FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Aditya Sharma - IVC

Amy Fram - Moorpark

n/a

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Ashley Graham - El Camino

This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game.  Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win.  While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds. Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round.  That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important.  On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations.  This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds.  On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism.  I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them. On Speed: Overall speed is okay.  Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity.  Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice. On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to.  This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated.  For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response.

Awais Spall - Mt SAC

n/a

Bradley Brave - Bradley

n/a

Brandon Orewyler - Mt SAC

n/a

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Dana LoVecchio - Bradley

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

Ernesto Arvisu - CSUSB

n/a

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

Georgie Monahan - OCC

Harrison Shieh - El Camino

Jason Hough - Hartnell

n/a

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Josh Kammert - Azusa

Background I have coached for five years; formats have included Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, and IPDA. I competed for four years prior to that in LD, Parli, and one tournament of CEDA. This year I have judged something like 60 rounds. None of this should really matter to you except to clarify that, yes, I am intimately familiar with the rules of debate. Approach to Decision-Making General Concepts I have a niceness paradigm; this means I can -and will- drop someone for being a jerk to their opponent. Obviously ad hominem is a definitively poor choice, but I'm looking for enlightening discussion not destructive manipulation -and there is a difference; in fact, if I'm your judge, just be as polite as you can to your opponents and the topic; I'm your audience, adapt to me. I loathe speed; I find it detrimental to an activity that is supposed to be focused on effective communication when there is literally no other moment in life where speaking at 250+ words per minute will be of benefit (it will, as a matter of fact be of great detriment since people will just tune you out). For me, Debate is a classroom, not a game; it is meant for education on a topic, not for being manipulative to achieve a win. Yes, I know I just annoyed 85% of you, I'm good with that. :) Argument Specifics As far as arguments go: I will buy just about anything, though I have yet to hear a Kritik that was not a non-unique DA in disguise, and that's bad. Don't run non-unique DA's and call them K's, I won't buy that. I'd also like to echo the words of Gary Ribold when he says, "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)." Oh and here's a big one: NO TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS; if you are both arguing to do as the resolution says, then I am only left to vote to affirm which means the Neg may have won the debate but the ballot will go to the Aff because the Neg convinced me to vote for the resolution to pass! I love Stock-Issue Debate and On-Topic Debate, Meta-Debate is boring. That said, if you truly feel you're being abused, feel free to run procedurals, but there had better be articulated abuse. My goal in every round of debate is twofold: Have Fun, and Learn Something. Do that while keeping to the above recommendations, and we'll get along famously.

Justin Helmley - Bradley

n/a

Justin Restaino - Bradley

n/a

Kamiran Dadah - IVC

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

n/a

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Luke Marvin - IVC

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Michael Marse - CBU

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

Michael Miller - Glendale, CA

1/15/14 ...  PLEASE NOTE:  The original Post entered on the above date has been removed - on a voluntary basis, and by me, acting alone - for the reasons set forth below.  If you read my original Post, please understand that although I very much regret any "problems" it might have created, and I have removed it out of respect for the feelings of others, I stand by it.   Whether you read my original Post or not, I am ALWAYS eager to discuss Debate theory, and/or my "Judging Philosophy," and/or anything "Debate-related" - in excruciating (and some would say extremely BORING) detail - with anyone interested.  So please feel free to call me [818-952-05213] or email me [docdebate88@yahoo.com] and I will gladly answer any/all questions, explain any/all ambiguities in my previous Post, give careful consideration to any concerns/criticisms/complaints you might have about what I previously wrote, and - in short - do whatever I can to make our future relationship in Debate (if any) pleasant, educational, and enjoyable.  :)  - MHM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***  JUDGING PHILOSOPHY ADDENDUM - 2/5/14 ... *** I have most recently been informed, by persons for whom I have the greatest personal affection and professional respect, that my previous Post of 1/15/14 re: my "Judge Philosophy" was offensive and/or unacceptable to a significant number of the people who read it.  I was  - quite literally - shocked, saddened, and totally dumbfounded to learn that some people reading my original Post apparently believe that I am a "Sexist," and/or "filled with hate" and/or "exclusionary," and/or even  violent - "like the Unabomber."  So let me try to put people's minds at ease...  if that's possible. A.  I apologize most sincerely to anyone/everyone (without asserting any qualifications or offering any excuses) whom I offended. B.  I intended no disrespect/offense to anyone. C.  In my previous Post, I made what I earnestly believed to be a full, fair, and complete disclosure of my views re: Judging a (tournament) Debate.  I told the truth about myself - no more, no less.   D.   I am who I am.  Since the Fall of 1966 and to date, for almost 50 years, what I have done in Debate, I have always done in good faith, and with malice (and mallets) towards none.  What I believe about Debate is what I believe.   E.  To the best of my knowledge, information, and sincere belief: (1)  I am not a sexist. (2) I don't hate anyone connected with Debate in any way... at least, not that I know of.   (3) I don't want to "exclude" anybody in Debate from anything, and don't know how I could "exclude" anybody in Debate from anything - even if I wanted to. Last of all,  (4)  I am essentially a placid, gentle, and fun-loving person by nature (aged 65+ years), although I will defend myself and those I love if I (and especially they) were attacked. I  do not live in a secluded shack in the wilderness. I have never owned or possessed a firearm. I wouldn't have the first idea about how to make an IED (although I guess Seikel & I did "bomb out" in the 1969 NDT Final Round).  I do own some rather attractive "Hoodies," but I don't even have a pair of sunglasses.  And, because I have, in the past, worked in the immediate presence (touching distance) of several Presidents of the United States and/or nominees for the Presidency, I have been thoroughly checked out by both the FBI and the Secret Service and am not thought to be violent or "hate-filled." F.  In summation:  If who I am, how I live my life, and what I believe are no longer "acceptable" in the Debate Community, then that is my fate. As far as I am concerned, "Debate" owes me nothing.  I owe "Debate" everything. So now it would appear that it is up to "Debate" to express its "Judging Philosophy" about me.  Whatever decision "Debate" makes - I accept it... and with love and gratitude; but I am not going to disavow the lessons I have learned and deeply-held convictions, values and opinions about Debate that I have developed over a lifetime simply because other people may disagree with me.   WITH PARTICULAR RESPECT TO MY "JUDGING PHILOSOPHY," HERE IS MY UP-TO-DATE, REVISED - AND I HOPE NON-CONTROVERSIAL-  "READERS DIGEST" VERSION: 1.  I follow the NPDA Rules, the NFA-LD Rules, and any other written rules to the letter.  I always try to do this to the best of my ability, but consistent with reason, human compassion, and basic common sense. 2.  I believe that Topicality is a RULE, jurisdictional in nature, like a bounary line in sports; it is not, IMHO, a flexible, arguable "voting issue."   If the Negative/Opposition team/debater persuades me that a Plan violates the Topic, I will vote Negative.  If an Affirmative/Government team/debater persuades me that a Counterplan is Topical, I will - absent unforseen circumstances (which occur in almost every debate) - vote Affirmative. However, I am not an activist Judge on T; in other words, I will vote on T based ONLY upon what the debaters argue in the round - not based upon why I believe or infer. 3.  I will vote Negative if the Affirmative/Government/Proposition blatantly fails to set forth a prima facie case before the conclusion of the Constructive Speeches.  (I have judged literally thousands of debates since 1967, and I can think of only 2 in which, IMO, the Affirmative failed to do so.) 4.  I believe that "spreading," and "K's," and "Performances" are all inferior forms of debating, in that, by definition, they are intended to avoid an in-depth analysis/presentation of the facts about the topic area, to avoid genuine clash between competing intellects, and to win the Debate by circumventing the merits of an argument or arguments; however, I will vote for teams/debaters who employ such tactics - depending upon the unique circumstances of each round. 4.  I believe the basics skills of being a good debater are: A.  Look good (use Aethos); B.  Sound good  (use Pathos); C.  Make sense (use Logos); and, D.  Be courteous and respectful to eveyone involved in the process  (no Bozos).   I would hope that this clears up any problems, misapprehensions, misconceptions, etc. that I may have created via my previous - and obviously-inartful - Post.  Once again, please contact me if you would like any furtrher explanation, clarification, etc.   Thanks to all - and GOOD LUCK, EVEYONE!

Molly Quirk - Bradley

n/a

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Norm Fricker - OCC

Roger Willis - Mt SAC

n/a

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC

Seyha Klam - Mt SAC

n/a

Shawn O'Rourke - Saddleback

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Simon Kern - CSUN

n/a

Stephen Thomas - Azusa

The philosophy from which the round is judged upon comes from a a couple paradigms and a simple way in which I judge.  The paradigm from which I judge is the "niceness paradigm".  This means that if one of the competitors retorts to ad hominum attacks i.e. name calling, cursing and such will be dropped from the round and receive "0" speaker points.  The other paradigm is my "don't talk faster than my fingers can type/write" paradigm.  If the competitor does this then I cannot be held accountable for what is not on my flow sheet; this eludes to my simplistic way of judging the round.  I judge the debate from my flow, tell me about dropped arguments, new arguments, and links to policies or disadvantages.  Simply put, if it is not on my flow, I cannot weigh the round on it.  I try not to intervene but if the situation calls for it then I will have to.

Tiffani Smith - IVC

Victor Rose - Azusa

Kritiks - I rarely pick up K's because the neg generally offers no real world solutions outside of round, if you want to run K that's fine. Just make sure you're consistent/thorough on the internal link level and that you offer some advantages post round other than Cap/Nationalism/Gender inequality bad. Counter Plan - I view counter plans as an excellent strategic move, however, I strictly follow the NFA-LD rules regarding counterplans: "If inconsistencies arise and the affirmative points them out, the judge should reject the arguments inconsistent with the counterproposal. Counterproposals must be non-topical and are subject to the same burdens of solvency as are required for affirmative plans." Topicality - only when necessary, if you use it as a time suck and kick-out in your next speech I will be very open to reverse voting issues run by the aff, this should check back for the unnecessary epidemic of the T strategy (if you can call it a strategy). Speed - Again, I defer to the NFA-LD rules on this issue: "Rapid-fire delivery, commonly called “spread delivery,” is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event." Framework - At the end of the round, I always default to a risk propensity analysis of aff/neg alternative worlds, therefore i'll listen to any insane impacts you have but whoever delivers the most persuasive "big picture" will generally garner my vote.

2014 Close to the Coast - SAT