FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

AJ Curry - Moorpark

n/a

Adam Rayzor - Bradley

n/a

Alexis Martinez - EPCC

n/a

Allison Bowman - LAVC

n/a

Amy Wangsadipura - Mt SAC

Andrea Berning - Glendale CC

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

Anna Moskovyan - Rio

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.

Barrett Tate - Mt SAC

Brandon Fletcher - El Camino

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG: I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. Impacts: You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. Case Debate: I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. Diadvantages: Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. Counterplans: Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. Conditionality: I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad.  Kritiks: I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. Identity Arguments: With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. Theory: I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. Speed: Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. Speaker Points: If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. Miscellaneous: Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

CLS Ferguson - Mt SAC

Daniel Cantrell - Mt SAC

My primary voting paradigm is clash.  Please engage each other's arguments. Otherwise, run what you think is persuasive and we will see how it works out in the round.

Eric Yahn - Glendale CC

~• Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) 2 years of collegiate parliamentary debate experience 3 years of collegiate forensics experience 3 years of collegiate forensics coaching experience  • Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stockissues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I am a tabula rasa judge. I will vote where you tell me to, as long as it is well articulated and warranted. I'm open to trichotomy and topicality arguments, they serve a purpose so use them if you have to. I am not a fan of Kritiks, and here's why, I've found that most people don't use them properly. If they are poorly drawn and out of context then I cannot vote on them, theory arguments are impressive yes, but if you don't understand the words coming out of your mouth then your opponant wont either and if I have to piece together a theory for you then you've already lost. Don't try it if you can't handle it, it's better to debate at face value than over extend your reach.  • Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making I am a champion of decorum. I like thank yous and human decency. Be nice to one another and we'll get along fine. I want clean well articulated arguments, as such I tend to favor Toulmens model of argumentation. i.e. This happens because of that for these reasons. Sign post everything always, tell me where you are on the flow, what arguments you are responding to, what your response is and why your response is better. Time that I have to spend flipping through pages is time that I am not flowing you.  • Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making Both on and off case argumentation are key to winning my ballot. I will vote on dropped arguments if you tell me to, but I will not do any leg work for you. If you don't say it, I can't flow it.   I will not flow speed, if its too fast and I miss it, thats your fault. Note: I can't flow policy speakers and the "double pump" is one of the most irritating noises ever. I will clear you if I have to but I will take it out of your speaker points. Brownie points* for making me laugh though.  • Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and Kritiks I am not opposed to a topicality argument but it needs to be properly structured. Counter plans are fine, but should also be clearly structured. I do not like Kritiks. • Preferences on calling Points of Order Points of order should be used to call out new argumentation in rebuttals, if you don't tell me they're new arguments, they're on my flow to be calculated when voting. Points of order will be ruled on if possible, in rounds with a panel of judges, they'll be taken into consideration.  IPDA I view IPDA as a cross between dueling extemps and persuasion. Tell me your story, give me your facts, and defend your findings.  NFA-LA  I never competed in LD, however I have the base knowledge to coach and judge the event. I will flow what you tell me but I will call for cards if thats where you and the opposition draw the lines. Keep it neat, keep it clean, be persuasive.   *Brownie points are not redeemable for credit, speaker points or actual brownies.

Eric Garcia - IVC

Felix Rodriguez - Rio

Jacee Cantler - IVC

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Jimmy Gomez - LAVC

n/a

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

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!

Justin Restaino - Bradley

n/a

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kristina Rietveld - IVC

Kristy McManus - WWCC

I have been coaching since 2010.  I competed for two years at the college level.  I took a long break from forensics but returned when working on my second Master’s Degree in Communication.  I am currently the DOF at Western Wyoming Community College. I try to remain as tab as possible.  It is your responsibility to dictate what the round will look like. I put a lot of weight on the flow.  I will not “do the work for you”. CP’s, DA’s, K’s – sure!  Strategy is key for me but all must be done well and show understanding through warranted argumentation. Tell me what to do.  This is your debate.  Where should I look and how should I vote.  Impact calk is a must. T’s are there for a reason – if you need to use them – you MUST.  Otherwise, they are a waste of my time. Be civil – if you are rude, I stop listening.

Lewis Robinson - Glendale CC

Marc Ouimet - Long Beach

the short version - you do you. the rest is really just personal preference about strategy execution that i feel is very basic but for some reason am not seeing enough of.   the long version - non-weirdo stuff… me as a debate person - 2 years competing Palomar, 4 years coaching Palomar, 3 years coaching Beach, presently a 1st year Beach grad asst. case - consider making offense happen here theory - one shot kill? much like similar pokémon OHKO moves, i think they hit the mark stunningly infrequently. so if your strat rests here, prioritize your impact calc. side note: time skew/suck arguments are innately counter-intuitive (unless maybe its a time portal or something) partner communication - Jim Henson was a fine person, but puppeting is not cool, and i personally did my fair share of sinning here, but even then i operated under the assumption that only the addressed speaker would be flowed. points of order - be concise, these can make or break a rebuttal so use them when you can convince me you are right. i am generally pretty easy to read, i think, so execute your strategy effectively in the rebuttal. politics - convince me you at least read The Hill, but if you’re not just reading this just to kick it later, you better give me the nerd hookup on laying down the nuance. speed - please don’t be a dick to the other team if they need you to slow down . i will not be shy about pen time or clarity, but if you’re just ripping lists of answers please distinguish claims and warrants. status of positions - i was uncondo mostly, it was a good time. i think there are numerous critical reasons why condo is problematic, but that being sad - i really don’t care as long as you can defend your strategy execution and its theoretical justifications if need be. perms / competing advocacies - i do not think it is not my place to tell you how to debate - and yet, i have seen a stunning lack of fully developed DAs or net benefits to perms and CPs read this year, you should consider doing that. standard parli blips about coalitions, juxtaposition, etc. pain me in their lack of explanation. and just have second-lines, they’re good to have. speaker points - i’m a fairy. take what you get, because it’s generous. root cause - this argument is bad. stop making it. there are other ways to get an internal link - talk about how one produces, exists within, happens at the process level of, or obfuscates the other. any claims about the dawn of civilization or whatever are, at best, not intellectually rigorous and typically nebulous and/or wrong. claiming you are somehow more intersectional while denying the legitimacy of one form of oppression in relation to another by means of a reductionist causal relationship is a horrible debate - and yet, it happens surprisingly often. rebuttals - warrant comparison please. there is also a difference between shutting doors and being disingenuous about the other team’s access to a thing (honest assessment and clear round vision are way better than denying someone game on something they clearly have access to). so just beat them on it - don’t be an ass about it. that’s why you have framing mechanisms for your impact modules, and link/solvency differentials - i expect that the teams ideally have exchanged ideas. humor - remember,when people made jokes in debate rounds? it made things fun. be fun. collapse - do it. seriously, please do it.   kritik stuff - which you hopefully know is my wheelhouse generally - i like offense here, so if someone dances on your lit be prepared to defend it. 90% of author indicts are lazy and can be side-stepped easily. 90% of author name drops make me doubt the team has a thorough understanding of the argument. i think too many teams let each other get away with mischaracterization here anyway - probably why having a thesis page is rad. not necessary, but so rad. framework - be explicit and strategic here. frame out the other team (not employed enough lately, i think) or go for your impact prioritization (not made explicit in most shells lately, i think). give me a clear interp and role for the ballot. links - if you don’t have a specific link - you will make me very sad. you might be able to save yourself by second-lining the shit out the other team, but then you are not employing your K strategically - you will make me very sad. impacts - defend your reps, no-value-to-life is very turn susceptible. structure - please signpost and differentiate the pieces if you are going off of one sheet. solvency - be more rigorous here. underdeveloped alt solv. if you solve the case, say how. at least explain how you resolve your own impact modules. if the alt has a vague-ass mechanism you don’t explain fully, i am very likely to desire the other team clowns you on alt vagueness. lit i probably will not be stoked to hear you read - Nietzsche - blame Fletch, if this is your thing.   other weirdo stuff - which you hopefully know is also my wheelhouse performance - if your framing is about comparing methods instead of being specific to your actual method, i am going to cry. narratives - provide context, make it work for you in more than just one speech. don’t just leave this hanging or you are just giving an intermission. personalization - i’m not super stoked on this, the handful of times i spoke about myself explicitly in the debate space i did not ask for the ballot. i will do my best to evaluate it as always and understand the importance of representational politics but i consider this a delicate dance to have people not feel like they have to escalate and summarily feel super shitty at the end of the round, which i think is more important. but if you have fully considered ways to have people not feel shitty in engaging your argument, do the thing.   any other questions, please feel free to ask.

Marty Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

Matthew Grisat - Rio

Matthew Brandstetter - APU

n/a

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Nichole Barta - IVC

Nick Matthews - IVC

~~Nick Matthews Irvine Valley College PSCFA Parli Philosophy Ten things to know when I am judging you: 1. You must speak at a conversational speed in front of me because I have a significant hearing impairment. Any rate of speed that is faster than conversational destroys my ability to accurately understand your arguments and impedes my ability to do my job. 2. I am not a fan of fact and value rounds. I think they are much more difficult to judge, and they are largely subsumed by policy debate anyway. As such, I don’t mind if you extrapolate policy cases from fact, value, or metaphor topics (within reason, of course). 3. My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don’t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a lot stronger than my understanding of critical debate. 4. I reward big-picture storytelling, intuitive arguments, impact comparison, and strategic decision-making. 5. I rarely vote for arguments I don’t understand. 6. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them. 7. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument: Whining: “Their implementation is vague and they don’t explain it! They don’t solve!” (Waaah!) Argument: “Three reasons why their implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First…” 8. You should take at least one question from the other team in each constructive. 9. The affirmative team must read either a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent. 10. I don’t care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times. You do not need to call points of order; I will protect against new rebuttal arguments for you. NPTE-level debaters: my national circuit philosophy is located at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RV69pX3KyMwkkotPQ5whfUSH91D5ba027xgvj2Ig04M/edit?usp=sharing

Nick Russell - Long Beach

Judge Philosophy for Nick Russell DOF @ CSU, Long Beach Years in Debate: 20 Rounds Judged this Year: not many Months without a Weekend: 1.5 I view debate as a laboratory for democracy, by which I mean that debate provides an opportunity for students to become agents of positive social transformation. As such, my view is that debate should be a forum for debaters to develop a voice to express the arguments about which you are passionate; it’s your opportunity to positively transform society. And it’s not my place to tell you how to do that (e.g., run a project, a plan, or a pomo). That being said, I’m convinced that in order to transform publics, you must persuade your audience. And there are things that make arguments and debaters more or less persuasive as I audience them. <ol> <li>I think that human beings are different from one another. And, for this whole democratic experiment to succeed, I think we need to be respectful of differences. I may be wrong and you may be right, but for debate to work, there has to be space for a dialogic exchange. And that means respect. I loathe hostility and am uncomfortable with aggression, so please find a way to make the debate friendly.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, so my brain has been socialized to understand arguments in a relatively formal sense: e.g., a claim supported with evidence—connected with a warrant. Please don’t read this as a normative endorsement of the Toulmin model. Instead, it’s a descriptive claim of the way that I have learned to think through my experience in debate and my livelihood teaching Introduction to Argument classes.</li> <li>While I enjoy reading critical theory and cultural studies, my brain is quicker to make sense of things that are tangible, concrete, and explained using examples. For critical teams, this means you ought to describe how your argument plays out in the world of the plan; for orthodox teams, this means you need to describe how the plan solves your harms (even if this is internal to an advantage); and for project teams it means explaining how your argument will concretely and meaningfully cause change.</li> </ol> The bottom line is this: you are an active agent of social transformation. You should actualization that agency for positive social change—and not for social domination.

Norm Fricker - OCC

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC

The merit of your arguments is the foremost deciding factor for me. The debater(s) who has the strongest arguments should win. As a personal preference, I like well structured debates. If I can easily flow what you're saying and where you're refuting your opponent, it makes it much easier for me to make a fair decision without interjecting into your round. Try not to be a douchebag. There is really no reason to be rude or condescending; these are strategies of aggression that are usually employed by debaters who lack more refined skills of actual argumentation. You should address me, the judge, not each other. You can communicate with your teammate, but it should not be excessive or distracting... and I will only flow what actually comes out of the speaker's mouth. (Additionally, it always appears like there's not great partner trust when one person tries to dominate his/her partner... and I start to doubt your credibility.) I recommend that you stand when you speak and employ good public speaking traits: articulation, limit non-verbal distractions, fluid delivery with few verbal fillers, eye contact, expressiveness, etc. I am willing to listen to anything you'd like to discuss. However, it is your responsibility to explain clearly why I should prefer your argument to another. This applies to the use of procedurals; running a procedural isn't a guarantee of a win. Your responsibility as a debater is to explain exactly what the violation is and how it impacts the round or to explain clearly why the violation did not occur or how it is irrelevant to the round. Similarly, I will listen to a K, but you have to convince me that this is more significant than the resolution... or why it isn't. Do your job to flush out arguments and rebuttals so I don't have to! I feel speed is a weak strategy as it promotes quantity over quality of arguments. I'd rather hear fewer, more developed arguments than a long list used as a time suck... which sucks. If I can't keep up with your spreading, I will simply stop flowing the round; if your argument doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't consider it when making my decision. Use of jargon is fine, as long as you are using it correctly and linking it specifically into the debate. Don't use jargon for jargon sake; integrate it into the specific debate. If you have other questions, feel free to ask me! But if you ask for my preferences and are not willing to adapt to them, I’d rather you just didn’t even ask.

Simon Kern - Canyons

n/a

Steve Robertson - Cerritos College

Tanya Melendez - Bradley

n/a

William Neesen - IVC

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

2016 Close to the Coast - SAT