FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Lamascus - Pepperdine

Andrew Silverstein - CSULA

I competed in parli for four years in college and before that I did four years of LD in high school.  In addition I have coached for one year in high school and one year in college.  I am one year out of competing but unfortunately I haven’t been able to judge many rounds this year.  I’ve only judged about a dozen throughout the season. I think of debate as a truth seeking event and not necessarily a gamesmanship event.  What that means is that the primary purpose of the rounds in my opinion is to learn something, winning should come second.  Coincidentally usually the person that gives the best space for learning is also usually the one that wins. I consider myself a stock issues judge and will evaluate the round in this fashion unless otherwise told to.  In that respect though, I attempt to be tabula rasa because if you tell me I should be judging in a different fashion I would be more than willing to do so. Performance and communication skills aren’t really very important to me.  Again I am being asked to evaluate the round in some fashion based off of these I am also open to that concept if you provide me a good reason. I prefer actual on-case argumentation rather than Meta debate issues.  This is because most of the time that I observe some sort of T, Spec, or Critique, I usually see no reason why the argument was necessary.  These types of procedural arguments I will evaluate if you can provide me a reason for running them other than, “I need to run a T every round.” Counterplans in all varieties can be run in front me.  I expect counterplans to be non-topical, mutually exclusive (or not permeable for some reason), and solve the affs harms unless I am told something otherwise. I will protect you during rebuttals from new arguments but I suggest you still call points of order just to make sure that if I miss something being new it will still not count in the round

August Benassi - Moorpark

n/a

Billy Hatton - Canyons

n/a

Brian Norcross - Pepperdine

If you read nothing else read this: There is such a lack of explaining and warranting arguments at the moment that I am about three bad rounds away from just not flowing anymore.  At least that would make you explain your arguments because you would know you need warrants and actual explanation to persuade me.    While I know I am risking sounding like the old man who is yelling at the young kids to get off my lawn, here are my thoughts about debate, which you should probably take into account when I am judging your round.  The debates that I have seen over the last three years were all middle and high school students who were not debating in their native language.  Watching (and enjoying) these rounds led me to the following observations about debate, and specifically about parliamentary debate.  Debate rarely resembles reality; both in terms of the way arguments get deployed in round and also in the specific arguments that are made.  Watching two teams get a resolution and then watching both of these teams debate the merits of that resolution without everything ending in nuclear war was a refreshing experience.  There was something very nice about a good case debate, or a simple case / counterplan-disad strategy.  There have been tournaments since I have been back where I have not seen a single case argument, which while somewhat annoying, is probably just bad debate strategy.  Warrants and explanation for links are particularly important.  Living in one of the areas of the world where many debate scenarios take place, seeing links involved in those scenarios happen everyday, and then seeing nothing come from those actions, has only increases my threshold for explanations and warrants.  I find clear explanations of how the world works very persuasive in terms of taking out much of the link level of arguments, which makes it easier to generate the offense you need to beat the rest of your opponent’s case.  Since I have been back I have learned that the faster you speak the worse my flows become, and the likelihood of me making a decision that you are unhappy with increases.  So I will do my best, but take that as a warning about one of my limitations as a judge. The more I hear criticisms in debate (and particularly parliamentary debate) the more I am convinced that this format is not conducive to the argument.  Part of the problem is the limited time has made much of the explanation or the framework / worldview superficial at best, relying on the judge or other team to fill in the gaps.  If the explanation of the way you view the world is superficial, the rest of the debate generally follows the same pattern.  The time and speech limitations, the limitations of evidence, and just general practices have led to arguments that are barely warranted and poorly explained.  You also need to have a competitive alternative that includes what the world looks like after I vote for you.  If your alternative includes the words vote against the affirmative, that would seem to illustrate that your advocacy is just not competitive.  I am not saying that I will not vote for criticisms, just that I hold them to the same standards that I would other strategies, and given the nature of the arguments, fulfilling those requirements are incredibly difficult in a parliamentary debate round.    As a debater, I thought that all resolutions were policy resolutions, and years of judging have only reinforced that view.  I find fact and value cases to be races to see who can find the most examples, making them very difficult to judge.  I know how evaluate policy rounds, something that I still cannot say with any level of certainty about fact or value rounds.  Choosing how you support the resolution is always a strategic decision you get to make, but with me as a judge choosing anything but a plan would be a bad decision. Perms are tests of competition.  Counter-plans can be topical.  Because of the structure of parliamentary debate counter-plans need to be unconditional, and will be taken as such unless otherwise stated in the round (although why would you state otherwise when I just told you they need to be unconditional).  You should try and have reasons for theory arguments that include the unique structure and format of Parliamentary debate, which are the types of explanations I will default to when there are competing interpretations.    NPTE Specifics 1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? -        27 is average with 29’s being excellent speeches.  I rarely give 30’s, they are reserved for exceptional speeches (I don’t think I have given one this year).    2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? -        Critical arguments are usually weighed in the same way that non-critical arguments are, primarily because no one really tells me how to weigh them differently (or do so in a way that makes any sense).  Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but if you want me to weigh something differently you should probably tell me why and then how to do it, otherwise I will treat it like a traditional argument in the net-benefits paradigm.    3.     Performance based arguments… -        Performance based arguments have the same responsibility to actually make an argument.  Just because it is performative does not mean it is better, with the majority of my experience being the opposite, making the argument worse or harder to understand.  Simply, you are probably going to have to work harder to make performance arguments work, and given the time and limits on pre-prepared material, parliamentary debate is probably a bad venue for them.    4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? -        My requirements here are pretty standard for a procedural, in other words, I am not someone who really likes to vote on T, or someone who will just not listen to the argument.  In round abuse is not necessary, but probably helpful.  Not sure how you have a T debate without competing interpretations, unless the affirmative teams just doesn’t meet their own definition, which would just be dumb.    5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? -        Most of this is open to theoretical interpretation and argument, but anything but unconditional counterplans seem problematic because of the structure of parliamentary debate.  Overall I like it when you give specific justifications based in the specific debates (either structural, like parliamentary debate, or in round arguments).  Perms are tests of competition.   6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) -        I’m not sure why anyone would care either way, however, I could care less about a lot of what goes on that does not affect either the arguments or the credibility of those arguments.    7.     In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? -        Procedurals à Everything else   8.     How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? -        I usually weigh them in such a way that at least one team is going to be annoyed, so to avoid that anger, I would recommend you actually weigh them yourselves.  If you do not do this weighing, expect my brain to do it for you, and that is both a really bad idea and probably not very predictable.  Also see the above on probabilistic impacts versus large impacts.

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Chaz Kelly - Chico

Chris Hacela - IVC

Cindy Phu - PCC

Most Important Criteria:  As a critic, I am looking for the team that provide the best arguments in the round with logical analysis and well developed arguments (claim, ground, warrant).  First, please be sure to stay organized, link all of your refutation, and use clear impacts.  Second, I am a flow-judge so make sure that you have a clean structure and substructure.  Be sure to label all of your arguments with tag lines.  Lastly, the criteria is what I use to judge the round in addition to your voters.  It is important to link back to the criteria and explain how and why your team wins.  I love impact scenarios!  Expectation of Decorum: Debaters are expected to be nice, respectful, and able to demonstrate their ability to have fun while debating. Predispositions: No predispositions.  Best arguments overall will win my ballot. Speech/Jargon/Technical: Go as fast as you can or as slow as you can.  As long as the other team is able to flow then I don't have any issues.  However, if the other team specifically request that you slow down then I will expect a more conversational delivery.  At the end of the day, just be persuasive.  Jargon and Technical is fine.  Just make sure that you explain, link, and impact it when you use it.

Daniel Elliott - Biola

Experience: <ol> <li>Competing: I was trained for CEDA though our small school did not have the time or funds to keep up with the research so I did Parli for two years back when Parliamentary Debate was just getting started in the west, 1996-1998.</li> <li>Judging: I have since = judged in many different tournaments as an assistant coach. I took a couple of years off to get married and now I am back as the Director of Forensics at Biola University. I have judged too many rounds to sit down and try to do the math. I have been around a while.</li> </ol> Decision making: <ol> <li>I first make my decision according to my flow. I could totally disagree with you but if you say something is important or critical to the round I will write it down. If there is no response from the other team then that argument might win the round.</li> <li>I make my decision according to logic. I do not believe in tabula rosa. I will look at the arguments, especially in a round of a lot of clash, and decide what is supported with the best evidence and what makes the most sense.</li> <li>I accept procedurals. You do not need to prove abuse to run a T. You can run solvency presses, specs, Kritics, and tricot. I will listen to them all. I do not buy the risk of solvency arguments. If you have a plan that is likely not to solve that is the place where I will pull the trigger for the neg.</li> <li>Finally on Kritics, I do not like Kritics that are really nonlinear disadvantages in disguise just dressed up like K’s so that you can kritic the mindset. They K itself is nonlinear. The harm is already in the status quoe. There is no bright line to suggest that the rhetoric will make it worse. So save yourself the trouble and do not run them because I do not want to hear them.</li> </ol> Presentation: <ol> <li>I think speed is antithetical to debate. Debate is about persuading your critic. Debate is supposed to train you for real world debates. How does talking at 200+ words per minute train students to argue in the real world? It robs debate of Ethos and Pathos which are just as important to logos in Aristotle’s paradigm. Logos is the most important of the triad but I want to see the other two.</li> <li>So please rise and speak if there is a lectern available. If not then you may speak from your seat.</li> <li>Be as professional as you can. It makes you more credible as a speaker. The more credible you are the more persuasive your arguments will seem. There is plenty of great research to support this.</li> </ol> On Case arguments: <ol> <li>I like on case arguments. I don’t want the debate to become like two ships passing in the night.</li> <li>I do not want the Aff to spend 30 minutes of prep only to spend the hour of our lives listening to Neg’s off case positions. Since logic is very important to me I would advise Neg teams to try case turns and presses in addition to K’s and DA’s It can only help you.</li> </ol>

Dave Machen - PCC

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

David Hale - CSULA

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 Smith - UCLA

I have 6 years debating. I have done every debate event. I dont like speed (though i can understand it) I dont like theory (though i understand it) other than that, the round is yours. have fun and learn something new

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

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

James Dabaggian - LAVC

n/a

Janice Tessman - CSUN

n/a

Jen Page - IVC

Jessika Seekatz - Palomar

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Jonathan Hensley - Biola

Josh Miller - LAVC

n/a

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.

Kevin Calderwood - IVC

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia University Irvine, Irvine Valley College   Saved Philosophy:   Quick Notes   ---I prefer policy arguments. ---You should take take at least one question in every constructive. ---All advocacies in the debate should be unconditional. ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once. ---Framework should never be a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate. ---Topicality should always be a voting issue, and is never genocide. Spec arguments are a waste of time. Permutations are tests of competition. ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition, process ((veto cheato, con-con)), etc.). Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place. ---I use should a lot in my paradigm. This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot. All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion. Background: I have participated in competitive debate for the last eleven years. I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format. However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences. As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a hegemonist. I study rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication. I have written most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones. However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at. If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate. Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me. This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate. I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running. Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents. I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard. Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance. This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate. There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic. Poverty exists in the United States. If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact. (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns. If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense. However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument. Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described. Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic. Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic. Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue. It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc). Debates are not won or lost on framework. If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate. I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric. Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate. Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate. In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win. Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism. Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit. I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better. I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration. I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp. Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse. If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive. Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team. Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win. Counterplans should be unconditional. You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team. You should take a question about the text of your counterplan. Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.) I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans). With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness. Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans. Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan. Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition. Permutations should never be advocacies. Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations. Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of). Politics is generally boring and not well researched. Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately. Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate. Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts. Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable. Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues. I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc). If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down. I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool. Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters. Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide. It should be a voting issue. I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability. Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”. Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is. Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is. This is what we call a link. I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments. Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language). I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there. My average was somewhere around a 27.8 for the year. As a final note, I really hate cheap shots. I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments. Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect. I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot. I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive. Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

Kris Wawra - Glendale, CA

Kyle Van Sant - Chabot College

n/a

Leah Freeman - Biola

Lindsey Ayotte - Chabot College

n/a

Liza Rios - IVC

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

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Matt Strawbridge - UCLA

I competed in high school LD for 2 years, and I did 4 years of college parli, competing for Moorpark then UCLA. I also did some NFA LD. I now coach at UCLA while attending law school. I am open to any type of argument you want to make, in any way you want to make it. I don’t want you to feel at all limited in what you can do. As much as possible, I’ll try to remove myself from the round and adopt whatever paradigm the debaters tell me to. With only a few exceptions, the following should be interpreted merely as suggestions and explanations of my default decision-making process, rather than rigid rules you must follow to win or get high speaker points. Speed and Delivery I’m fine with speed, although I don’t especially like it and often doubt its usefulness. I don’t really care about your delivery style, so do whatever is most comfortable to you, just make sure that everyone can hear you well. In the event that you’re too fast or unclear for me, I’ll let you know. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request. Procedurals For procedural arguments, I don’t have any default thresholds or requirements like “I won’t vote unless there is in-round abuse.” Feel free to make arguments one way or another, but I don’t have an inherent aversion to voting on T/specs/etc without articulated ground loss, or even without any ground loss at all, if you want to give some other justification for voting on procedurals. If you tell me to vote on it, I’ll vote on it, simple as that. It’s probably fair to say that I enjoy T more than most judges, so don’t be shy to run it (and go for it) in front of me. Trichotomy Unlike a lot of people, I don’t hate the trichotomy. If you want to interpret the resolution as a value, or even fact, feel free to do so in front of me. Likewise, if you want to run “this should be a value debate” on the opp, go ahead. I say this as only a notification that the trichot debate is not an uphill battle when I’m judging, in contrast to a lot of judges on the circuit. But you still need to win the argument, of course, and I certainly wouldn’t say you have an uphill battle if you want to argue against interpreting the resolution as value/fact either. As with topicality, don’t feel like your arguments need to be tied to ground, abuse, predictability, or the like. There are plenty of other interesting arguments out there on both sides and I’ll entertain any of them. Counterplans and Permutations Similarly, I don’t have any preconceived rules about which counterplans and permutations are “legitimate” and which aren’t. I’m fine voting on a PIC if it’s well defended, and equally fine voting against it if it’s not. By default, I interpret a perm merely as a test of competition, not as an advocacy. Kritiks and Critical Arguments I’m open to any type of kritik or critical affirmative. I ran a few K’s when I competed, and I was a philosophy major. But before you pull out your Zizek or Heidegger, keep reading: UCLA’s major is exclusively analytic philosophy, and it was off of that type of literature that I based my positions. I know nothing about continental philosophy or critical theory. This doesn’t mean you should be discouraged from running those arguments, just be sure to explain them clearly--as you should anyway, of course. Again, I don’t have any automatic requirements for kritiks (like that they have an alt other than “reject”). Performance Performance-based arguments are okay, but you might have a harder time winning those in front of me. I’ll probably be sympathetic to the other team if your framework is unexplained or unclear. I’m not sure this is entirely fair on my part, as I’m preferring more “traditional” arguments over performance, but I don’t know how to be fair in this regard. At least everyone is familiar with frameworks, and although it’s not ideal to force you at least to partially engage in that system in order to argue against it, that’s the best solution I have, especially since debate is adversarial and voting for your performance also means voting againstyour opponent. But that said, I don’t have any objections to performance per se, and if that’s what you run normally you should run it in front of me too. Criteria and Impact Calculus Most rounds have a blipped out “net benefits” criterion which goes conceded. I find that this can lead to problems in rounds when the teams are claiming different types of benefits, e.g. increased utility versus lives saved. The best ways to avoid this problem, I think, are to do a little bit more work on the criteria level by explaining precisely what you mean by the vague, ubiquitous “net benefits,” and to give really specific impact analysis about why your impacts are weightier than the other team’s (where “weight” = magnitude x probability). Absent a definition, I interpret “net benefits” to be a crude form of consequentialism, and will prefer utility over other desiderata. This means, e.g., that by default I would vote for a nuclear war impact over an equally probable dehumanization impact. But this won’t matter, obviously, if you tell me to look at the round another way. Feel free to run any criterion you wish, and I’m (more than) happy to listen to a discussion of non-consequentialist ethics as well. Along those lines, I’m not of the opinion that all disadvantages need to end with nuclear war, or even any people dying. Systemic impacts, linear disadvantages, and moral arguments are fine with me. I prefer depth of analysis over blippy high magnitude assertions. You can of course make your risk of magnitude arguments, just don’t expect me to make them for you. If you can go from the passage of a bill to the end of all life on Earth in 15 seconds, I don’t think your opponent needs to spend more than 15 (well-used) seconds to refute that. Contradictory Arguments I can’t really give you my concrete opinion about “contradictory” arguments in a vacuum. Certainly I think teams can argue contingencies and dilemmas (“Plan will have no effect, but even if it does, that will be bad because...”). This can, at times, cross into the “critical” aspects of debate too (I can imagine a team consistently running a certain type of statism K and then an “even if” state-actor CP). Other times, a critical position pretty clearly prohibits you from doing certain things (here I’m thinking linguistic K’s). It really depends on the specific arguments in question. But, all these are still up to the debaters in the round. I won’t vote down a team for being inconsistent, even with a language K, if the other team doesn’t bring it up. Offensiveness and Unpopular Arguments If you are rude or intentionally exclusionary, I will dock your speaker points, but it won’t affect the round outcome unless the other team wins that it should. The same goes for comments that are blatantly racist/sexist/etc. However, I don’t want you to interpret this as excluding any legitimate policy proposals, and don’t be afraid to run “unpopular” arguments in front of me. I know the circuit is pretty liberal, but that doesn’t mean every round needs to be a race to the left--if you’re given the “conservative” side of a topic feel free to argue it straight up. I don’t find it inherently offensive, for example, if you want to defend a libertarian position that would allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, and so on. It’s a real position, after all, held by several members of Congress, and I think discussing the merits and disadvantages of it is useful and educational, regardless of what one might personally believe. The same applies for arguments about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, a flat tax, whatever. I wouldn’t be involved in switch-side debating if I didn’t think exploring all sides of an issue was valuable. I think I’m pretty good at leaving my personal political biases completely out of the debate, so don’t feel limited to “popular” positions. Just take care to present the arguments in a respectful, sensitive manner. RVI’s As with anything else, I’ll listen to them with an open mind. However, I think these should be well-warranted when used. If the MG simply blips one out in two seconds at the bottom of a very average T debate, I don’t feel required to vote there. I’m not saying it has to be persuasive for me to vote on it, just that you need to provide some reason, and explain that reason. Even then, as long as the other team addresses it, it’s probably not going to win you the round. I’ve only seen a couple rounds in parli where I personally thought an RVI was justified, and those were unusual circumstances. Order of Evaluation I’m wary of giving a specific order in which I’ll evaluate positions if left on my own to do so. I don’t think I can say, irrespective of content, that T comes before K, or the other way round. Frankly, it depends on what T and what K they are, as well as the on-case arguments. I guess I’d say that in most rounds the critical arguments would come before the procedural, which come before the case? But don’t hold me to that. I hope, though, that none of my bias matters, and debaters will explain the order in which I should evaluate the different positions (and, I hope that explanation is warranted). Labels and Unusual Arguments As the above might indicate, I think that forcing common labels onto positions can be bad for the round. I don’t believe that all the standard labels exhaustively cover all the types of arguments you could make in a round; I used to run a position that was sort of like topicality but also sort of a kritik, and just calling it one or the other was misleading and caused confusion. I also think that this type of pigeonholing is regrettable because it often leads to very shallow, uninteresting theory debates. Instead of saying your opponent’s argument is a spec, and then reading generic theory about why specs are bad, I’d prefer to see you engage the specific position and tell me why it is bad. More generally, I really appreciate creativity, and enjoy seeing the common assumptions of debate challenged. If you have a new, unusual case or argument that you’re hesitant to run in competition just because it’s very different, I’m probably a good critic to try it out on. Misc. You should call points of order: normally I won’t strike new arguments on my own. I don’t mind if your extensions are “blippy,” as I see no need to reiterate every single subpoint that was dropped. Prompting your partner is fine, so long as they actually say the argument.  I’m missing school, work, and my wife to be at this tournament. I remain involved in the activity because I believe it’s incredibly valuable and I want to see it flourish. I enjoy judging, but I don’t think I’m entitled to have you entertain me. Instead, in a very real sense, I’m working for you: I’ve been charged with adjudicating the round, and I take that role very seriously. I aspire to be an excellent critic, the kind that I loved having in the back of the room as a competitor. You have my undivided attention in the round, and I will do my very best to decide it in a way that is fair and pursuant to the principles described above. Please feel welcome to ask me about my RFD, and push me on it if you disagree. I’m totally open to being wrong (and I hope you are too). I think it’s much more productive and in line with the educational nature of this activity if we talk about our differing views rather than just walk away and dismiss the other as incorrect. Have fun. Be yourself. It’s your round, not mine.

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? A+ 30, A 29.5, A- 29, B+ 28.5, B 28, B- 27.5, C+ 27, C 26.5, C- 26, D+ 25.5, D-/F 25, piss me off 20, do something really offensive 1.   2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  K's are cool.  Every aff is critical of the status quo.  "The neg just has to say the aff is wrong" is probably copout, but it seems to work for me.   3. Performance based arguments… All debae (and everything in general) is a performance.   4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require articulated abuse most of the time.  However, with topic areas such as the NPTE I may be persuaded to think potential abuse should be enough.  I do not require competing interpretations but I think they are probably a good idea.   5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? All CPs are a pic; probably means they are good.  Opp does not need to identify the status of the CP but should answer if prompted by the Aff (this should not count as their "1 question").  On Perms make your arguments.   6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ...yes.  You can share whatever you want.  Key word is want.   7. In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals, K, Case/DA & CP strats.   8. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? Death probably outweighs dehumanization absent a framework/impact prioritization.  However, one death vs one kajillion instances of dehume (think effects of war minus death) probably means I should vote for the dehume impact.   Dodd's doctrine:   Opening comments about self: I like debate.  I was not good at it.  I am probably a worse coach than a competitor somehow. Background knowledge on: USDA: Nukes: Latin America: Science/Tech: Topic areas for students to do research not me.  So, I know a lot of "debate-ready" stuff on the USDA and Nukes topics, a good deal on L/A, and next to nothing about science. Judging Philosophy on: Topicality: i like T more than you think I do. The Aff should be topical. Counter-plan theory: Is fun, I love me some theory.  However, I don't like boring theory debates that have been rehashed.  Try something new. Other theory: Defense and offense: offense wins championships.  You should explain the implications of defense on the round.   Counter-plans and competition: see above Critiques and their alternatives: see above Performance AFFs and topic avoiding critiques of debate: see above Wrong forum and other frameworks: Framework is fun.  wrong forum makes my soul cry. What would your ideal debate on the following topics consist of? Not the ideal strategy you’ll send your teams in with, what do you want to listen to? i want to listen to your best argument.  I don't care what it is.  If you are going for T and Framework that is as viable to me as a k or cp/da debate.  Politics is probably a lie but so are the ks we run.

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Natalie Kellner - Chico

Nathan Wensko - Long Beach

Naz Shirdel - CSUF

n/a

Neil Casey - Pepperdine

My judging philosophy is fairly simple. I prefer well reasoned and logical arguments that are at least somewhat consistent with the original purpose of Parli debate, pretending to be legislators discussing legislation. Because of this, I tend to prefer policy arguments with concrete, easy-to-see real-world impacts over other types of argument, particularly procedurals.  Because I competed in a slightly different form of debate for most of my collegiate career, you should also generally assume that I am not familiar with the majority of arcane parli jargon and theory, and explain anything you use. I am much better versed in current events and political/policy discussions, and I do not care for lazy assertions or misrepresentations in rounds, so do everything you can in the limited time you have available to avoid these sorts of errors, and to call out your opponents for making them.  Because of my background, I also tend to dislike speed. I will always go for the qualitatively better case over one that merely contains a greater number of arguments. Arguments that are merely tag lines containing a few assertions will receive very little weight from me.  I will not penalize competitors simply for speaking quickly on my ballot, but I will almost certainly miss or give little weight to many of your arguments, so spread at your own risk.  I have voted for criticisms many times in the past, but generally because the team on the receiving end of the critique was unable to respond effectively.  The most important part of any criticism is the alternative, specifically one that envisions the world of the team running the criticism.  Simply saying "Reject the opposition" is not an alternative. If you do run a K, be prepared to establish that your opponents' plan will have real and serious costs that outweigh any benefits the plan may create. Similarly RVIs need to be serious, and well-reasoned. If you think something is important enough to make me reject your opponents, take the time to convince me of the importance.  All that being said, I also believe that debate is about the competitors, not the judges, so I will do my absolute best to not bring my personal preferences and beliefs into my decisions. If you can debate better than your opponents and convince me by using an argument that I personally dislike, I will still vote for you.

Nicholas Butler - ASU

n/a

Nick Matthews - UCLA

If you’re pressed for time, this handy infographic summarizes my stance as a critic: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/pwSOe.jpg" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/pwSOe.jpg</a>   Otherwise, my policy judging philosophy goes into far greater detail about my experience and biases as a judge:<a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Matthews%2C+Nick" target="_blank">http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Matthews%2C+Nick</a>                                     In general:   1. You should never run anything other than policy arguments in front of me. I think fact and value debates are dumb and inevitably force me to intervene and make arbitrary calls. If the resolution lacks an actor and/or a direction, you should run a policy that demonstrates the resolution to be true in at least one instance. Example: if the resolution is “Nuclear power does more good than harm,” you should read a case that promotes nuclear energy usage.   2. I want to see a technical style of debate. Eloquent speaking is never an acceptable substitute for warrants. Your arguments should be structured. You should engage the line-by-line. You should use terms like uniqueness and brink. You should weigh and compare impacts. You should run fewer, but more in-depth, positions; I prefer one 6-minute disad over three 2-minute disads. If you attempt to thank me in your speech, I will scowl and stare daggers in your direction.   3. Speed – I’m literally deaf. I like fast, technical debate, but unfortunately, I can’t understand the fast part very well. The only way I can guarantee I will catch all of your arguments is if you talk at conversational speed. Beyond that, your rate of speed will be inversely proportional to my understanding of it. If I don’t flow some of your arguments because you decided to risk going fast, that’s on you, not me.   4. You should take at least one question in each constructive. I will protect against new arguments for you; don’t call points of order unless it’s a close debate and you are certain the argument is so important that its adjudication one way or another will alter the outcome.   5. Novice cheat sheet: utilizing phrases like “this argument is important because” or “we outweigh their impacts because” makes it 300% more likely that I’ll vote for you.

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.

Paul Davis - Azusa

Peter Ludlam - Biola

Reyna Velarde - Long Beach

Reyna Velarde- Judging Philosophy   Cal. State Long Beach Years Judging Debate: 10 Years Competed in Debate: 6 What School Competed at:  Grossmont/Cuyamaca College & CSU, Long Beach       My background is in Parliamentary debate and Individual events. I want you to make good arguments and communicate them well at the same time. Teams that win my rounds are making the better arguments and speakers that receive higher speaker points are speaking well and making good arguments.   Structure: I believe a good debate has good structure and arguments are responded to with offensive arguments. Please be organized and tell me where you are making the arguments. I will not do the work for you. I will time roadmaps- as it should not take more than 5 seconds to say, “Ad1, the K, DA1, DA2 , then Solvency.” I will also time thank you’s- that shouldn’t take very long either.   Types of Arguments: I will listen to any argument as long as you have good warrants and reasoning’s. If you want to try out a critical Aff, go for it. I will listen to K’s, as long as they are run well and you have a good narrative and structure.   Topicality: I know I said I’ll listen to any argument, however- I have a particular distain for Topicality. Please don’t run T as a test of competition or when it is unwarranted. This doesn’t mean don’t run T at all… If the Aff isn’t topical, then run T. I just don’t want the whole debate to come down to a T, XT, FXT time suck debate. I prefer to watch a debate on the resolution or on something critical- not on semantics. Again, of course it is warranted and you really, really, really, need to run T. And if you do run T- please make it short- If you are responding to T, you either know how to answer it or you don’t- so get to it quickly and respond. If I look bored when you are talking about T- get through it faster.   Speed: Speaking of fast, I am a tad disabled in my right wrist. It broke about 6 years ago and it can get sore and tired quickly. If you are going to speak quickly, speak articulately. If your debates are only won with speed, I am not the judge for you. If I feel like you are too fast, I will give you no more than 3 warning calls of “speed” or “slow down”, before I drop my pen or I stop typing.   Overall, have fun in the debate. Please have a good debate about the resolution- I prefer a debate with Advantages, DA’s, Counter-plans, and K’s. Be nice to each other and make sure you call POI’s if you hear them in the Rebuttals- Don’t assume I’ll catch them. At the end, make sure you have some voters- I want to know where you think I should vote.

Robert Black - Glendale, CA

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Ryan Guy - Chico

Guy, Ryan California State University, Chico   Me: <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for two years after transferring to Humboldt State.</li> <li>Fourth year coaching speech and debate at Chico State</li> <li>I also teach Rhetorical Theory, Argumentation, Research Methods, Group Communication, Intercultural Communication, and Public Speaking</li> </ul> The Basics: <ul> <li>Debate is a game. Play it well.</li> <li>I’m fine with the average levels of speed in NFA-LD and Parli.</li> <li>Procedurals are fine and can make for good debate.</li> <li>I okay with the K. That said do it well or I will be annoyed.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul>   General Approach to Judging: I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed. Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps. I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it. If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some time during the tournament.     Specifics: Speaker Points: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 25-30 range. If you do the things in my “General Approach to Judging” section your speaks will be higher. Topicality: Hey Aff…be topical. T debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I’m cool with the “test of the aff” approach but please be smart. I’ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components . I’m unlikely to vote on an RVI on T but it is not completely impossible. Critiques: I enjoy critical theory…that being said I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you persuade. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of the K. So far in my time as a coach/judge I have not seen an Aff team run critical arguments well. If you think you are the team to show me how it’s done I’m down to listen. Just make sure you run them in a way that is still topical. Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Side Note: In NPDA I hate when the LOR just repeats what the MO just said. I got it the first time…why are you winning? Speed: I think in general speed can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. Side Note on NFA-LD: I get that there is the anti-speed rule that everyone ignores. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear.”

Scott Tuggle - Long Beach

Scott Tuggle I debate for Point loma in parli and went back to poliy at MTSU. Counterplans: I lean negative when it comes to conditionality and PICs, but it all comes down to how well the arguments play out. If an AFF blows me away with a PICs bad argument (hey, it could happen), then I tend to reward the better articulated argument.   Abuse: I require actual abuse; tell me what you should have been able to run that you can’t. This goes for T and all spec arguments. If you are going to run procedurals for a time suck and then dump them, fine. I am not going to punish anyone for employing strategy, but if you want me to actually vote on it, the abuse better be pretty clear.   Misuse of facts: I understand this is parli and we don’t have evidence, but that is no excuse for making arguments that are factually wrong. To be clear, I’m not talking about teams that don’t understanding the intricacies of Senate rules, or something equally obscure; I am talking about teams that purposefully misrepresent information. I don’t typically take the initiative, but if I am told to fact check something I will, and speaks usually drop pretty hard if you are lying about something.   Kritiks: They can be fun, but my typical rule of thumb is that if your alt is “reject” it is probably a lazy position. I don’t like all of the hypercritical discussion (Lacan, Zizek, etc.) and tend to default to a policy making paradigm. I do like language K’s and political science K’s.   Decision Making: When I get to the end of a round, I circle impacts and figure out who has access to them. For me, good rounds are won and lost in the rebuttals. The constructives are for laying out arguments but I want you to weigh everything for me in the rebuttals. Collapse to the positions you can win and focus on impact calculus.   Speed/Style: I’m fine with speed as long as you are clear. I think it is important that you slow down for the tags and when you are transitioning to a new argument, but I think it’s silly if you don’t get through your internal links as quickly as possible, especially if your impact is terminal.

Sean Connor - CSULA

I was an IE competitor and now a coach, but do not have any competitive debate experience. When judging debate I like to hear clear argumentation. I DO NOT like speed and cannot follow it. Please stick to the resolution and give me a good debate of contrasting arguments.

Shannon Proctor - Azusa

Tim Milosch - Biola

Tom Proprofsky - IVC

Will Fay III - Chabot College

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. '

Willie Washington - CSUF

n/a

2012 Robert Barbera Invitational #1 (Fri/Sat)