FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Soto! - PCC

There are three things you should know about me. First, I competed in Parliamentary debate for four years and then I spent two year coaching debate. I have been judging debate tournaments for the past four years. The second thing you need to know about me is that I majored in Rhetoric and Political Science. If you run a Kritik, be sure to give me the philosophical framework behind it and a functional alternative. The final piece of background information you need to keep in mind during while writing your case is that I work in the healthcare insurance industry. This is especially important if you choose to run a HealthCare Reform or Mental Health case. My approach to decision making is very simple: I base my decision solely on the arguments made in-round. There are two important notes about this. First, I can only write as fast as I can write. If you decide to go for speed and spread your opponent out of the round, be sure I am flowing your important points. Bottom line: If I don’t have it on the flow at the end of the round, I’m not voting on it! Second, I will still vote for you if you choose to argue incorrect facts. However, I will let you know at the end of the round what was incorrect and it will affect your speaker points. Forensics is a communication event. Those who compete in debate should try to improve their ability to communicate effectively. Please be sure to carefully choose your words when you create and deliver your arguments. Sexist, offensive, or discriminatory language will make it very easy for me to vote for a Kritik. A final note on argumentation: if you are the opposition and you decide to run a Topicality, Trichotomy, Kritik, Plan Vagueness (or any other offensive position) and you decided to not address any of the government case; please be sure you win your off-case positions and that you outweigh all on-case impacts. I am open to all styles of debate and any position you decide to run. However, please justify your positions and run them correctly.

Alex Lamascus - Pepperdine

My forensics experience consists of three years of policy in the high school homeschool league and four years competing for California Baptist University. At CBU I spent most of my time in NFA-LD, Parli, and limited-prep individual events.   I, just like any other critic, come in to the debate round with preconceived notions and biases. The following are relevant biases that you may find useful.   I fundamentally view debate as a learning activity for all involved, including myself as a judge. I think recognizing this as such requires three additional conclusions: 1)    I think it requires us all to recognize me as an incomplete human being. Regrettably, I do not have a brilliant mind that is capable of perfectly evaluating each and every argument in perfect fashion, and I will certainly not always make the “right” decision. It is for this reason that I prefer to view the round as a game of persuasion rather than a verbal, mechanical chess game where “this type of argument always trumps that” because it grants accessibility to individuals like myself who may not have impressive mental calculation abilities. It also functions to humanize the activity and keeps us from approaching the debate as humans striving to become purely logical machines. My incompleteness is realized in the fact that I the judge am learning from you the competitor and, hopefully, you are also learning something from me. I do take my judging very seriously, and I do believe I owe my best efforts to the competitors in every round. 2)    I think we must recognize that I cannot please everyone in every debate round. The binary nature of most formats can potentially make rounds very frustrating where there is no clear winner. This is an extension of my first point in that I recognize I am capable of making (and probably already have made) poor decisions as a judge according to the judging philosophies of others. 3)    Finally, I believe that recognizing debate as a learning activity means that we should not take it so seriously. This is somewhat paradoxical because I also believe that we should take the “learning activity” aspect very seriously. However, I believe this is manifested in our intentional actions to ensure that debate remains an enjoyable, fun experience for all of those involved. This attitude generates a comfortable environment for the thoughtful expression and evaluation of ideas.   Evaluating debate rounds: I tend to prefer evaluating a round through a particular lens, whether it is criteria, frameworks, a priori, etc. I am not married to the policymaker paradigm, but impacts are the easiest way for me to weigh a debate. It will be very hard for you to win a round with solvency presses, but they are an excellent way to make your opponents look like they didn’t do their homework, which I find very effective when paired with some impactful offense or a counterplan.   Speed: I hold two different (potentially conflicting) views on speed in debate. On one hand, I think it is excellent for our mental fortitude and an enjoyable challenge to evaluate arguments that have been given in a speedy manner. I believe that it is a healthy mental exercise and allows some talented individuals to achieve great depth of argumentation on any given subject. On the other hand, I fear that my effectiveness as a critic declines the faster the debate round is. I unfortunately was never one of those talented individuals who could craft deep, quality arguments in fast speech. I also was not especially good at debating against them. Additionally, I recall very well a period of time in my debate career that I felt speed was highly exclusionary, inaccessible, elitist, and frustrating. My best recommendation to debaters who are stuck with me as their critic would be to go ahead and spread in a round if you so desire unless there is a very dense theoretical concept being discussed, such as highly advanced debate or economic theory. I generally will not have a hard time flowing you, but if evaluating the argument requires intense use of my mental faculties I may end up falling behind and your point may not be received as intended. Do keep in mind that I am sympathetic to speed procedurals run after a competitor who feels excluded from the debate is rejected when respectfully requesting slower speaking from their opponents.   Theory: Since I spent most of my time in NFA-LD where I did not have to engage in especially theory-laden debate rounds, my understanding of extremely advanced debate theory may be somewhat incomplete. I am of course interested in continually learning about new frontiers in debate argumentation, but my evaluation of your round may not go quite the direction you were hoping if you lose me in theory packed clash. This is becoming especially evident to me in my understanding of advanced counterplan theory.   What I do not like to see: <ol> <li> I don’t really like it when a team runs a critical position that emphasizes the meaning, power, and effects of language followed by abuse of that power later in the round.</li> <li>I also don’t really like it when a team tells me that fiat is illusory, then proceeds to paste arguments on my flow that assume fiat is real.</li> <li>Outside of the actual debate, I am disturbed, given my admission of my own imperfection earlier in this post, when competitors have little respect for my decision as a judge and challenge/argue with it during my oral critique.</li> <li>I am disappointed by judges that abuse their power as a judge by disrespecting the teams with their words or attitude.</li> <li>Finally, I am appalled when coaches of teams engage in the ludicrous act of verbally disrespecting a judge’s decisions, either publicly or privately. This is inherently disrespectful to the teams, judge, and activity as a whole.</li> </ol>   All of that said, I look forward to judging your debates! My apologies to teams whom I have judged before posting this, it is difficult to argue before a judge when you are unsure of their leanings. Best of luck to you all!

Alexander Lacamu - U of Houston

n/a

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

n/a

Allison Bowman - Long Beach

Andrea Adams - Ohlone College

n/a

Andrew West - SMC

n/a

Angela Jorgensen - Santa Clara

Ashley Givens - Utah

Ben Bates - LACC

n/a

Brianna Broady - CSUN

n/a

Carlos Tarin - Utah

Broadly, I consider myself to be fairly straightforward in my approach to debate.  I think the best debates happen when teams actually engage the issues invoked by the resolution, rather than getting bogged down in pointless meta-theoretical exercises.  I am open to a variety of perspectives, but will generally default to a policy-making paradigm that evaluates net benefits unless I am given a reason to do otherwise.  If you want to run more creative positions (critical or otherwise) I’m okay with that as long as I am given a rationale that substantively articulates the importance or worth of those arguments.  Basically, don’t play games with the round for the sake of playing games; warrant your positions and give me a clear way of evaluating the claims you are making.  I am okay with some speed, but generally don’t appreciate spreading (and, in all fairness, I probably won’t catch everything if you’re going crazy fast).  I try to stick to the flow as much as possible, but if you arguments aren’t clearly labeled or are rushed, I’ll eventually give up trying to follow along.  Tell me where to go on the flow and where I should be (cross)applying arguments if necessary.  Things I generally don’t like: counterplans, topicality (unless there is demonstrable abuse happening in round), convoluted theory arguments (of the debate variety; I dig philosophical arguments), time sucks, rudeness. Your chances of winning my ballot will be greatly improved if you: clearly give me reasons why I should vote for you in rebuttals, weigh impacts, provide actual clash, win frameworks.  Miscellaneous: I’m usually pretty nice with speaker points (just don’t be a jerk).  Points of order are fine, but don’t go overboard.

David Finnigan - CLU

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 2 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School. Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible. Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads. Critically framed arguments: I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.   Topicality is good and it is an important aspect of the debate. Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.   Above all, have fun. Speaker points: you should work hard to earn your points through civility and solid speaking. Performance based arguments: Keep the thinking linear.

Duane Smith - LAVC

n/a

Gary Rybold - IVC

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold   <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1>       I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds.  Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity.  My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know: PREFERENCES – I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies).  I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced).  I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions.  Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round.  The key term for every team is justify.  At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position.  I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points.  I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters.  Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet.  I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions. CRITIQUES - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me).  Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot. SPEED – I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out.  So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices. ULTIMATE GOAL - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values.  My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.

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.

Ivana Mckonic - CSUF

n/a

James Dabaggian - PCC

Janice Tessman - CSUN

n/a

Jason Jordan - Utah

*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine.   *make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be.’    *Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Jeff Smith - Glendale, CA

Jen Page - IVC

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 Kammert - Azusa

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

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.

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

n/a

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kyle Johnson - SFSU

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I prefer to vote for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, and creative arguments regardless of my own personal view of the resolution. 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 but please let your personality come through. Be a little snarky but try not to make it personal. (It takes a small person to make someone sound foolish but a real scholar to make the same person sound intelligent.) Partner communication is acceptable, heckling is acceptable but each one of us engaged in this debate deserves the others full and undivided attention.   What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don’t make stuff up, if you aren’t certain, qualify your statement. I give such statements more credibility than false information. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate. The team that wins my ballot will have a logical, criteria based argument when compared to the opposing side. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and, in Open only, 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? This activity is based in Communication, so I would hope that all parties, including any spectators would be able to access your arguments through your effective oral delivery; in other words speak to be heard not merely to hear yourself. Speed is appropriate if the previous condition is met and I can still flow your argument. (Hint, if I stop flowing you have either lost me completely or you have won the debate and I’m relaxing.) Read my very obvious non-verbal signals. Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but my roots are in Interpretive Events and I value articulation, emphasis, inflections, and pauses. 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.

Lindsey Rein - Chico

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 - Canyons

n/a

Matt Volz - IVC

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Michael Middleton - Utah

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

Nari Kim - UAV

n/a

Nicholas Butler - ASU

n/a

Nick Matthews - Long Beach

Last updated: 2/18/15   1. Speed:   <ul> <li>- You must speak at a conversational speed in front of me because I have a significant hearing impairment. Any rate of speed that is faster than conversational destroys my ability to accurately understand your arguments and impedes my ability to do my job.</li> <li>- NEW: If you speak faster than the dialogue of “The West Wing” in a prelim, you will earn a maximum of 27 speaker points. I don’t care what your NPTE ranking is, you will not earn more than 27 speaker points. If you choose to go fast in an outround for strategic reasons, I will respect that choice, but don’t complain if my decision doesn’t make sense.</li> </ul>   2. Theory guidelines:   <ul> <li>- NEW: I will not vote for any theory argument where the violation did not occur in my physical presence. The other team didn’t disclose? Sorry, I can’t verify that.</li> <li>- You must take at least one question in each constructive. Clarifying the status of an advocacy requires all of three seconds and does not count as a question.</li> <li>- The affirmative team must read either a plan or an advocacy statement with a clearly defined text. (If it relates to the resolution somehow, fantastic!).</li> <li>- I will not revert to the status quo unless I am provided with a justification for doing so.</li> </ul>   3. Evaluation method:   <ul> <li>- My default stance is that I will compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive policy option or alternative. Feel free to argue that I should approach the round through some alternate means of evaluation. I am open to most arguments you may wish to present, so long as they are sufficiently explained and warranted.</li> <li>- I reward big-picture storytelling, intuitive arguments, and strategic decision-making. I rarely vote for arguments I don’t understand.</li> </ul>   4. Argument preferences:   <ul> <li>- As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don’t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a lot stronger than my understanding of critical debate. Pref me accordingly.</li> <li>- I am comfortable with structuralist critiques of economies or state relations. My post-structuralist comfort zone begins and ends with Foucault. Arguments like anthro or “give back the land” are also okay. Beyond that, if you have to rely on words that do not appear in any dictionary in order to explain your argument, save the argument for another round.</li> <li>- Generic process counterplans like delay and consultation are lazy arguments in parli. I greatly prefer PICs and other counterplans that indicate critical thinking and preparation.</li> <li>- Disads need an issue-specific link, especially politics disads. “Plan is unpopular, causes Republican backlash” is not an issue-specific link.</li> <li>- Impact calculus—yes. Do you want to cheat? Turn case or control the root cause debate.</li> </ul>

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.

Nicole Sandoval - Ohlone College

n/a

Nina Koteylan - CSUN

n/a

Paul Davis - Azusa

Peter Doesburg - IVC

Prince White - Los Rios

n/a

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.

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Ryan Stalder - UCLA

Judging Philosophy for Ryan Stalder of UCLA   I finished competing in Parliamentary debate in 2005 and have competed at both NPDA and NPTE. I have just recently started coaching and judging debate rounds so my philosophy is still evolving. I’m open to all types of arguments and have not been judging long enough to really hate any particular argument. I have been coached by Brandan Whearty, Mark Crossman, Danny Shea, and Bill Neesen. I may not judge exactly like these people but they were the ones I learned from so there probably aren’t that many degrees of separation. Case stuff- If you have an extreme advocacy you’ve wanted to run I might be the judge you’re looking for. Fortune favors the bold and votes for it too. I won’t player hate if you run tiny case areas, but I really appreciate teams that take risks and argue for things they really believe in. I approach debate believing that there are no rules until you create them and the reasons why I should prefer your methods of evaluation over the other teams. K’s- I think they’re cool. It would probably be a good idea to have a thesis for me to wrap my feeble judge mind around so I actually know what you’re saying. If you decide to launch into the K at a blistering pace don’t be surprised when you get dropped because I didn’t know what you were talking about. I mention this because it seems to be happening a lot lately. My best advice is to make it as simple as possible but not any simpler. Procedurals- Go nuts. Fact, Value, Policy- I am a blank slate here. The better interpretation is what I will use or if you treat it as a procedural issue I will evaluate it as such. Theory Stuff- Once again I am a blank slate. Multiple actor fiat, topical counter plans, pic’s, spec args, and everything else can be argued in front of me. Like I said I’m new to judging so I think I approach theory debates with a more open mind than judges who’ve developed really strong opinions one way or another. Speed- On a scale of 1-10 you probably shouldn’t go faster than a 7 in front of me. It’s not because I hate speed it’s just that I partied a lot in College and I’m really not that smart anymore (maybe because I wasn’t that smart to begin with) so it’s in your best interest to slow down a little and really explain your arguments clearly. I’ve noticed that my flow is a little rusty so if I have time to write your tag for an argument and also write some of your analysis underneath that you will be much better off than if you had just gone light speed. Speaker points- My average is usually a 27 and I will of course go higher if you’re awesome. It’s probably a good idea not to give your speech sitting down because I will hate you for it. It would also be nice if you could find a moment during the course of your frothy act of hyperventilation to say something funny. Thanks.

Sage Russo - SFSU

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.

Simon Kern - CSUN

n/a

Tiffani Smith - IVC

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 - IVC

robert e g black - CSULA

I competed in IEs and debate for four years and started coaching/judging last year. I like speeches to be clear--i.e. tell me where you're going at the beginning, tell me where you've been at the end, and you better have gone there in between. I competed in every event--interp more than platform or limited prep--at least once and have judged them all as well. So, do what you want to do within the usual guidelines and entertain and enlighten me and you will do well on my ballot. For interps specifically, I have been known to value performance over message, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a point to the piece you're doing and why you're doing it. As far as debate goes, I try my best to go by the flow which mean a) speeding is not in your best interest because if I cannot keep up and your argument doesn't get onto my flow it won't help you in the end, and b) I will accept most any position you present. Still, I don't like standard generic DAs; for example: politics--I think any Plan fiats away most, if not all, political capital arguments. Since I do try to go by the flow, I also will not usually dismiss automatically new arguments in rebuttals--I want you to catch them and call a point of order; if you can't catch it, I don't want to do the work for you. I prefer you have fun more than be technically perfect, that you make sense more than you fit the strict framework of debate. But, honestly, doing the latter can seriously help the former and, if you're doing it right, you should be able to do both.

2013 Robert Barbera Invitational #1