but it’s not that great of an argument and the affirmative should defeat you on it.   Examples are the lifeblood of Parliamentary Debate.  Please use them!!  You should call points of order in front of me.   There are a few things I don’t find persuasive; excessive prompting and tooling of your partner, rudeness to the other team on a personal level as opposed to the argumentative level and not getting to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule judiciously.

Kathleen Czech - Palomar

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Roberts - Palomar

Kiefer Storrer - Glendale CC

4 years Policy (HS) 4 years Parli (College) In my fourth year of coaching, familiar with LD, Public Forum, Worlds, etc, and high flow Parli. I love, love, love, pragmatic, policy discussion, but I also don't want to disenfranchise voices, so K's, Projects, other experimental positions are fine by me. I appreciate in round, articulated abuse for procedural arguments. For Ks/Projects, I'd like debate community implications but also recognize policy ontological impacts because of our epistemological views. Overall, SUPER open to answering questions pre-round, and discussing rounds in depth post round, via social media, etc.

Kim Pineda - La Verne

n/a

Kim Perigo - Mesa

~~Content: I am looking for good argumentation structure and realistic/logical arguments—keep your slippery slopes to yourself. I do not appreciate stock cases or arguing definition that go well beyond what would be reasonably inferred via the resolution. I like good empirical analysis based on common knowledge and not one article that one person read. I am fine with debate cases being creative but will always consider topicality as a viable voting criterion. I will always look to the resolutional analysis first when I make my final decision. I crave organization—don’t make me think! It should be clear at the end of the debate what is on the table. Don’t ask me to make inferential leaps or assume that I see that world the way you do. I do not like off-case positions in the MOC unless it is in direction refutation of a new position in the MGC. Critiques should only be used if there is a really compelling reason to offer one. Generic Ks to me are a lazy way to approach debate. So, if you haven’t gotten the hint—I like good resolutional debate with plenty of analysis and impacts. I consider myself tabula rasa and try very hard not to interject my own political leanings into the debate. I will look at what is left on the flow at the end and weigh it out with the voting criteria levied. I do believe that there are three types of resolutions and do not appreciate quasi-advocacy cases—make up your mind, is it fact or policy? I believe that quasi-advocacy is abusive to the Opposition and will listen to any Opposition argument that makes this point. I am a traditionalist to a degree and prefer a stock issues debate for policy. I do not believe that the Government must be predictable but I do believe they must provide fair grounds for the Opposition. Delivery: To me, what sets parliamentary debate apart from other debate forms, is delivery and I expect to see good delivery skills. I do not like speed and will stop flowing if you are pushing me to the point of arthritis trying to keep up with you. I “grew” up in CEDA and believe spread is the worst part of that style of debate and will do everything in my power to keep it from happening in parli. Because of presumption, lack of in-round prep time, lack of cross examination and the block, I think spread is HIGHLY abusive; and therefore, never, ever, ever give my ballot to the team that spreads largely because you didn't win the argument you simply out-talked them. I like compelling, passionate argumentation and can live in complete harmony without one single ad hominen attack. I like wit, humor, and great analysis. I expect delivery to be as important as content and will be willing to give high speaker points to anyone whom possesses both the ability to understand the resolution/debate and the ability to competently deliver the content.

Lane Schwager - CSULA

n/a

Leslie Mariscal - Palomar

Loren Schwarzwalter - Glendale CC

Malcolm Gamble - CSUF

n/a

Matt Grisat - CBU

n/a

Matthew Hamparyan - USC

n/a

Matthew Schaupp - USC

n/a

Matthew Minnich - UTEP

n/a

Melissa Crouch - Palomar

Michael Brooks - UTEP

I believe debate can most effectively be thought of as a communication event; as such, ideas and arguments in a debate round become most accessible and finally, most persuasive,  if stated clearly, utilizing a comprehensible rate of speed  and without undue dependence on jargon.  Clear signposting and effective organization throughout the debate enhances the clarity of argument.  Consistent signposting creates a clean flow, with major arguments prominent in the mind of your judges.  I tend to vote on the flow.  I’m open to any strategy as long as it is explained well, organized clearly and makes sense.  I use a tabula rasa approach as a judge, so don’t worry about what I may or may not believe in re whatever proposition is being debated, or what rhetorical strategies and/or debate conventions you choose to utilize.   I enjoy a well-crafted and intellectually satisfying argument on any topic, from any viewpoint.  Clash is the heart of debate, so keep on point.   Please remember the value of transitions reinforcing the organization you’ve established throughout the round, and don’t forget to spend appropriate time on summary, most specifically in rebuttals.  A strong rebuttal traces the evolution of the most important arguments used in the debate, showing how and why your version of the proposition should prevail.  I do caution you against the use of offensive language or actual rudeness toward your opponents.  NPDA debate should be an exercise not only in communication, but in the practice of good ethics in this formalized and rather ritualistic exchange of ideas.  Wit and humor are appreciated, if you have the occasion to use such strategies.

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Catlos - Lewis & Clark

Michael Dvorak - Grand Canyon

Michelle Gironda - OCC

Nadia Steck - Lewis & Clark

Nadia here, I am currently the Coach for Lewis and Clark’s debate team I just graduated from Concordia University Irvine where I debater for 2 years, before that I debated for Moorpark College for 3 years. I’m gonna give you a TL:DR for the sake of prep time/pre-round strategizing, I want my personal opinions to come into play as little as possible in the debate round. I want the debate to be about what the debaters tell me it should be about, be it the topic or something totally unrelated. I am fairly familiar with Kritiks and a decent amount of the literature behind them, but please do not take that as an excuse to be lazy and just expect me to backfill warrants or arguments for you. If you don’t say it, it doesn’t end up on my flow, and thus it doesn’t get evaluated. There aren’t really any arguments I won’t listen to, and I will give the best feedback I have the ability to give after each round. For out of round thinking or pre tournament pref sheets here are a few of the major things I think are important about my judging philosophy and history as a debater •I hate lazy debate; I spent a lot of time doing research and learning specific contextualized warrants for most of the arguments I read. It will benefit you and your speaks to be as specific as possible when it comes to your warrants. •I spent most of my last two years reading the K.  While I mostly read args based on Post Modernism and Queerness, I am familiar and feel comfortable evaluating most critical arguments.  This being said I am also very comfortable with the policy debate.  It was what I first taught and basically grew up with as a debater.  I think there is incredible merit to policy debate. •I did read arguments tethered to my identity occasionally; that being said, I never read my personal story in debate, nor did I leverage my particular experience as an argument. If you want to do that, go ahead, but as a warning I do not need a lot to be persuaded by framework. This doesn’t mean I am discrediting your existence as a person, it means I believe debate is only a good space for advocacy if everyone has a form of access and not everyone is comfortable or ready to share their lived experiences in round and, as such, should not be punished for that. If you want to read your personal narrative anyway, I am more than happy to listen and give any feedback I am capable of giving. •As far as framework and theory arguments go, I am open to listening to any theory argument in round with the exception of Spec args, I honestly feel like a POI is enough of a check back for a spec arg. I have yet to meet a spec arg that was justified much beyond a time suck. If you’re In front of me, I give these arguments little credence so you should respond accordingly.  I default to competing interps. •As far as the actual voting issue of theory, I by default assume they are all Apriori, as theory is a meta discussion about debate and therefore comes as a prior question to whatever K/CP/DA is being read. When it comes to evaluating the impacts of theory, please please please do not be lazy and just say that fairness and/or education is the voter without justification. These are nebulous terms that could mean a thousand things, if you want to make me really happy as a judge please read more specific voters with a solid justification for them. This way I have a more concrete idea of what you mean instead of me having to insert my own ideas about fairness or education into the debate space. •As far as policy debates go, I default net bens, and will tend to prefer probable impacts over big impacts. That being said, I am a sucker for a good nuke war or resource wars scenario. My favorite policy debates were always econ debates because of the technical nuance. •Go as fast as you want, just make sure if your opponent calls clear or slow you listen.  I have a low threshold to vote for speed K's and do not need to look at a lot of the flow to pull the trigger here.  As well, even if you win the speed good debate I will wreck your speaks. •I am not a point fairy, I tend to hover in the 26-28 range, if you want to get a 30, either deliver a great performance or be able to make me laugh in round, I will reward good humor highly. Mountain Goats references get you 30 speaks no question.

Nadine Hill - Palomar

Nicholas Thomas - Palomar

Nick Budak - Lewis & Clark

I competed in Parli for four years at Whitman (RIP). I currently work at L&C. My degree is in Asian Studies, with some Politics experience. I am receptive to and can be expected to know critiques like Orientalism and those that deal with IR theory, plus a grab bag of things that the average MG would have learned to answer. Be nice, especially to your partner. People who interrupt others are difficult for me to watch. Humor is a lost art and may yet be the salvation of our awful little community. Theory Theory serves an important role as in-round immune system of the community - it allows us to excise toxic elements (and playtest new and exciting ones). There are no theory arguments I will outright ignore, though I may visibly react if you unironically read spec (Carlton). Counterplans are important and useful, including conditional ones. However, I side with Zach “Harvard Law” Tschida: despite my opinion that condo is theoretically justified, one ought not deploy it so as to detract from thoughtful debate. If you keep a conditional advocacy in the block, I will evaluate it and not the status quo. I adhere to the community norm of looking down upon delay/consult CPs. If you’re reading one, it should be because it has special relevance to the topic and because you can answer theory on it. Textual/functional competition and the legitimacy of a given permutation are issues that should be decided in the round. If you can relate your competition theory back to the topic in a specific way, more speaks for you. All theory questions are weighed on competing interpretations; reasonability is a pipe dream. Kritiks As Zizek says, “Nowadays, you can do anything that you want—anal, oral, fisting—but you need to be wearing gloves, condoms, protection.” Words to live by.

Nick Stump - Palomar

Background/General: My name is Nick Stump I competed 4 years at Northern Arizona University in NPDA and LD and three years directly coaching HS/college. I think the biggest thing I wanted as a competitor was a judge that would be open minded and intent on listening and letting the debaters have the round they want to have. I want to see what makes you the best you rather than feeling pinned to having a particular format. I try to be approachable about questions and am willing to see anything from traditional policy- oriented debates to performance; the round is yours to debate. What wins rounds: I will vote on almost any argument, tabula rasa, but what wins is framing and comparative analysis of impacts, solvency, and link differentials. Weighing is wonderful, I prefer weighing material impacts than nebulous claims. Please read all interpretations on theory and texts of plan/cp/alts twice OR SLOW DOWN. Decorum: I don’t care if you sit or stand when debating. I am not here to criticize your clothes. I’m here to evaluate arguments. Section 2: Specifics. 1. Speaker points: I like humor, but prefer people being real. 2. K’s: YES! I mostly read K’s in debate, both sides of the rez. I extremely prefer topic specific criticisms and critical impact framing to generics plug-in or rejecting topics outright. I think the weakest point of a criticism is the alternative/solvency, and generally think it’s better to just engage than shy away from answering them. If you read jumble-word- salad k’s that morph in the block, please strike me. I don’t like when people read multiple contradicting strategies or kick out of the alternative. 3. Performance-based arguments: Not my favorite, but explain what your performance is and why that necessarily/important to framing the debate round. 4. Theory: I enjoy theory when it is done right, but bad theory just sounds like whining. I don’t know how to quantify education, do that for me. Tell me what ground you should have had. Contextualizing theory to the round and what your opponents have done especially goes a long way. Tell me whether it is reasonability framing or competition interpretations. I don’t generally err either side on theory, I prefer creative affirmative interpretations to outright rejection. Consult is probably bad. One conditional CP is usually fine, but don’t read contradictory strategies, and you probably don’t get to sever yourself out of offensive things said. 5. Counter plans/DA: Anything goes! I prefer clear brinks and terminalized impacts with timeframe analysis. Please don’t read consult. Secretly 8 minutes of case turn in the LOC is my favorite debate. I generally prefer depth over breath. I prefer creative affirmative interpretations to outright rejection of pmc. 6. Permutations: Bad perm debate makes my head hurt, depth and developing your argument here helps a lot. 7. Speed: Debaters who sacrifice clarity for speed disappoints me. Don’t expect me to know your blocks. I don’t like speed used as a tool to exclude your opponent, but often find anti-speed procedurals have an arbitrary bright line without indicting the performance of the other team. That being said the fastest debater does not always win the round, but often does because of comparisions. Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed.

Nick Kjeldgaard - PLNU

I've done seven years of debate and a few years of speech (largely extemporaneous). All four years of college I spent in the open level and competed at national circuit tournaments every year.    My basic philosophy is simple. Tell me why your argument should make you win the round. I've dropped teams who have "won" positions because they couldn't tell me why on earth it mattered.    I'll consider pretty much any type of debate argument you want to run (I'd even vote on inherency if you told me why it mattered/ran it well), but my favorite rounds are policy rounds with some great clash and deep knowledge of the subject.

Olivia Neidhart - Palomar

Renee Cooperman - Grand Canyon

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

Ryan Corso-Gonzales - Concordia

Sally Nanez - LMU

n/a

Scott Elliott - KCKCC

Scott M. Elliott., Ph.D., J.D. Years Judging: 25.  Special Note for Novice and Junior Varsity Debaters: After years of consideration, I have made the decision to make TOPICALITY an absolute voting issue in novice and junior varsity debate. By this I mean that if the affirmative's 1AC is not topical, they will lose the debate. Extra-topical advantages or extra-topical or non-germane critical aspects of the affirmative 1AC will not be considered in my reason for decision. That being said, what constitutes a "topical" affirmative case is still open to debate. Especially given this year's college topic wording, the traditional framing of the agent of action, or whether really is an agent of action is very much open to debate. Competing interpretations should be debated out. In other words, addressing why one interpretation is better for debate, education or better for students is still open to debate. You can use whatever types of warrants and data to support the claim (the resolutional statement). This means that if you want to "perform" your 1AC (all 1AC speeches are performances anyway), that is fine. If you want to use forms of poetics or aesthetics to support your defense of the resolution, I am willing to listen to it.  Topicality is a gateway issue and will be decided before anything else in my decision except for instances of some egregious behavior from debate particpants that violates standards and norms of the activity (.e.g. ethics challenge, certain language choices, intimidation or physical confrontation). Topicality is a minimum affirmative burden of proof. It is not a reverse voter. I do not want any more persons telling stories thirty years from now about the time they won a debate round on an RVI. In case you are confused, let me give you some examples of 1AC's that would not be topical, and would thus LOSE the debate, if the negative team made and properly defended a topicality argument all the way through the debate: 1) Debaters need to eat healthier; 2) not enough ramps on campus for disabled debaters; 3) debate participants have been somehow abused or neglected by the debate community, other debaters, or coaches prior to the reading of the 1AC; 4) the general shittiness of your ontological or epistemological existence; 5) the refusal to affirm the resolution because you object to one or more of its terms; 6) you feel like academic policy debate unfairly constrains your freedom; 7) the world, or the debate activity, is generally racist, homophobic, abelist, sexist, capitalist and any other form of oppression that is not tied directly to affirmation of the 2014-2015 Cross Examination Debate Association resolution for policy debate for CEDA/NDT tournaments or the assigned resolution in a parlimentary debate tournament.  If you do not like this portion of my judging philosophy, I suggest that you either do not pref me or debate in open division. For persons in open/varsity debate and other issues related to debate: I prefer a standard topical plan with advantages affirmative case versus counterplans and disads from the negative team. That being said, I listen to, and vote for, critical affirmatives and I have voted for many kritiks. Common Issues: Topicality and Framework. I will vote on topicality. I think a lot of negative teams allow themselves to be run over by critical affirmatives’ framework arguments. There are good reasons why topicality should be a voting issue. Develop them. I think the smartest argument I have heard on the T/framework debate is, “it’s not the ground we lose, it’s the ground you gain.” That pretty much encapsulates why T should be a voter. That being said, I often vote for critical and non-topical affirmatives because the negative team fails to make good arguments, or kicks T/framework in the 2NR. Disadvantages. Run them if you have them. There should be plenty on this topic this year. I am usually not a fan of politics debates. However, on this topic, I think there are actually real links to political capital and elections disads. I think link turns are really good offense because, at worst, they function to take out the link to a disad, or make it a wash. Affirmatives should note, impact turns are fine with me. Counterplans. Please do. There should be plenty of counterplan ground on this topic. Agent counterplans seem pretty legit (Ex-O, Congress, maybe courts or States) until proven otherwise on theory or based on the topic literature. Consult---maybe, but you are going to have to read some topic specific evidence to justify it. As long as it is grounded in the topic literature, I am probably going to accept the legitimacy of a counterplan. PIC’s….I think people read blocks that are nonsensical on both sides. Kritiks: I will vote for them. I find a lot of them to be nonsense. But, many affirmatives do not know how to respond to nonsense. Debate it out. Affirmatives probably need to discuss the transition to the end-state envisioned by the K authors. Things I tend to do in rounds:  1) I try to be fair to the teams. That means I will listen to any argument and try to figure out to the best of my ability what the speaker is trying to say;  2) I protect the 2NR. I don't give much weight to new 2AR arguments. The 1AR better extend and explain an argument if you want the 2AR to go for it;  3) I evaluate what went on in the round, not what I think your (K or solvency) author really thinks;  4) I usually look at evidence only when the last two speakers ask me to make an evaluation or comparison. I will rarely call for every card read in the round and reconstruct it as I see fit.  5) I like the last two speakers to tell me, "we win this debate for the following reasons" and "even if they win this argument(s), we still win because." On the other hand, I tend to dislike five minute overviews. Be responsive to the other team's arguments. Do not make me do all the work. Allowing me to connect the dots will often lead to an outcome that you did not anticipate and you will not like; 6) If I think I missed something in your speech, I will ask during the round what the argument was. If I say clear, and you don't change your rate or style, be prepared to not have those arguments evaluated in the round. I don't read your speech documents as you speak. But I will ask for it after the round as a matter of team policy; so I can post cites and argument outlines to the debate caselist. Memorable examples of ways teams have unexpectedly picked up my ballot:  1) Voted for Baylor one time because Emory misspelled their plan text;  2) Voted for Emporia once because their plan wiped-out the universe, destroying all life (you had to be there);  3) Voted numerous times on anthro kritiks, De-Dev, Cap K's, anarchy, malthus, space, aliens A-Life, etc.; 4) voted for a counter-performance because it made me feel more emotional than the 1AC narrative;  5) voted for porn good turns;  6) voted for genocide reduces overpopulation turns;  7) did not vote, but the team won, because they took my ballot filled it out, gave themselves the win and double 30's;  8) voted once on a triple turn--link turned, impact turned, and turned back the impact turn (had to be there);  9) voted on inherency; 10) voted on foul language in a round--both ways--foul language bad and "yeah, we said F***, but that's good" turns; 11) voted for veganism K while eating a cheeseburger. One last point: All of you need to flow the round. The speech document they flash over to you is not the debater's actual speech. Look. Listen. You may be surprised what the other team is actually saying.

Sean Connor - OCC

Sean Hansen - Biola

Philosophy as follows:    TLDR:  I will pursue objectivity as much as I can while admitting my own unique subjectivity. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote for on the flow, and accept any framework or paradigm therein. <ul> <li> I have no problem with procedurals, Ks, performance, or whatever else you want to run, as long as you give me a solid way to interact that paradigm with the other arguments in the round. </li> <li> That also goes for good policy debate; I will always prefer well-warranted positions and I will be looking for good clash and impact calculus in both constructives and rebuttals. </li> <li> I dislike being forced to do my own impact calculus, so please do so at least in the rebuttals to make my decision easier.   </li> <li> My easy cheat philosophy is that turning case / advocacy and controlling root cause is probably the easiest way to my ballot. </li> <li> I despise fact debate and have similarly volatile feelings towards value, so please run either policy or critical argumentation. </li> </ul>   Otherwise, run what you want and give justification for it and I’ll have fun too! â&tilde;º For other preferences (admitting my own subjectivity), please see below:   Procedurals and Theory: I'm a bit of a theory nerd, so few things get me more excited than good procedural theory debate, but nothing can make me more bored than bad procedural debate. <ul> <li> I default to the belief that T should be examined under competing interpretations (as evaluated by the offense under the standards debate). </li> <li> Even if you run articulated abuse, I always look to the standards debate to prefer one team over another, and think that your standards should include substantial impact framing for offense. </li> <li> I would always prefer if NEG runs competing interp or even potential abuse and then ran case turns rather than articulated abuse, which then requires me to sit through an additional 7 min of arguments that don't link (see delivery notes on me being bored). </li> <li> That being said, if you just run apriori fairness and education as voters, I will default to articulated abuse and look for the requisite arguments. </li> <li> I also think good theory usually has a clear brightline for the interpretation that the other team can meet / violate. </li> <li> I admire creativity in running new responses to procedurals, but am familiar with traditional responses as well. </li> <li> I don't vote on RVIs for T, because I don't think being topical is inherently a reason to vote for the AFF. I may consider RVIs on other procedurals if they are well-warranted and impacted, but time skew arguments in general usually indicate that either you or your partner misappropriated time during your speech to allow for the skew.  </li> <li> Not a fan of spec arguments, but you could always change my mind by reading one that doesn’t sound unnecessary. Bear Saulet says it best: “Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.” </li> </ul>   Case debate: <ul> <li> LOC’s that allocate time and effort to the line-by-line on case make a happy Sean (although if you have awesome off-case that require more time, then you make the strategical choice – it won’t hurt ballot or speaks if you win on the flow). </li> <li> Especially great if it clashes over controlling uniqueness and link solvency. </li> <li> I think impact defense is a lost art and can grant you unique strategic ground in the round. </li> </ul>   CP: <ul> <li> I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. </li> <li> I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). </li> <li> I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. </li> <li> My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). </li> <li> Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt. </li> </ul>   K: I am a huge fan of good critical debate, and enjoy hearing new arguments. <ul> <li> Your framework should give clear indications of weighing arguments in round, as this is the first place I look to evaluate my decision. </li> <li> Since I think critical argumentation can be some of the most important argumentation to happen in our league, I also think your alt and alt solvency need to be solid. If you tell me to vote for you to uphold a certain ideology and win that I should do so, be assured that I will do whatever your alt asks, so make it worthwhile. </li> <li> Solvency needs to clearly articulate what it solves for and how. Blipping “Solvency 1: the personal becomes the political. Solvency 2: radical change is the only solution” are lazy arguments and can be answered with an equal lack of verve. </li> <li> I am most familiar with the literature base for rhetoric and media studies, post-structuralism, post-modernism, persuasion, and liberal education studies, but I love to learn new perspectives and ideas, so by all means run a project in front of me. </li> <li> In the last year, I think my ballots in K rounds (either given from AFF or NEF) tended to be split evenly for and against, so I’m just as open to any type of answers to K. </li> <li> You should probably explain how perms of methodological advocacies with policy plan texts function (and as always, provide a net benefit) </li> <li> I like clear Role of the Ballots that are read twice so I can be sure what my interaction is with the critique. </li> <li> As per procedurals, I do enjoy creative responses to Ks that provide depth of thought and clash. </li> </ul>   Performance debate: Quite honestly, I have similar judging paradigms and habits when judging performance / project / narrative positions as I do judging critical positions, so you can mostly see above for my preferences. I do find that the framework and theoretical debate becomes significantly more important in these rounds. I am open to hearing theory blocks or alternative advocacies from the opposing team in response.   Impact Calculus: <ul> <li> Good impact comparison MUST happen in order for me to resolve debate, including prioritization (with standards) of magnitude over probability, timeframe over reversibility, etc. </li> <li> Must happen at least in the rebuttals, is probably also a good idea in the constructives. </li> <li> I tend to prefer impacts of probability and timeframe over magnitude and reversibility, and have found myself voting more and more for the most proximal impacts (which are usually systemic in my mind) if no clash happens to tell me which I should prefer. </li> <li> If no calculus happens, I will prefer the “worst” impact, but at that point I think your rebuttals aren't doing a very good job because I have to assert more of my own assumptions into the round.  </li> </ul>   Delivery / Speaker Points: <ul> <li> I don't mind speed, as long you are articulate enough for me to understand you. </li> <li> I will call clear if you are inarticulate, but that has happened exactly once, because I had a sinus infection and couldn’t hear out of one ear. </li> <li> Speaker points tend to be focused on your argumentation, with considerations of your delivery proper a secondary concern. </li> <li> I generally reward between 23-30 <ul> <li> A 23 usually looks like: weak argumentation, poor strategy, inconsistent articulation / trying to speed when you can’t, and bad time allocation. </li> <li> A 30 usually looks like: exceptional refutation that combines great defense and offense, top-notch time efficiency, clarity, and outstanding strategy / round awareness. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I rarely protect against new arguments unless it’s an outround; I will be flowing, it’s your job to call arguments to my attention (plus I think that points of order can be of significant strategical value as well). </li> <li> I think partner communication is not only desirable but vital in this sport, so by all means communicate in-round with your partner. I will only flow what comes from the designated speaker’s mouth. </li> <li> I am trying to work on my nonverbal expressions in round so that you can keep track of how much I like / dislike your arguments before I release my RFD. <ul> <li> If I think you are going for the wrong argument I will be frowning at you a lot, with lots of furrowed eyebrows and extended eye contact (unusual since I’m usually looking at my flow). </li> <li> If I drop my pen, it’s usually because I think you’re repeating an argument and hope that you’ll move on, otherwise I’ll get bored. </li> <li> If I’m really Really REALLY bored, you will see lots of dropping of my pen and looking around the room. </li> <li> If I look at the team who isn’t speaking during the rebuttals, I probably think the speaker is making a new argument and I’m waiting to see if someone will call it. </li> <li> A quick head nod means I like your argument; a continuous head nod means I understand and you should move on. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I don’t care whether you sit or stand; I will (usually) be looking at my flow. </li> </ul>   Things that I don’t enjoy / make my decision harder / lose you speaker points: <ol> <li> Being rude / racist / patriarchal / homophobic / etc. in your rhetoric. </li> <li> Neglecting impact calculus in the rebuttals (AUGH). </li> <li> Politics DAs that assume your bill is “top of the docket” without any reason it should be. I’m going to quote K. Calderwood’s philosophy on this: “If you read a politics disadvantage that is not “the issue of our time” then you should specify the bill’s status and give some background about the bill at the beginning of the disadvantage.  On several occasions this year, I have heard politics disadvantages that were apparently on the “top of the docket” that I have never heard before.  I consider myself well read on the news, and I doubt the veracity of all, or nearly all, of the claims I have heard about the “top of the docket”. </li> </ol>   Again, a caveat to all the preceding observations and a return to the overview: I will vote for you if you win on the flow with well-warranted offense and good impact / framework calculus.

Sean Mumper - Palomar

Background: I coached (and competed in) high school debate until 2011, but have mostly been out of debate since then. I competed in Parli at LMU from 2004-06, and was an NPTE finalist, so not totally brain-dead. I try to judge a tournament or so a year.   Adjudicating the round: I weigh the benefits of the topical part of the government advocacy against the competing opposition advocacy. Although I am open to all types of arguments, I tend to prefer a net-benefit calculus and am skeptical of out-of-round impacts. Overall, I tend to like fast, smart, and witty debaters. Specific Stuff: <ol> <li> Speaker Points: Typically 27-28.5, with 25 being a soft floor. I adjust for the tournament; a 29 at the NPTE is harder to get than at a local tournament. </li> <li> Critical Arguments: I’m fine with them, assuming you have a framework. Full disclosure, I have limited knowledge of critical theory, so please explain complicated positions. </li> <li> Performance based arguments: Prefer a policy debate, but up to you. </li> <li> Topicality: Enjoy T debates. Used to prefer competing interpretations, now I’m so removed from debate that I don’t care. Debate it out. </li> <li> CPs: Love them. I like specific PICs, shows the opp did its homework. </li> <li> Weighing: Please do this. Use words like “time frame,” “magnitude,” “risk,” and “probability.” Make my job easy. </li> <li> Other: Please slow down for arguments in which precision matters (plan/CP texts, K alt’s, etc. I always disclose my decision in-round and will be happy to discuss it with you. </li> </ol>

Shaunte Caraballo - IVC

n/a

Shelton Hill - Palomar

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Stephen Hosmer - PLNU

Stephen Hosmer: I am a persuasion judge that bases my decision on a common sense balance of argumentation. No significant weight will be afforded to tortured or insignificant nits, however; valid a priori points must be honored. Dropped arguments do not create negative weight, provided they are dropped for cause. While new to the collegiate level, I have extensive experience judging, coaching and preparing teams at the High School level.

Steve Robertson - Palomar

Tamar Miot - La Verne

n/a

Tania Ruedas - La Verne

n/a

Tanner Long - Palomar

Terry Sjodin - Palomar

Tim McGrath - Mesa

Will Borie - USC

n/a

William Neesen - IVC

<h2>Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3>   Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach & Irvine Valley College Parli Debates judged this year: 40+ Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 10+ Years Judging Debate: 15 Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it.' Decision-making Approach: 'I really don t like any of the above. It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you. ' Assessing Arguments: 'I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were droped and why that makes them important.' Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to imput what I think and I love that.' Strong Viewpoints: 'No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scarry shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.' Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.' Other Items to Note: 'I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debator. '

Yasaman Sadeghi - Palomar

Yasmin Hellman - LMU

n/a

Zach Herrera - Concordia

Zachary Kuykendall - Grand Canyon

Background/General: My name is Zachary Kuykendall and I competed in NPDA and IPDA for 4 years at Grand Canyon University from 2013 to 2017. During my time there my views on NPDA debate were shaped by a variety of coaches, including Nick Stump, George Talevera, Emma Hong, Jason Hong, and Josh Vannoy, where my views on IPDA were shaped predominantly by Barry Regan. In general, I’d like to see you run whatever argument you are most comfortable with rather than feeling like having me in the back boxes you in to a certain strategy. At the end of the day this Debateworld is for you not me, make it yours.   How to get my ballot: I will vote on almost any argument, but not unless you tell me to. The best way to get my ballot is to articulate clear framing of the round, followed by analysis between the impacts of the negative and the affirmative. I can’t vote on an argument if it’s not clearly weighed. Solvency and link differentials are also important.   Please read all interpretations on theory and texts of plan/cp/alts twice or slow down significantly, I’m also cool if you just want to write me a copy.   How to lose my ballot: There are very few things that will make me drop you outside the context of what team is or isn’t winning arguments in the round, some examples of these things are: making offensive arguments (that are blatantly sexist, racist, and the like), personally attack the other team, personally attack the judge, threaten harm to another debater, etc. I will also drop you if you ignore trigger words that another debater or team has informed you and the judge of before the round.   Section 2: Specifics Please describe your approach to the following.   1. Speaker points First be articulate, have strong evidence, and present arguments that make sense. Second, if you can work in some jokes / clever references I’m not complaining, but if you’re gonna do it make it organic, don’t force it. My sports teams are the A’s (MLB), Warriors (NBA), Steelers (NFL), and Penguins (NHL), I also love comic books, movies, and TV. Go nuts.   2. K’s Yes. I loved the K debate during my time as a debater and I don’t mind if you run a criticism on either side of the resolution. I prefer criticisms with topic specific links, even better if your entire criticism is topic specific. Either way I’ll still listen to anything, just understand that my threshold for generic / reject Ks is likely a touch higher than specific ones. I also very much enjoy specific / clever alternatives to reject or reject and endorse. All that being said, it’s much harder to pick up my ballot running the K poorly than it is running a traditional strategy well, do what you’re comfortable with.    3.  Performance based arguments… I am ok with performance based arguments, but don’t assume I understand the lit or thesis behind your argument (same with all Ks). Help me understand why your performance is important to how the round is framed.   4.  Theory: I enjoy theory. That doesn’t mean run 5 theory positions, but it’s an integral piece of debate strategy that I believe is underutilized to a degree in high level NPDA. If you chose to run theory please use your standards to set up the impact scenarios in your voters. I also like terminalized impacts on the voter level. Please provide a lens in which to view your theory position whether it’s reasonability or competing interpretations, I need to know how you’re framing your sheet.   I don’t have strong predispositions on many theory positions and will evaluated based on how the positions are argued within the context of the round. I have a higher threshold for arguments that do not prove abuse, especially with SPECS.   Conditionality: I am fine with both condo good and bad arguments. However I have a high threshold for Condo bad in a round where only one negative advocacy is presented throughout the course of the debate. I also have a sky high threshold for condo good if your multiple advocacies contradict or are offensive.   5. Counter plans/DA  Ahhhh the heart and soul of traditional debate. I love a good plan vs counterplan debate, as well as a disad advantage debate, but hell if you want to go 8 mins on case turns I’m fine with that too. Just make sure you have clear structure and format and clearly explain brink scenarios to your impacts. Also PLEASE terminalize your impacts, that goes for everything.   6. Permutations I think perms function best when paired with reasons to prefer the permutation over the counterplan, but you do you. I also think it’s smart to address the mutual exclusivity debate.  I view perms as a test of competition unless you tell me otherwise.   7. Speed Clarity > speed every day of the week. I need to know what you’re articulating.   Speed is a tool in debate, but not one meant to frame debaters with different skill sets out of the round. If the other team is going too fast for you to keep up, say “slow” loud enough for the room to hear until they slow down to a pace you can keep up with. If they proceed to use speed as an exclusionary tool, please run a speed procedural as a check against the abuse. As a judge I can keep up with most speed, I’ll let you know if you’re spreading me out / unclear.

2017 Aztec Invitational (SDSU)