FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Kramer - De Anza

At  this point in time, I guess I am pretty old-school in my approach to judging Parli debate. I like clear argumentation with warranted claims and well-articulated impacts that are actually logically connected to the argument they support. I am not opposed to theory debates, or topicality, or any other type of argument, although I do think critiques have a very limited place in academic debate, and aren't just another tool in the toolkit. I still hold to the idea that debate is not just a game, but ideally should also be a context for reasonable argumentation about an issue, with at least some attention paid to oratorical skill.

Ana Petero - Solano

Judging Philosophy for Ana Petero, Solano College   I like structure! It is the responsibility of the Government to define the terms reasonably. If not, I will vote on Topicality, though I really would prefer not to have to. Label your arguments and impact them. I detest tag team constructive speeches, that is, when one person is speaking and his/her partner is talking to them and telling them what to say. I don’t particularly care for critiques unless they are warranted. Some like to run critiques because they think it’s cool. Finally, speed is not necessary in Parliamentary debate (so, unless you plan to be an auctioneer or a voice-over at the end of television commercials, don’t talk fast).

Andrea Adams - Ohlone College

n/a

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

August Benassi - Moorpark

n/a

Becky Opsata - DVC

Ben Lohman - OCC

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Charles Mullins - MJC

Chelcy Gibbons - SJDC

Chris Harris - DVC

Chris Galvan - FCC

Critic: Chris Galvan   I competed in NFA-LD, Policy, and Parli Debate. I don't have a preference of format, and I don't think there's a right or wrong way to debate, but there are things that I really don't like.   What I don't like:   <ol> <li>Bad Critical Debate – If you're going to bring a critical writer or thinker in the room, please know what you're talking about. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible but if I know an author much better than you do and I know you're making things up, I'm probably not going to weight that argument highly. Also, if you're going to go for a critical argument in the last speech, please give me the clearest voters possible in how I should weight it. (I like the pre/post fiat dichotomy.</li> <li>Bad Framework – If you're going to run framework then run it well. As a former K debater I grow tired of frameworks that seek to punish innovation of ideas in debate, but I'm more than happy to weight out cede the political impacts. What I don't want is a whine about how the other team is abusing you within this round with no external impacts or clear fleshed out education loss stories. Give me something to weight, not just a gripe.</li> <li>Shady Link Stories – While I may favor critical debate, I don't ignore traditional arguments, but in the world of disads, don't make me have to work for internal link stories. I hate it when I have a DA link and impact with no clear way to get to said impact. If your internal link story is bollocks, then I won't weight the disad heavily in the round. I like the presence of quality links.</li> </ol>   What I do like:   <ol> <li>Good Intellectual Clash -  I won't tell you what I expect in regards to burdens and what not, but I do like a really good close, clash filled debate. I don't want to have to sit through two ships passing in the night; give me something to listen to that my brain can really digest. Make me think!</li> <li>Personal Narratives and Examples – I'm still into the K, so I love it when debaters can use examples of real world happenings that resonate with them to explain or make an argument. If you can associate your econ DA with a lemonade stand from your childhood, then that makes the argument more real for me. I know that this is debate and we're quick to read academic journals and such for knowledge, but nothing beats a good real story.</li> <li>Clear Voters – Don't make me do the work for you. If you want me to vote in a specific way then tell me to vote in that way. Use terms like a priori, but if you have multiple a priori arguments then tell me the order, or I'll default to my own order, which you might not like. So save us all some trouble and take a few seconds in your last speech to tell me how to view the round.</li> <li>Humor – I won't hold it against you if you're a super serious debater or team, but this is debate. On some level it's supposed to still be fun, and I guarantee you I'll always appreciate a joke or two.</li> <li>Originality – I have nothing against a team running the politics DA or a consult counterplan, but there's something to be said for original attempts at innovation. I don't give preference just for trying anything new, as it still has to be good and compelling, but I do appreciate and desire to give feedback on new things.</li> </ol>

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Claudia Carvajal - Chabot

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Daniel Lopez - PCC

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Test 123

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Dshene Cotton - Cerritos College

n/a

Duane Smith - LAVC

n/a

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE Background of the critic: I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic.  Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge.  Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention.    Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed.  Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations.  Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case.  I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. Any additional comments: This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds.  I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience.  If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round.  All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches.  Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW.  All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture.  I don’t time road maps but want them.  Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.

Eric Cullather - LAVC

n/a

Farah Moore - Grossmont

Hal Sanford - SRJC

Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College Short Version:  I'm a stock issues judge.  I'm not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.  Thank you Joe Allen.  Be nice to each other.   I'll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion Long Version:  Some debaters may want more.  Here's more.  Remember, being electronic, it's length  does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.                                                                                                                                                               What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.                                                                                                                                            AFFIRMATIVE:  Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best."  Be sure your interpretation of the resolution gives ground to the negative. In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.  Weigh impacts.  Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).  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. NEGATIVE:  In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.  Too often negatives think they are being clever with "time suck" 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.  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.  Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable. In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative's when in relation to the actual resolution.  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.  What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?  Be nice.  Don't belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.  Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.  Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?  Really? What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?  Stock Issues: In policy debate, these are key for me.  Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.  Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.  Affirmative must win all four to win round.  Stock issues are: 1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot.  Topicality:  Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued by negatives.  You'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'll really resist.  Counter plans:  It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.  They also should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine choice between the plan and counter plan.  Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad. Critiques:  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.  I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality.  Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that  "we should all hurry up and die because life's greatest gift is death."  Really?  I vote on the flow, but I won't turn off my brain.   Still, if your names are Robert or  Sterling, I might buy it.  They're eloquentus-maximus.  Weighing:  Explain why you win.  Weigh impacts.  Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?     SPEED - NFA-LD:  This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.  Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.  That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.  Only one has been "too fast" for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.  After all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right?   If I or the opponent call "clear," heed that request. SPEED - PARLI:  Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.  I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also. JARGON:  Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.  For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.  Say something like:  "Perm.  Do both the plan and the counter plan.  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.  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." TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:  Please be organized.  I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.  I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.  I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.  If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Jason Ames - Chabot

I believe it is up to you to make strategic decisions on how you perform in round. Thus, you tell me what I’m supposed to judge on.  I believe the round is yours to define and I’ll vote on any argument (T’s, K’s, CP’s, whatever) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive.  If you blip it, I won’t buy it just because it’s on the flow.  Argumentation should be organized to enable me to flow your arguments better. Other things: I prefer that students adhere to the topic given, but I am also open and able to judge critical arguments from both sides of the resolution if applicable and necessary. I’m not a huge fan of speed in either NFA or Parli. I do try to adapt as best as possible, however, but I also don’t want to be a “flow machine”. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can make a good decision. Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. In NFA, I believe that spreading is antithetical to the event. However, I don’t believe you need to be “conversational speed” either. Feel free to talk a bit quickly (as us debaters do). Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. If you don’t, you’ll probably be unhappy. Also in NFA, if at least the tags and sources of your 1AC are not in a public space that is available to all debaters after round 2 of the tournament, I will become more prone to buy predictability arguments from the Negative side and more willing to vote on T in favor of the Neg. (FYI Neg, this doesn’t mean it’s a lock for you if they don’t … but the odds are ever in your favor). Here is the website for you to post your case: <a href="http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/">http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/</a> Your rebuttals should be a time for you to advocate your positions.  Enjoy!

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jill McCall - Moorpark

n/a

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Josh Fleming - PCC

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

Josh Ward - MJC

Jules Throckmorton - IVC

JULES THROCKMORTON-FRENCH: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE   Background of the critic:   I've been involved with Parliamentary Debate for the last 10 years; whether that be competing, coaching, or judging. I competed from 2001-2004 for what was then known as the South Orange County Forensics Team (SOC). Since that time, I went on to earn my Juris Doctor at law school. However, my love for forensics brought me back to the speech and debate community. I've coached debate and individual events at both Saddleback and Irvine Valley College. I am also the Director of Individual Events at Concordia University.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I consider myself a flow judge. I don't have any particular likes or dislikes- I will be open minded to whatever you choose to run in front of me. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible. With that said, call every "point of order," or I will flow it.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   Communication is important as, after all, this is a communication event. However, good communication will only get you so far; I may award you high speaker points, but good communication skills will not necessarily win you the round. As far as speed goes, I am ok with a moderately-fast pace so long as it is CLEAR, necessary, and well signposted.  Remember that I have been focusing more on individual events this year, and as a result my flow has gotten a little slower. Be careful, b/c if you are going too fast I will not give any verbal signals.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:   I think a good debate involves offense and defense, and a good debater will never put all their eggs in one basket. However, there have been plenty of rounds where I've picked up OPP even though the on-case was conceded.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:   I will be open-minded to whatever you want to run.   Any additional comments:   I will time road maps!!! Make the round an easy call for me- weigh everything out and tell me EXACTLY where you're winning and why. Give me clear voters & tell me where to pull the trigger. Please be clear and signpost. Also, please do not be rude! Finally, I am old-fashioned in the sense that I believe you should stand for your speeches, and if your partner has something to contribute they can simply pass a note rather than yelling out.

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Background: I have been involved with Debate for ten years as both a competitor and a coach.  I competed from 2003-2007.  I coached at University of the Pacific for two years and have been coaching at San Joaquin Delta College for the past 2.5 years. Overall Philosophy: Debate is a game, in my view.  Debating about AWB leading to nuclear war is not realistic, therefore debate is not realistic.  I look at debate as a chess game where every type of argument is a piece on the board and used to take down the "king."  Meaning I will listen to anything and will vote on anything as long as it is warranted within the debate round.  With that said, every judge has preferences. Here are my preferences: Procedurals: Competing interpretations doesn't make sense to be ran as a priori, but if you have warrants as to why it is a priori, Im all ears. Also, education as a standard or a voter cannot be quantified in a logical way to render my ballot.  As far as my  voting behavior I have a low threshold on Topicality, but high threshold on new procedurals ran in MGC (only because this allows PMR to make a lot of new arguments without a response for the neg).  I really like procedural debates when done well.   Kritiks: I love critic debates. I hate bad ones. I weigh the framework heavily when evaluating the arguments on the K.  I am not a fan of Reject the Aff Alternative, but I have voted for it.  The alt, should framed as counterplan or a clear way to adopt an ideology. Impacts: I prefer probability and timeframe over scope and magnitude. Speed: I can keep up as long as the taglines are clear, you slow down during a plan or counterplan text (so, i can get every word), numbering is consistently clear, and the rebuttals don't sound like another constructive.

Katrina Taylor - Cerritos College

Kay Harrison - Ohlone College

n/a

Kristina Whalen - CCSF

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Libby Simas - Solano

Loretta Rowley - Canyons

n/a

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Marc Ouimet - Palomar

Maricarmen Puente - Cerritos College

n/a

Marie Arcidiacono - CCC

Marina Whitchurch - SRJC

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Mark Nelson - SRJC

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

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!

Nate Milnik - Columbia

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Neil Glines - Solano

My View of Parliamentary Debate: I enjoy a good mix of both worlds. The way in which you present your arguments is equally important as the types of arguments you present. I am open to any and all types of arguments. Speed is not an issue for me. Please be clear and try to avoid foaming at the mouth. Humor is underutilized in debate these days. A team that can have a good time while advancing their arguments will stand out in my ballot. GOV: I need a criteria or weighing mechanism in order to evaluate the round. When you provide one, unless I hear otherwise, all arguments should be weighed through it. Res analysis is an easy way to avoid muddy debates and lots of T, so use it. When you make claims support them with examples or some other type of backing. Cases that advance Tag lines with little analysis are problematic. MG: please answer opp arguments and extend your partners. It is hard to win when you get dragged off case and do little to advance the original case. PMR: When answering OPP’S arguments don’t forget to go big picture when providing your own voting issues. Please remember to flow arguments through your weighing mechanism. OPP: T, CP, K, DA, and any other type of argument you feel is appropriate are fine with me. Make sure you spend the proper time justifying them. MO if you run a new argument you might want to have a unique reason why. I want you to defend yourself from case shifts or teams that are moving targets. However running new arguments in the MO other than the above-mentioned reasons leave you open for turns by the PM in the rebuttals. LOR: Try to avoid going for the whole enchilada. Issue selection is key. Final Comments: Speaker points will be awarded to smart, witty, reasoned, and affable speaker. Points will be deducted from rude, oppressive, and offensive speakers. Above all else have a good time.

Nicole Sandoval - Ohlone College

n/a

Rachel Dwiggins-Beeler - CCC

Rebecca Stewart - Glendale, CA

Robert Cannon - Glendale, CA

Robert Yamamoto - FCC

8 years of policy debate.  I really have no preferences aside from clarity in the end.

Robyn Fielder - PCC

n/a

Roger Willis - OCC

When Judging parliamentary debate I look for solid arguments that are well explained. I do not mind the use of jargon, but I do not care for speeches that contain too much jargon and not enough substance. I do not like spreading. I enjoy an interesting position, even if there is a performance case, but I vote on who adequately argued their position on the resolution presented. I am happy to judge value, fact, or policy debates.   I have little experience judging or watching Lincoln Douglas debate, but I would look for well supported cases with appropriate evidence.

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

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

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shawn O'Rourke - OCC

Sherana Polk - OCC

First, I like arguments that just make logical sense.  Rarely will I buy that a plan is going to lead to a nuclear war; no matter how many internal links you have. So please make arguments that are realistic.  However, I try my best to judge the round only on what the debaters say and not my personal opinions.  Therefore, if a team does not respond to an argument, no matter how illogical that argument is, I could still vote for it.  I don't think that you have to respond to all 35 warrants to say why one argument is ridiculous but you do have to make a response.   Second, delivery is important.  The only way to be persuasive is to be understandable.  If you are spreading then you are less understandable.  If I can't understand you then I am unwilling to vote for you.  Please be organized and signpost where you are at.  If I am lost I am less willing to vote for you. Third, I think that there are three types of debate.  So I like listening to policy, value, and fact debate.  Trying to shove policy into every debate topic annoys me.  So run the proper case for the proper resolution.  If you decide not to and Opp runs Tricot then I will vote there.  I also think that Gov should always stay on topic.  So if Gov is non-topical then run T.  I don't think that T must have articulated abuse in order to be a real voting issue.  If you are non-topical, no matter how debatable the case is, you lose.  So just argue the topic.  I am willing to listen to Kritiques.  I am not a fan of K's because the vast majority of times that I have seen K debates they are unclear and really is just a tactic to not debate the actual issue.  However, there are sometimes when the K is necessary.  So run it at your own risk.      Overall, I really like debate.  If competitors run clear arguments, with strong pathos, and are civil to one another then I am a happy judge.  So do your best!

Simon Kern - Canyons

n/a

Stephen Ban - Butte

Steve Robertson - Saddleback

Steven Graham - SJDC

Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba

n/a

Theresa Perry - Butte

Tim Elizondo - Columbia

Background:  I am the founder and director of the Columbia College Speech and Debate program.  Since receiving my doctorate in Cultural Studies, I have been teaching philosophy and speech courses for the past seven years.   The program’s emphasis is towards success at the State and National Championship tournaments held on the two year level.  I will never vote on dehumanization if you use the term as a kind of shorthand for oppression, death, or some sort of other severely inhumane notion or treatment of poepple.  Use different langauge to articulate this idea set as the idea set associated with "duhmanization" as a debate buzzword are minimized by the trend in debate to use it as jargon. Pedagogically speaking, I am influenced by the writings of Paulo Freire, John Warren, and other critical scholars.  As a result, I view debate as an active and evolving game that has the potential to promote positive social change. This kind of scholarship promotes critical positions within the activity while reminding debaters that the utility of the activity resides in the debater’s ability to communicate their arguments to those who lack elite-level training in listening, flowing, or jargon deconstruction.   I do not begin the debate with the assumption that any kind of effect articulated within a Government’s plan inherently outweighs the discourse within a round.  I am interested in exploring the implications and limitations of a “pre-fiat” paradigm, but this is not an expectation placed upon the debaters. Prefiat > post fiat. I expect to see “gear changes” in the styles and speed of the PM and LO.  I understand a PMC may need to be quick, Rebuttals, however, should contain less emphasis on line-by-line analysis and, instead, seek to weigh out winning arguments. .   -I strive to record every argument offered in the debate, however, that should not be confused with an acceptance of every argument as valid, relevant, or compelling.   -I am persuaded by speakers who strive to engage the audience with eye-contact, humor, style, or other aspects of effective public speaking.   -I do not mind “tag teaming” during points of order however, speaker points will be affected if it appears as if one partner is acting as a parrot or puppet for the other.   -Politically speaking, I am open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.   -Tell me where to vote…Tell me where to vote….Tell me where to vote

2012 CCCFA State Championships