Judge Philosophies

Adam Austin - Sac State

<p>Adam is in his first year of graduate school and still new to debate. He has been working hard on this process, attending lots of tournaments and observing, but still has limited experience judging. He flows fairly well, but you should still take it pretty slow and be sure to explain your arguments in depth, particularly impact comparisons.</p>

Adreanna Tirone - SFSU


Amy Arellano - Boise State

<p>Overall I feel that debate is a game, other than the obvious rules of the game (time limits, speaker order, resolution) I feel the debaters set the tone for the debate. I am a critical judge that acts as a policy maker, I will judge the round based on the grounds the affirmative provides. Give me voters, do not make me decide what is important, it may cost you the round. Also give me structure, if you do not number your arguments separately than I am ok with your opponent collapsing your six arguments into one. Remember to signpost, it is important. Debaters should remember that I am not voting for good positions; I am voting for good arguments. A superior position is nothing if it does not take advantage of the superior arguments that make it a superior position. To win my ballot, out-impact your opponent. There are two kinds of impacts. First, there are the impacts that exist in the make-believe world we debate about (nuclear war, republican backlash, tyranny) and there are the impacts that tell me how these impacts should affect my ballot (nuclear war is bad, so you should vote for the team that doesn&rsquo;t cause it; that&rsquo;s us!). It is a lack of weighing impacts that usually forces judge intervention. If you do the work for me, I won&rsquo;t have to do it on my own. I do not like to intervene as a judge; this means that it is your responsibility to give me everything I need to vote for you so that I am not forced to fill in gaps or assumptions. If you want me to vote on topicality, tell me why I should vote on topicality. If you tell me that your position has more advantages, tell me why this means you should win. If this isn&rsquo;t done, I will resort to whatever decision criteria is advocated in the debate or impose one of my own if no such criteria is offered. I have no problem voting on topicality or on critical arguments, but they must be structured. If the negative if forcing either of these positions the Affirmative must explain why the affirmative stance does not bite topicality or the critical argument, because it doesn&rsquo;t is not sufficient argumentation. If the negative fails to structure the topicality or critical argument, as the affirmative point that out and move on, I will not vote on the issue if it is not structured. The Flow: A dropped argument means nothing if you don&rsquo;t tell me why it matters. Weigh it for me. I won&rsquo;t vote for you just because the other team dropped arguments. Also, two or three well developed strong arguments are better than ten undeveloped arguments. Debate as a Forum of Communication: Being rude is not acceptable; play nice or I will dock your speaker points. When speed comes into conflict with clarity, I always prefer clarity.&nbsp;</p>

Andrea Adams - SMC

<p>The short version: It&rsquo;s your time; you do what you want.</p> <p>I competed in both parli and policy. I have judged a substantial number of rounds this year but have not kept count.</p> <p>I believe debate is what you make it and I will follow whatever guidelines you tell me to in-round. But unless told otherwise, I default to using the flow as my basis of judging. Basically, this means in-round discourse with slight preference going to the better warrants and impacts and offense over defense. (But you can still win with only defensive arguments)&nbsp; As long as I can understand you, I will flow you.&nbsp; I&rsquo;m fine with speed although I am also open to speed Ks. (See the first line.)</p> <p>On case arguments are as important as you tell me they are unless argued otherwise by the other side. (See the first line)</p> <p>Kritiks and critical affs are fun and interesting, please run them. That said, I won&rsquo;t prefer them over other arguments and my first line still trumps everything. I flow alt and alt solvency on two separate pages (it keeps the&nbsp;perm and solvency debates separate) so please pause between the two so I have time to switch to a new page.</p> <p>Projects and performances- also fun and interesting but I want a clear role of the judge/role of the ballot and/or weighing mechanism. Not saying you will necessarily lose if you don&rsquo;t provide me one but it helps me from feeling lost. That said, for projects and performances, my default might shift from strictly the flow towards a more &lsquo;being present&rsquo; approach unless told otherwise by either team.</p> <p>Topicality, theory, counterplans, disadvantages, framework, etc, are all fine arguments. Go for offense over defense but I&rsquo;ll vote on anything. See first line.<br /> <br /> Perms-They can be a test of mutual compatibility or the perm can become aff advocacy. Debate it out in-round.</p> <p>Please call points of order for new arguments in the rebuttals. If you don&rsquo;t call it, I will consider it (obviously this doesn&rsquo;t count for new arguments in the PMR that respond to new things brought up in the MOC speech).</p> <p>I will also give you give you better speaker points if you pleasantly surprise me with an argument. You can win with your international relations DA but it&rsquo;s unlikely to impress me.</p> <p>I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).</p>

Ben Mann - Utah

<p>I am currently the Director of Debate at the University of Utah. This is my eighth year involved in college parli debate: I competed from 2010-14 on the national circuit at Lewis &amp; Clark College, coached and judged parli extensively for two years at the University of the Pacific, and am now in my second year as a coach at Utah.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I take my role as a critic very seriously. My goal is to limit judge intervention and allow you to debate the way you would like to debate. I am comfortable with a variety of argument types, including Ks, theory, CPs, critical affs, and so forth. I evaluate debates based on comparative access to comparative impacts. In other words, I will vote for the team that demonstrates to me that they best access the most important impacts in the debate.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>In front of me, success can best be achieved through resolving areas of tension in rebuttals (such as explaining why your uniqueness or link warrants should be preferred) along with using impact calculus (such as timeframe/magnitude/probability) to highlight the most important arguments. I appreciate collapse (external and internal) in the block and the PMR, as it typically makes for cleaner and more substantive debates. I also appreciate clear, specific warrants and smart offense. I will assign an &ldquo;average&rdquo; speaker point total of 27.5, and move up or down from there. I am not okay with sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression that occur within the debate round, nor am I okay with rudeness or personal attacks.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Last season, I judged a fair number of critical debates. I am not sure if this is a product of parli&rsquo;s increasingly critical turn, assumptions about my argument preferences, or both, but I enjoy either policy or critical debate. I have a somewhat decent background in critical theory (my primary research is in critical/rhetorical approaches to disability and gender) but do not take this as an invitation for me to fill in arguments for you. I will also do my best to evaluate any framework/theory arguments against critical debate fairly.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>One final note: the one and only time in which I did not feel like I could vote for an argument comfortably due to my own background came from a round last season in which a team suggested that death would &ldquo;solve&rdquo; disability issues. You can d-dev, but know that my own background means I am likely uncomfortable voting on arguments that specifically argue for death to disabled populations. It&rsquo;s too close to home.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Any other questions? Feel free to ask me at benwmann@gmail.com</p>

Bill Brown - SMC

Brittany Brennecke - SFSU


Daniel Lopez - Chabot

Hal Sanford - SRJC

<p><strong>Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College</strong></p> <p><strong>Short Version:&nbsp; </strong>I&#39;m a stock issues judge.&nbsp; I&#39;m not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.&nbsp; Thank you Joe Allen.&nbsp; Be nice to each other.&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#39;ll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion <strong>Long Version:&nbsp; </strong>Some debaters may want more.&nbsp; Here&#39;s more.&nbsp; Remember, being electronic, it&#39;s length&nbsp; does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? </strong>I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; AFFIRMATIVE:&nbsp; Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the &quot;best.&quot;&nbsp; Be sure your interpretation of the resolution gives ground to the negative.</p> <p>In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.&nbsp; Weigh impacts.&nbsp; Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).&nbsp;</p> <p>In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them.</p> <p>NEGATIVE:&nbsp; In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.&nbsp; Too often negatives think they are being clever with &quot;time suck&quot; topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.&nbsp; Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.&nbsp; Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable.</p> <p>In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative&#39;s when in relation to the actual resolution.&nbsp; Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it)are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?&nbsp; </strong>Be nice.&nbsp; Don&#39;t belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.&nbsp; Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.&nbsp; Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?&nbsp; Really?</p> <p><strong>What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?&nbsp; </strong>Stock Issues:</p> <p>In policy debate, these are key for me.&nbsp; Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.&nbsp; Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.&nbsp; Affirmative must win all four to win round.&nbsp; Stock issues are:</p> <p>1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot.&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality:&nbsp; Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren&#39;t argued by negatives.&nbsp; You&#39;ve got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I&#39;ll really resist.&nbsp;</p> <p>Counter plans:&nbsp; It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I&#39;ll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.&nbsp; They also should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine choice between the plan and counter plan.&nbsp; Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad.</p> <p>Critiques:&nbsp; Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.&nbsp; I dislike generic critiques that don&#39;t relate to the resolution, the opponent&#39;s arguments, or reality.&nbsp; Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that&nbsp; &quot;we should all hurry up and die because life&#39;s greatest gift is death.&quot;&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; I vote on the flow, but I won&#39;t turn off my brain.&nbsp;&nbsp; Still, if your names are Robert or&nbsp; Sterling, I might buy it.&nbsp; They&#39;re eloquentus-maximus.&nbsp;</p> <p>Weighing:&nbsp; Explain why you win.&nbsp; Weigh impacts.&nbsp; Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.</p> <p><strong>How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?&nbsp; </strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>SPEED - NFA-LD:&nbsp; This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.&nbsp; Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.&nbsp; That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.&nbsp; Only one has been &quot;too fast&quot; for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.&nbsp; After all, &quot;speed is antithetical to the event&quot;, right?&nbsp;&nbsp; If I or the opponent call &quot;clear,&quot; heed that request.</p> <p>SPEED - PARLI:&nbsp; Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.&nbsp; I&#39;ll stop you if you&#39;re going too fast and I&#39;ll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.</p> <p>JARGON:&nbsp; Don&#39;t just sling jargon around and assume I&#39;ll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.&nbsp; For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say &quot;perm&quot; and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.&nbsp; Say something like:&nbsp; &quot;Perm.&nbsp; Do both the plan and the counter plan.&nbsp; If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.&nbsp; Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together.&quot;</p> <p>TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:&nbsp; Please be organized.&nbsp; I won&#39;t time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.&nbsp; I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.&nbsp; I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.&nbsp; If you really need to sit while speaking, I&#39;m fine with that.</p>

James Gooler-Rogers - SRJC

Jared Anderson - Sac State

<p>NFA-LD judging philosophy</p> <p>I have been coaching and judging debate for about 10 years now. I&#39;ve primarily coached CEDA/NDT debate but I am also very familiar with Parli. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I will try to keep this brief and answer any questions you may have...</p> <p>NFA-LD rules - I have read and&nbsp;understand the&nbsp;rules and I will &quot;enforce&quot; them if arguments are made. I will not intervene, you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules&nbsp;to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won&#39;t make sense, so I&#39;ll end up voting on it.</p> <p>Speed - I understand that this is one of the rules. It is also a rule that makes very little sense, is written poorly, and difficult to interpret. I take a good flow and I suspect that there are very few folks in LD that can test my pen. That being said, I am not encouraging any one to try to spread people out. That should never be the goal of debate. If there is a legitimate concern raised about the rate of delivery from somebody, I will consider the argument, but it needs to be well developed and explained.&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality - is a voter.&nbsp;</p> <p>Kritiks - must link to the action of the plan. Winning &quot;doesn&#39;t link to the plan&quot; will function the same as &quot;no link&quot; for me.</p> <p>Basic Logistics:</p> <p>Prep - The prep clock stops when you stop prepping! When the clock stops, everyone needs to stop prepping. Don&#39;t tell me you are ready and then look for more cards or that you have to find your flow. Prep is done when you are ready to speak. If you are paperless, I will stop prep when the flash drive is in the other teams hand or the email is sent.&nbsp;</p> <p>Evidence Sharing - be adults about this. If you want a paperless debate, awesome. I think it works the best, however...get your tech together. If both debaters are prepared for paperless that is great, if you are providing a viewing computer it better be of a quality that allows your opponent to actually view the evidence without wasting their prep time. If the debate is on paper, pass down cards as you read them and avoid bickering about who has access to the evidence. The person who is prepping should be in control of the evidence.</p> <p>Disclosure - unless specifically forbidden, I will disclose my decision after the debate and give you brief feedback. Since we need to keep the tournament on time I will keep my comments brief. I&#39;m happy to answer additional questions at a later time.</p>

Jason Hough - Hartnell


Jeff Toney - SJDC

Jim Dobson - LPC


Jonathan Bruce - Pacific

<p><span dir="ltr">I competed in Parli and LD for four years at University of the Pacific. I am pretty much fine with anything being run in front of me. However, as the cliche goes--do not assume I know the literature base behind the K you wish to run. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>NEG:</strong></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Disads: </strong>My favorite type of debate to watch is a Disad vs. Case debate. So I like them, is what I&rsquo;m getting at there. I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me. Albeit, if you chose to run a Politics DA, what helps to make Politics more compelling is if you include a specific reason X Plan Text of the AFF would cause a reaction to the specific BILL/Proposal your D/A is about. In other words, please don&rsquo;t say &ldquo;Repub backlash because yeah!&rdquo; raising thumbs like Fonzie.</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>CPs: </strong>Sure, they&rsquo;re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won&rsquo;t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Theory: </strong>Proven abuse is more compelling, to me, than potential. I might actually be light weight vexed to have to sit and listen to potentially being abused in some hypothetical round in the future, for 17 minutes. That aside, I am not a fan of someone running multiple (3+) theory positions to me in one LOC. If you run any form of Vagueness, just make sure the link to what is vague and the link to what offense you lose, subsequently--is clear. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>K: </strong>Like I said above--make sure the thesis of the K is clear. So, perhaps, chose to slow down in the portion of the K that has a thesis. Parli is not Policy, I can&rsquo;t check your arguments afterward, so clarity is the most important item here. Now, K debate becomes a game of controlling some type of grand Uniqueness frame. It&rsquo;s a great home, subsequently, for tech, advanced debaters. I will give leeway, thus, to new debaters and their responses to the <em>normative</em> tricks of all such &ldquo;non-normative&rdquo; K&rsquo;s. &nbsp;</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>BOTH:</strong></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Performance:</strong> Nah. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Critical Affirmatives: </strong>Just establish the link between your literature and the resolution&rsquo;s topic. I&rsquo;m not saying you have to be topical. You don&rsquo;t. I&rsquo;m asking you to briefly describe why your K is relevant to this topic. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Impact Calc:</strong> <em>Timeframe &gt; Magnitude &gt; Probability</em> is the default way I will frame impacts in the rounds. If you don&rsquo;t like that, then do impac calc in the LOR/PMR and tell me the 1) The frame 2) Why that frame is important (given the context of that round&rsquo;s arguments.) </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Speed:</strong> Blaze it. That being said, don&rsquo;t be rude to new debaters, allow them to engage. </span></p>

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Kelly Lootz - Pacific

<p><span dir="ltr">I am an Interper by trade and currently an Individual Events coach. That being said, I&rsquo;ve been around debate in various capacities for over eight years and love the activity. Some things to consider if you find me at the back of the room:</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Speed &ndash; Take it down a notch or two and enunciate. If I can&rsquo;t understand you I can&rsquo;t vote for you.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Arguments &ndash; Anything goes. Just make sure you take the time to explain what you are going for. Impact Calculus is always a great thing!</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Jargon &ndash; Be sure to explain exactly what you mean. If you just throw debate jargon at me, I may not catch it.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">At the end of the day, tell me why I should vote for you. As a former interper I love to see the passion in a round &ndash; in your last speech break it down for me and tell me why you win! </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Kevin Steeper - SRJC

<p>Kevin Steeper, Santa Rosa Junior College</p> <p><strong>Most Important Criteria</strong></p> <p>I&#39;m a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn&#39;t respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I&#39;ll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won&#39;t do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I&#39;m also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you&#39;ll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts).</p> <p><strong>Predispositions</strong></p> <p>The only thing I&#39;m predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you&#39;ve been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I&#39;ll still vote on it even though I won&#39;t want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it&#39;s warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative&#39;s case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I&#39;d rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren&#39;t, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations.</p> <p><strong>Speed/Jargon/Technical</strong></p> <p>I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I&#39;m not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don&#39;t speed the other team out of the room. If they call &quot;clear&quot; or &quot;slow&quot;, slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed.</p> <p><strong>NOTE:</strong>&nbsp;I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It&#39;s your debate, it&#39;s up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn&#39;t a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say.</p> <p><strong>NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES:</strong> Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.</p>

Kyle Cheesewright - IDAHO

<p>&nbsp;&ldquo;All that you touch &nbsp;</p> <p>You Change. &nbsp;</p> <p>All that you Change &nbsp;</p> <p>Changes you. &nbsp;</p> <p>The only lasting truth &nbsp;</p> <p>Is Change. &nbsp;</p> <p>God Is Change.&rdquo;</p> <p>&ndash;Octavia Butler, &ldquo;Parable of the Sower.&rdquo;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Debate is a game. Debate is a strange, beautiful game that we play. Debate is a strange beautiful game that we play with each other.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I love debate. It&rsquo;s the only game that exists where the rules are up for contestation by each side. There are some rules that aren&rsquo;t up for discussion, as far as I can tell, these are them:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>1/ Each debate will have a team that wins, and a team that looses. Say whatever you want, I am structurally constrained at the end of debate to award one team a win, and the other team will receive a loss. That&rsquo;s what I got.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>2/ Time limits. I think that a discussion should have equal time allotment for each side, and those times should probably alternate. I have yet to see a fair way for this question to be resolved in a debate, other than through arbitrary enforcement. The only exception is that if both teams decide on something else, you have about 45 minutes from the start of the round, to when I have to render a decision.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Pretty much everything else is open to contestation. At this point, I don&rsquo;t really have any serious, uncontestable beliefs about debate. This means that the discussion is open to you. I do tend to find that I find debates to be more engaging when they are about substantive clash over a narrow set of established issues. This means, I tend to prefer debates that are specific and deep. Good examples, and comparative discussion of those examples is the easiest way to win my ballot. Generally speaking, I look for comparative impact work. I find that I tend to align more quickly with highly probable and proximate impacts, though magnitude is just so easy.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I tend to prefer LOC strategies that are deep, well explained explorations of a coherent world. The strategy of firing off a bunch of underdeveloped arguments, and trying to develop the strategy that is mishandled by the MG is often successful in front of me, but I almost always think that the round would have been better with a more coherent LOC strategy&mdash;for both sides of the debate.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>At the end of the debate, when it is time for me to resolve the discussion, I start by identifying what I believe the weighing mechanism should be, based on the arguments made in the debate. Once I have determined the weighing mechanism, I start to wade through the arguments that prove the world will be better or worse, based on the decision mechanism. I always attempt to default to explicit arguments that debaters make about these issues.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Examples are the evidence of Parliamentary debate. Control the examples, and you will control the debate.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>On specific issues: I don&rsquo;t particularly care what you discuss, or how you discuss it. I prefer that you discuss it in a way that gives me access to the discussion. I try not to backfill lots of arguments based on buzzwords. For example, if you say &ldquo;Topicality is a matter of competing interpretations,&rdquo; I think I know what that means. But I am not going to default to evaluating every argument on Topicality through an offense/defense paradigm unless you explain to me that I should, and probably try to explicate what kinds of answers would be offensive, and what kinds of answers would be defensive. Similarly, if you say &ldquo;Topicality should be evaluated through the lens of reasonability,&rdquo; I think I know what that means. But if you want me to stop evaluating Topicality if you are winning that there is a legitimate counter-interpretation that is supported by a standard, then you should probably say that.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I try to flow debates as specifically as possible. I feel like I have a pretty good written record of most debates.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Rebuttals are times to focus a debate, and go comprehensively for a limited set of arguments. You should have a clear argument for why you are winning the debate as a whole, based on a series of specific extensions from the Member speech. The more time you dedicate to an issue in a debate, the more time I will dedicate to that issue when I am resolving the debate. Unless it just doesn&rsquo;t matter. Watch out for arguments that don&rsquo;t matter, they&rsquo;re tricksy and almost everyone spends too much time on them.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Before I make my decision, I try to force myself to explain what the strongest argument for each side would be if they were winning the debate. I then ask myself how the other team is dealing with those arguments. I try to make sure that each team gets equal time in my final evaluation of a debate.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>This is a radical departure from my traditional judging philosophy. I&rsquo;ll see how it works out for me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. For the record, I have strong opinions on just about everything that occurs in a debate round&mdash;but those strong opinions are for down time and odd rants during practice rounds. I work to keep them out of the debate, and at this point, I think I can say that I do a pretty good job on that account.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I just thought of a third rule. Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I thought speeches are. If you tell me what speaker points I should give you, I will listen, and promptly discard what you say. Probably.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>For the sake of transparency: My personal gig is critical-cultural theory. It&#39;s where my heart is. This does not mean that you should use critical theory that you don&#39;t understand or feel comfortable with it. Make the choices in debate that are the best, most strategic, or most ethical for you. If your interested in my personal opinons about your choices, I&#39;m more than happy to share. But I&#39;ll do that after the debate is over, the ballot submitted, and we&#39;re just two humans chatting. The debate will be decided based on the arguments made in the debate.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;[Y]ou can&rsquo;t escape language: language is everything and everywhere; it&rsquo;s what lets us have anything to do with one another; it&rsquo;s what separates us from animals; Genesis 11:7-10 and so on.&rdquo;</p> <p>-David Foster Wallace, &ldquo;Authority and American Usage.&rdquo;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Old Philosophy</strong></p> <p><em>A Body&#39;s Judging Philosophy</em></p> <p>Debate has been my home since 1996&mdash;</p> <p>and when I started, I caressed Ayn Rand</p> <p>and spoke of the virtue of selfishness.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I am much older than I was.</p> <p>These days, I am trying to figure out</p> <p>how subjectivity gets created</p> <p>from the raw material of words</p> <p>and research.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I have no interest in how well</p> <p>you can recite the scripts you&rsquo;ve memorized.</p> <p>Or at what speed.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I will not be held responsible</p> <p>for adjudicating your bank balance.</p> <p>And I will not provide interest on your jargon.</p> <p>I will listen to your stories</p> <p>and I will decide which story is better,</p> <p>using the only currency I am comfortable with:</p> <p>the language of land,</p> <p>and the words that sprout from my body</p> <p>like hair.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I remember the visceral intensity</p> <p>of the win and loss,</p> <p>and the way that worth was constructed from finishing points.</p> <p>I am far too familiar with the bitter sting</p> <p>of other names circled.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I think that the systemic is far more important</p> <p>than the magnitude.</p> <p>Politics make me sick.</p> <p>And I know that most of the fun with words,</p> <p>has nothing to do with limits,</p> <p>because it&rsquo;s all ambiguous.</p> <p>And nothing fair.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>These days,</p> <p>I read Deleuze and Guattari,</p> <p>and wonder what it means when classrooms are madhouses.</p> <p>And all that remains is the</p> <p>affect.</p>


<p>New for the 17-18 season - looked at the poem and was like..... damn, this is old</p> <p>I see debate as a contest of two sides of an argument.&nbsp; The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it.&nbsp; Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party.&nbsp; Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not.&nbsp; What is the point of me trying to enforce rigid standards of competition that are not necessarily agreed upon by the individuals participating in the debate?&nbsp; As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer.&nbsp; I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me.&nbsp; However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me.&nbsp; At the end of the round I will render a decision based off of the arguments in the round as instructed by the participants of the debate.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate.&nbsp; Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative.&nbsp; The reason I feel this is unfortunate is that I believe the affirmative needs to offer an advocacy that would be better than the sqo.&nbsp; This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion.&nbsp; This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever.&nbsp; While I may not have those requirements the negative team may and they may even have compelling reasons why lacking those concepts is reason enough for you to lose the round.&nbsp; The purpose of this is to explain that the debate I am to observe is up to you to determine as participants in nearly all ways.&nbsp; The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have.&nbsp; The best RFDs I have seen starts with what people are going for in the rebuttals and they work backwards in the debate and I have tried to implement this style into my RFDs.&nbsp; Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them.&nbsp; Not because they are the &ldquo;right&rdquo; argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter.&nbsp; Does that mean it affects the round?&nbsp; No, of course not.&nbsp; However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out.&nbsp; Lots of people, the greatest people, like to ask my opinion on what I would do in whatever situation and I think it is a great way to learn a little more by asking these hypothetical questions.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; When it comes to speaker points I see a 30 A+; 29.5-29.9 A; 29-29.4 A-; 28.8-27.9 B+; B 28.4-28.7 B; 28.0-28.3 B-; 27.8-27.9 C+; C 27.4-27.7 C; 27.0-27.3 C-; 26.8-26.9 D+; D 26.4-26.7 C; 26.0-26.3 D-; Less than 26 = I will be looking for your coaching staff after the round.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;I feel as though there are certain places my mind wanders in a debate that I am forced to fill in for debaters and so I wanted to share some of those concerns with you.&nbsp; First, impact prioritization.&nbsp; I often times will have one team saying nuclear war will happen and the other talking about poverty and nobody compares the two arguments with one another.&nbsp; They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad.&nbsp; What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact?&nbsp; Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round?&nbsp; Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts.&nbsp; Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur?&nbsp; Maybe you could tell me.&nbsp; Second, how to evaluate the round.&nbsp; I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus.&nbsp; I feel that teams debating in front of me who are surprised by my decisions do not generally compare their impacts against the other team&rsquo;s as often/thoroughly as they should.&nbsp; They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that&rsquo;s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart.&nbsp; I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to.&nbsp; I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate.&nbsp; It is not that I do not understand the concepts but it is your job to explain them to me so I can evaluate them fairly.&nbsp; When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on.&nbsp; I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not.&nbsp; I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Previous philosophy:</p> <p>Thoughts from Matthew</p> <p>Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing.&nbsp; I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder.&nbsp; If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Debate has been my home since 2k</p> <p>When it came to competing I did OK</p> <p>It is 2015 and I am still here</p> <p>Doing something that is so dear</p> <p>Before you decide that I am a worth a strike</p> <p>Question if that is really what you would like</p> <p>I have yet to go Mad as a Hatter don&rsquo;t you fear</p> <p>But some of this may not be what you want to hear</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Where do we come from and what have we seen</p> <p>Debate is about all of these things and more if you know what I mean</p> <p>Debate has something to offer us all</p> <p>Perform it how you want that is your call</p> <p>But when you say &ldquo;new off&rdquo;, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy&hellip;</p> <p>Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Don&rsquo;t just deposit your arguments, I am more than a purse</p> <p>We all have our own rhyme rhythm and verse</p> <p>As fast or as slow before time has been met</p> <p>Say what you can, leave no regret</p> <p>Teach me these things you believe</p> <p>I will listen to any argument that you conceive</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Many of you will pretend to be the state</p> <p>If you don&rsquo;t it won&rsquo;t make me irate</p> <p>Yet, I read as much of your lit as you did of mine</p> <p>I say this now so you don&rsquo;t again hear me whine</p> <p>Explain what you mean and mean what you say</p> <p>Wouldn&rsquo;t want that pesky discourse getting in your way</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Do you think this is some kind of game</p> <p>Probability magnitude timeframe</p> <p>Impacts are not dead, they represent life</p> <p>Be aware of where you point your knife</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Now comes the end of my little story</p> <p>Go off and live &ndash; fight for your glory</p> <p>I wish you the best with an open heart</p> <p>As a judge, my time is yours, until our ways part</p>

Mark Faaita - Chico

<p>I value debate because i believe it creates a space to engage in critical thinking and intelectual creativity. I appreciate arguments that are rooted in logic and&nbsp;reason, and I feel that leaves plenty of room for procedurals, K&#39;s, and case debate. Well warranted arguments are appreciated. Keep in mind that each of your positions are ultimately a part of an overarching story, and a story should be fairly easy to follow. There are no positions that I am adverse to. Speed wise, I haven&#39;t been spread out thus far this season, if that happens in a round I will verbalize it on the basis&nbsp;of fairness. I can&#39;t evaluate the arguments properly if they are not on my flow, but I don&#39;t expect you to be able to read my mind. I may ask for a line or two after the speech if I feel it is needed. My feedback this season has seemed to revolve around the importance of questions, the logical flow of arguments, and people missing the obvious. Also, I realize that debte is competitive, but competition can be fun, so have fun!&nbsp;</p>

Mary Anne Sunseri - San Jose State

<p>I like clear arguments and good, solid, logical&nbsp; thought processes.&nbsp; I try my very best to leave my biases out of the round and will likely vote on just what happens in the round. I will not vote on issues not presented by the students. I appreciate good delivery, the use of wit and well mannered competitors. I like all forms of argumentation as long as they are presented clearly, warranted and supported logically. I expect courtesy and respect from and for all in the round (competitors, gallery, etc). It is not okay to speak loudly to your teammate while the other team has the floor; nor is it okay to speak for your teammate.</p>

Matthew Zupko - San Jose State

<p>I&rsquo;ll flow anything you tell me, just be organized and let me know where you are. You need to tell me why your impact is good (or bad)- I&rsquo;m going to try not to assume anything. I really appreciate solid link scenarios, and evidence with good warrants can win you the round. Speed is fine, but please be respectful if the other team calls slow or clear. I like to hear about the topic, but if you run procedurals and provide good warrants I&rsquo;ll vote on it. I prefer proven abuse but it&rsquo;s not necessary to win the position. Weigh out and evaluate impacts, because if you don&rsquo;t I have to do it myself and you probably don&rsquo;t want that. Timeframe, probability and magnitude are what I&rsquo;m accustomed to hearing and I will usually put the most weight into probability unless you can show me why I shouldn&rsquo;t.</p>

Michael Middleton - Utah

<p>Michael Middleton</p> <p>Judging Philosophy</p> <p><strong>A Quotation:</strong></p> <p>&ldquo;The present situation is highly discouraging&rdquo; &ndash;Gilles Deleuze &amp; Felix Guattari</p> <p><strong>A Haiku:</strong></p> <p>Debate is Awesome</p> <p>Judging Makes Me Cry Softly</p> <p>Do I weep in vain?</p> <p><strong>Some things to consider (when debating in front of me):</strong></p> <p>10.&nbsp; I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion</p> <p>9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me.&nbsp; You will like it less if you don&rsquo;t. On the other hand, I will like it more.</p> <p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures.</p> <p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don&rsquo;t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate.</p> <p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team.</p> <p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.&nbsp; Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy.</p> <p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I am a participant in the round also.&nbsp; While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points.</p> <p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time.</p> <p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn&rsquo;t really equal anything.</p> <p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Debate is not life.&nbsp; Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.&nbsp; I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this.</p> <p>0. Have Fun</p>

Phil Krueger - SJDC


Reed Ramsey - Pacific

<p>I <span dir="ltr"> am a policy maker. I evaluate the debate through a comparative impact comparison. If you forgo this comparison I will have to make that call for you, which is never a good thing. I will listen to your kritik, but only if it has specific application (IE specific links/narrative) to the topic. That being said I want you to have a topical plan text. I think topical plans foster a more productive discussion from both sides of the debate. Theory is fine, but only under certain circumstances (mainly when it is egregious&nbsp;abuse). I also think that negative CPs and Ks should be unconditional. In my ideal world, I would like to hear two disads and a lot of case arguments from the negative, and a ton of impact calculus in the rebuttals. My approach to debate is that it is a game, and everyone can play however they want. With that being said I believe that the current trends of parli show that it is hard to be a one-trick-pony, which means that debaters should have a grasp on politics of the world as well as critical argumentation. Bottom line, I think debate is fun, and I would like to keep it that way. </span></p>

Ryan Guy - MJC

<p><strong>UPDATED: 3/8/2018</strong></p> <p><strong>Guy, Ryan</strong></p> <p>Modesto Junior College</p> <p><strong>Video Recording:</strong>&nbsp;I always have a webcam with me. If you would like me to record your round and send it to you<strong>&nbsp;ask me</strong>. I&#39;ll only do it if both teams want it, and default to uploading files as unlisted YOU TUBE links and only sharing them with you on my Tabroom ballot. This way no one ever has to bug me about getting video files.</p> <p>Me:</p> <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for at Humboldt State.</li> <li>Coached Parli, NFA-LD, and a little bit of BP and CEDA since 2008.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, debate, public speaking, and a variety of other COMM studies courses</li> </ul> <p><strong>The Basics:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Debate is a game.</li> <li>Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (<a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)</a></li> <li>Use&nbsp;<a href="http://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;to share files in LD and Policy</li> <li>I&rsquo;m fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.</li> <li>Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse</li> <li>I prefer policy but I am okay with the K. That said, run it well or I might be grumpy.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul> <p><strong>General Approach to Judging:</strong></p> <p>I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other&#39;s arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I&#39;m looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed.</p> <p>Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around&mdash;if necessary&mdash;but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.</p> <p>I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.</p> <p>If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won&#39;t. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I&#39;m always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.</p> <p><strong>NFA-LD SPECIFIC THINGS:</strong></p> <p><strong>Files:</strong>&nbsp;I would like debaters to use&nbsp;<a href="http://www.speechdrop.net/">www.speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;for file exchange. It is faster and eats up less prep. If for some reason that is not possible, I would like to be on the email chain: ryanguy@gmail.com. If there is not an email chain I would like the speech docs on a flashdrive before the speech. I tend to feel paper only debate hurts education and fairness in the round. If you only use paper I would like a copy for the entire round so I may read along with you. If you can&#39;t provide this digitally or on paper, you will need to slow down and speak at a slow conversational pace so I can flow everything you say.</p> <p><strong>Disclosure:</strong>&nbsp;I&#39;m a fan of the case list I think it makes for good debate. If you are not breaking a brand new aff it better be up there. If it is not I am more likely to vote on &quot;accessibility&quot; and &quot;predictably&quot; standards in T. Here is the case list as of 2018. Get your stuff on it:&nbsp;<a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/</a>&nbsp;If your opponent is anti-case list you should run a wiki spec argument on them. I think that teams who chose to not disclose their affirmatives are abusive to teams who do.</p> <p><strong>LD with no cards:</strong>&nbsp;It might not be a rule, but I think it is abusive and bad for LD debate. I might even vote on theory that articulates that.</p> <p><strong>Specifics:</strong></p> <p><strong>Speaker Points</strong>: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 26-30 range. If you do the things in my &ldquo;General Approach to Judging&rdquo; section, your speaks will be higher.</p> <p><strong>Topicality</strong>: Hey Aff&hellip;be topical. T and other proceedural debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I&rsquo;m cool with the &ldquo;test of the aff&rdquo; approach but please be smart. I&rsquo;ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components. I prefer articulated abuse, but will vote on potential abuse if you don&#39;t answer it well. I&rsquo;m unlikely to vote on an RVI. In general I enjoy a good procedural debate but also love rounds were we get to talk about the issues. That said if you are going for a procedural argument...you should probably really go for it in the end or move on to your other arguments.</p> <p><strong>Kritiques</strong>: I tend to be more of a fan of policy rounds. That said I do enjoy critical theory and will vote on the K. Please keep in mind that I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of K.</p> <p>I&rsquo;m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards trend in parli. If you don&rsquo;t understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.</p> <p><strong>Weighing</strong>: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I&rsquo;m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calc and show me why you won.</p> <p><strong>Speed:</strong>&nbsp;I think going a little bit faster than normal conversation can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can&rsquo;t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear&hellip;please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I&#39;m pretty good if I&#39;m on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.&nbsp;<strong>Side Note</strong>&nbsp;on NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is &ldquo;antithetical&rdquo; to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call &ldquo;clear&rdquo; or &quot;slow.&quot; That said if you use &quot;clear&quot; or &quot;slow&quot; to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I&#39;ll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.</p> <p><strong>Safety:&nbsp;</strong>I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates of change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the classroom space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.</p> <p><strong>IPDA:</strong></p> <p>I&rsquo;m a NPDA and NFA-LD judge for the most part. Even in IPDA I prefer that you signpost your arguments and follow the typical structure for advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc. You get 30 minutes prep, you should cite sources and provide me with evidence. Arguments supported with cited evidence and empirics are more likely to get my ballot. In general I am okay with anything in IPDA that I am okay with in LD and NPDA. Meaning I will vote on procedurals, Kritiques, and other debate theory if it is run well. I&rsquo;m also generally okay with a little speed under the guidelines I provided above. In general I follow arguments on my flow. Make sure to respond to each other because a debate without clash is boring.</p>

Ryan Wallace - CSUEB


Sherris Minor - SMC

Stephanie Eisenberg Todd - Chabot

<p>I debated and judged at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in policy debate, but I have also judged/coached some parli and NFA-LD as well. I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for people who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over people who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them. I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply &quot;reject the team&quot; and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it&#39;s an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative with real world, coherent impacts. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate. I&#39;d say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. I&rsquo;m very sympathetic to &ldquo;reject the arg, not the team.&rdquo; &nbsp;I am always going to protect teams from new arguments in rebuttals, so you probably don&#39;t need to call a billion points of order to let me know what&#39;s up. &nbsp;I don&#39;t mind partner cross-talk so long as it&#39;s minimal, however I&#39;m not going to flow anything your partner tells you unless you&#39;ve set up a framework for sharing speeches...aka, if your partner wants to help you with an argument, you need to say it for it to end up on my flow. &nbsp;I am not cool with one partner dominating another partner&#39;s speech time, cross ex, etc.&nbsp; I&nbsp;believe many debaters could benefit from some sort of overview or round framing argument in their speeches, especially in the rebuttals. In debates where neither side is giving me a clear view of how I should evaluate the round, what I should prioritize or how I should weigh impacts, I will generally default to the side who I feel is most persuasive from a rhetorical perspective. I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the &quot;style&quot;. I look forward to watching you do your thang!</p>

Steve Farias - Pacific

<p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Steven Kalani Farias &ndash; University of the Pacific</p> <p><strong>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Updates: My threshold to vote on theory has decreased. Proven abuse is not a necessity on T, though it is preferred. Also, my thoughts on role of the ballot has changed under my section for K&#39;s.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Section 1: General Information-</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BESIDES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK&mdash;which I think it does.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don&rsquo;t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say &ldquo;I didn&rsquo;t get that&rdquo;. So please do your best to use words like &ldquo;because&rdquo; followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Section 2: Specific Arguments</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;The K&rdquo;- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that K&rsquo;s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.<strong> NEW:</strong> In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provied a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how should perform that role will be ahead on Framework. For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Also, please do not make myself or your competitors uncomfortable. If they ask you to stop your position because it emotionally disturbs them, please listen. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not. I believe you should be able to run your argument, but not at the expense of others&rsquo; engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality/Theory- &nbsp;I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either.&nbsp;Caveat- &nbsp;I think that negative teams should remember that a contextual definition IS A DEFINITION and I consider multiple, contradictory definitions from an affirmative abusive (so make Aff doesn&rsquo;t meet its own interp arguments).</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win my ballot on theory.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Counterplans- CP&rsquo;s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that &ldquo;We Bite Less&rdquo; is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not in the end prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. This means if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the CP should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. Finally, CP&nbsp;perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T&rsquo;s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K&rsquo;s and Alts or CP&rsquo;s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Section 1 &ndash; General Information</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Experience</strong>: Rounds this year: &gt;50 between LD and Parli.&nbsp;8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 6 years coaching experience (3 years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale)&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>General Info:</strong> I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Section 2 &ndash; Specific Inquiries</p> <p>1. How do you adjudicate speed?&nbsp; What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debater&rsquo;s lack of clarity you will say &ldquo;clear&rdquo; (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater&rsquo;s excessive speed, I expect you to say &ldquo;speed.&rdquo; In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to &ldquo;report&rdquo; me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don&rsquo;t find yourself voting for very often?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Evaluating rounds-</strong> I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T&rsquo;s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K&rsquo;s and Alts or CP&rsquo;s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achieveable at the end of the debate.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons i should ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all therory arguments are voting issues.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>5.&nbsp;Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Yes</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way you tell me too. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Taure Shimp - MJC

<p><strong>OVERVIEW</strong></p> <p>Debate should foster civil discourse and honor the educational integrity of the event. I see it as my responsibility to listen to the arguments you choose to make and evaluate them as fairly as possible. However, I do have some personal preferences. The rounds I enjoy the most have a lot of clash, fewer but higher quality arguments, and clear impact analysis.</p> <p><strong>GENERAL PREFERENCES</strong></p> <p><strong>In IPDA:&nbsp;</strong>The rate of speech should be conversational. I expect to hear well-structured arguments with clearly delineated sub-points. I also expect to hear source citations--you have thirty minutes of prep, so please indicate where your information came from and use it to your advantage. While I get that IPDA discourages the use of jargon, procedurals, and kritiks, I am open to hearing arguments about definitions as well as arguments that identify problematic assumptions/worldviews within the debate. However, these should be articulated in a way that remains accessible to an intelligent, informed lay audience.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>In NFA-LD:</strong>&nbsp;Please set up a&nbsp;<a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate.&nbsp;Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along.&nbsp;If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the&nbsp;<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules.&nbsp;</a>Specifically, the rules state: &quot;Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate. If the evidence is only available in a digital format, the debater is required to make a digital version of the evidence available for the entirety of the debate at the opponent&#39;s discretion. For example, if an affirmative case is only available on a laptop, the negative should be allowed to keep the laptop for reference until the debate is over.&quot; In other words, it is in your best interest to have additional paper copies of your evidence and/or a viewing laptop that can be used by your opponent during the round.</p> <p><strong>In Parli:</strong>&nbsp;Faster-than-conversation is fine, but I do not like spreading in this event. For me, it decreases the quality of analysis and becomes counterproductive to the in-round education. However, I will not ask you to slow down during the round or say &ldquo;clear.&rdquo;</p> <p><strong>Procedurals and Kritiks</strong>&nbsp;can make for good debate&hellip;</p> <p>&hellip;but I find&nbsp;<strong>AFF Ks</strong>&nbsp;are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity.</p> <p><strong>If you choose to run a Kritik</strong>&nbsp;(on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. If you are unable to articulate&mdash;in a concrete way&mdash;how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole.</p> <p><strong>Rebuttals&nbsp;</strong>are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters.</p> <p>I&nbsp;<strong>evaluate the round</strong>&nbsp;by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages.</p> <p><strong>Etiquette:&nbsp;</strong>I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don&#39;t speak that way to competitors.</p> <p><strong>MISCELLANEOUS FAQ</strong></p> <p><strong>Sit or stand</strong>&nbsp;during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what&#39;s comfortable for you.</p> <p><strong>Partner communication&nbsp;</strong>is fine with me, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches.</p>

Tim Heisler - LPC