FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Allan Axibal-Cordero - Chapman

n/a

Andrew West - CSUN

n/a

Annie Berry - Azusa

n/a

Daniel Lopez - PCC

n/a

Dave Machen - PCC

I am still fairly new to debate so it's safe to qualify me as a lay judge. If you intend to use the jargon/vocab of the event I'd appreciate it if you define/explain your understanding of the term before applying it, otherwise it very well may not have any affect on my decision. I'm looking to be persuaded by reasonable arguments which uphold the resolution and/or criteria. From what I have learned so far I can tell you that I'm not a fan of topicality. It seems whiny, especially when the language of a resolution can be so ambiguous. It is highly unlikely I will vote on a technicality (and that is not a challenge or invitation to get me to do so). Also, I don't live in a vaccuum and ocassionally read the newspaper so if you are wrong about current events or other facts that I may know I won't vote in favor of you no matter how passionate you were or how little your opponents responded to said inaccurate facts. I don't like speed-talking cause I can't write that fast. I'd rather you have fewer arguments with great substance than a slew of shallow taglines with no backbone. Plus I don't write very fast, so try and keep it casual.

David Hale - CSULA

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Eric Garcia - IVC

Eric Cullather - LAVC

n/a

Erika Kennelley - CSULA

Gary Rybold - IVC

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold   <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1>       I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds.  Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity.  My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know: PREFERENCES – I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies).  I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced).  I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions.  Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round.  The key term for every team is justify.  At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position.  I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points.  I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters.  Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet.  I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions. CRITIQUES - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me).  Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot. SPEED – I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out.  So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices. ULTIMATE GOAL - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values.  My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

My comments in this paradigm should be understood as the horizon from my point of view--not dictates.  I love debate because it allows teams to argue about what they feel is important. I have been active in debate for over 20 years at both the high school and the college level.  In that time, I have watched as 2 documentary film crews followed two separate teams on mine (1 high school, 1 college).  I have worked several summer institutes, coached in the Northwest and Southwest, started an English Language Debate League in Mexico City and continue working with the LA Metro League.  I am currently the Director at Cal State LA and have judged about 15 rounds this year. Many years ago I wrote an article about why I think the tricotomy, while conceptually helpful, fails to provide a fair and debater centered approach to topic interpretation.  I feel much the same way about the stock issues, where inherency plays the role of fact, harms the role of value, and solvency playing policy.  Like most of the policy-maker paradigm, I see significance and topicality as derivative of the coordination of other three.  That is to say, I will use my real-world experiences both in and out of rounds, and therefore cannot feign ignorance of their import. I do not feel that the ability to speak quickly is even close to one of the most significant things I have learned from forensics.  I can flow fast debate because I have been trained to, not because I enjoy the tactic.  I do not feel that rate is a substitute for making strategic choices. I believe that the negative has the burden of rejoinder and, as such, must respond to the substantive arguments of the affirmative.  I dislike the 1-off LOC because while tactical choices are made, it also necessitates a “going for everything” strategy that does not necessitate making strategic choices. I rarely vote on procedural arguments because they are usually pale shadows of a more important substantive issue.  There have been times when there is clearly articulated in-round abuse; but it goes without saying that the procedural argument trades off with another actual position, not a potential position. A counterplan needs to test the solvency of the affirmative’s advocacy, which is to say, it competes with the plan on the level of net benefits.  Both textual and functional competition have the possibility of fulfilling this standard, if they can demonstrate an opportunity cost.  Since uniqueness can be counterplanned, the status of the advocacy need not be unconditional.  A permutation is the plan plus any part of the counterplan--“Do both” is not a permutation. Kritik is a label to describe arguments that do not easily fit into either the stock issues or the policy maker paradigm.  Teams should feel free to use “framework” to ease this disparity, but not as a substitute for demonstration of an alternative.  However, I do believe it is possible to defend rejection as such an alternative. Points of order should be called if you are worried that a rebuttal argument is not being understood as new.  I will protect teams from arguments that create a new strategic field once rebuttals have begun.  In preliminary debates, points of order will be well taken or not; in out-rounds, points of orders will be taken under consideration. At the end of the round, the best arguments win.

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

n/a

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Joey Mavity - Azusa

Notes collected over the 2012-2013 season most up-to-date version at http://bit.ly/myrfd   I fundamentally approach debate from a principle of charity: I assume the best arguments that can be made are the arguments you make. This makes it fairly easy for me to make my decision based on what you argue rather than what I think about an issue. Thus, while I speak at length on my biases and preferences, I’ll vote on an argument even if I think its bonkers. When I say something like, “the negative shouldn’t,” it’s not an absolute rule. I probably over-value clever and snarky. I don’t value taking it too far. Argument Quality Increasingly I’m reaching the point where too many unwarranted arguments mean I simply don’t flow them. I understand one or two or even 10 over the course of the debate. But 10 in a row, I’m just going to peace out and probably start flipping my pen. This has not happened in the ‘11-’12 year, but it did twice in ‘10-’11. If you don’t respect co-participants enough to make an argument, I have a hard time feeling compelled to push buttons on my laptop. I think I have a much higher threshold here than some people. Competition/Plan text My default perspective is that the affirmative has broad access to parametric limits on the advocacy they present. This means if the resolution is, ‘Pass X piece of legislation,” you must pass all or part of that legislation. I tend to think passing something not in that legislation is probably going beyond the scope of the resolution. As a result of your choice, I think you’re responsible for the consequences of your plan text. More plainly: I tend to think “textual competition” is a silly standard. If you didn’t want to defend the extent of your actions, you should have written a different plan. “But the resolution made me do it!” is probably one of the most asinine claims ever. CP text Don’t read CP/alt text and not take questions. CP/alt in the last minute is absurd and has often been a voting issue in years past (though this practice is less common today). Neutral concerns I don’t flow points of information unless you tell me to. POIs are binding. It’s difficult for me to vote on RVI’s. Points of Order I expect you to call points of order if an argument is new in a way that will affect my decision. For the one objecting, this consists of a clear articulation of what argument you think is new and why you think it is new. For the respondent, this consists of a clear articulation of why the violation identified by the opposing team is incorrect. For instance: “Their argument that death trumps ethics is a new argument that radically alters the impact calculus of the round by mooting our critique,” is a good point of order. “This argument is new,” on the other hand, is not. When responding, “We answered this in the MG,” is a fairly vague answer. I’m not willing to look through every word of the MG and guess which line you think was a response. Instead, “Our #2 on the alternative is that ethical obligations find their ultimate expression in the preservation of human life. That’s a wordy way of saying ‘life trumps ethics’ and hence is not new.” Impact analysis Arguments about how to evaluate and weigh issues in the debate are themselves arguments and should be presented early and often. Past RFDs I’ve made every single RFD since Fall 2010 available at <a href="http://bit.ly/myrfd">http://bit.ly/myrfd</a>. I think that gives you a much more detailed feel for my judging philosophy than this will because you can see what my recurring complaints are. Time use Don’t feel compelled to fill time. If you’ve won, end it. If you need the time, use it. Effective time management, though, can only help you. Saying “let me review all our arguments” and then spending 3 minutes repeating what you’ve already said can only hurt you.     <hr />   <h2>Coloring Book Edition</h2> Special thanks to Mike Allen <hr />

Josh Fleming - PCC

I have been judging debate for 10 years now. I never competed in it but teach/coach it regularly. I'm not a fan of technical debate. I'd much rather watch a good exchange of arguments/ideas that will persuade me to buy in to whomever upheld the criteria the best. That being said I am still a fan of the old school stuff like stock issues, so feel free to integrate that into your constructive. I use my flow to guide my decision but don't feel it's necessarily a "who-has-more-Xs-or-Os" type thing. Don't talk fast. There's no need. I'd rather you have fewer arguments with more substance than a ton of taglines with no backbones. I rarely vote on T, especially when things get metaphorical. And just because you prepped out a T response doesn't mean you have to run it. Be organized. Don't be a jerk. I have no qualms voting you down simply because you were mean and rude. Also, don't be that person who talks over their partner while they are giving their constructive or answering a POI. That's so lame and it communicates to me that you don't have the confidence in your partner and therefore your case.Use common sense, avoid hypothetical and potential scenarios unless you can provide real-life examples that warrant them. Counter-plans are fine but rarely necessary and often the opp loses on them.  Finally, I don't live in a vaccuum and do read the newspaper ocassionally, so if you start telling me stuff I know to be untrue or inaccurate--no matter how passionate you were or how little your opponent responded to it--I won't include it into my decision.

Liza Rios - IVC

Liza Rios – Irvine Valley College – Judging Philosophy       I started competing in individual events over twenty years ago. I have a MA in communication and teach a variety of communication courses. Recently, I have been judging more debate rounds.  I do not yet have a strong theoretical foundation in advanced strategies, but I will try to understand your arguments and take a flow sheet.

Judge Philosophies

Allan Axibal-Cordero - Chapman

Andrew West - CSUN

Annie Berry - Azusa

Daniel Lopez - PCC

Dave Machen - PCC

David Hale - CSULA

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Eric Garcia - IVC

Eric Cullather - LAVC

Erika Kennelley - CSULA

Gary Rybold - IVC

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Joey Mavity - Azusa

Josh Fleming - PCC

Liza Rios - IVC

Michael Leach - Canyons

Michelle Brooks-Johnson - CMC

Mickey Korac - CSUN

Nicholas Butler - ASU

Paul Davis - Azusa

Rachel Hastings - IVC

Rebecca Stewart - Glendale, CA

Tiffani Smith - CSUF

Travis Bartosh - Chapman

2012 Back to the Beach Pt 2

Judge Philosophies

Allan Axibal-Cordero - Chapman

Andrew West - CSUN

Annie Berry - Azusa

Daniel Lopez - PCC

Dave Machen - PCC

David Hale - CSULA

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Eric Garcia - IVC

Eric Cullather - LAVC

Erika Kennelley - CSULA

Gary Rybold - IVC

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Joey Mavity - Azusa

Josh Fleming - PCC

Liza Rios - IVC

Michael Leach - Canyons

Michelle Brooks-Johnson - CMC

Mickey Korac - CSUN

Nicholas Butler - ASU

Paul Davis - Azusa

Rachel Hastings - IVC

Rebecca Stewart - Glendale, CA

Tiffani Smith - CSUF

Travis Bartosh - Chapman