FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

AJ Curry - Moorpark

n/a

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

n/a

Allison Bowman - LAVC

n/a

Amy Fram - Moorpark

n/a

Anna Yan - PCC

n/a

Brandon Flecther - Long Beach

Brandon Fletcher <a name="x-California_State_University_Long_Beach"></a>California State University Long Beach   I think that debate is a space for you to debate however you would prefer to debate. I do not have major preferences with style, and would prefer that you do not try and adapt to what style you think I would prefer, and instead make the arguments that you think give you the best strategic chance to win. While there are particular things that I like and dislike in specific debate rounds, I would prefer that you debate in whatever manner you feel most comfortable.   Also I have a very real learning disability that generally impedes my ability to evaluate arguments and make decisions at the same speed as other critics on the circuit. I will take longer, and may very much be the last one making a decision in certain rounds, but that does not mean that I am worse because I take more time to render a decision. I will not be hassled to make a hasty decision for the convenience debaters are impatient, so if this is a problem for you, please strike me.   That said, no one is 100% objective in evaluating debate rounds, here are some general notes about the way that I evaluate debates:   <ul> <li>By default I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or competitive policy option or competitive alternative advocacy. If you want me to change this, explicitly tell me how you want me to view the debate round</li> <li>I only evaluate arguments that are made in the constructives and extended in the rebuttals. If you want an argument as a strategic option, extend it in MG or in the MO/LOR. I will also protect against new arguments in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Each argument needs to have a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation and I am fully comfortable disregarding an argument that is blippy and nonsensical. For example, claiming you win on timeframe is not an argument. Claiming you win on timeframe because economic collapse and ensuing great power wars happen before global warming destroys the environment is an argument.</li> <li>If you want to win theory, read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. If there is confusion or if I do not get your interpretation, I may ask for a written copy after the LOC.</li> <li>Impact calculus wins debate rounds. I leave it up to you to compare the probability, timeframe, magnitude and reversibility of impacts and tell me which ones to prefer and why. The more work and explanation you do, the less I have to do, and the less I will fill in the gaps to render a decision.</li> <li>Generic arguments don’t bother me so long as they are executed well. If you’re really good at the Cap K, 50 states/courts and politics or something, I wont be angry if you decide to read that in front of me and can win it well.</li> <li>I’m generally not expressive when I evaluate debate round, and that doesn’t mean that I dislike you, but instead should be taken as my general demeanor. Unless I look extremely happy or extremely angry, don’t take my facial expressions to mean that you’re doing anything really bad or really good. I generally just look apathetic when watching debate rounds, so don’t take it as a bad thing.</li> <li>To evaluate theoretical issues I rely on violations that are made in round. For those unable to read between the lines, I am not likely to vote on disclosure theory, as I have no way of evaluating whether a violation did or did not occur.</li> </ul>   As I said before, I would prefer you to read the strategy that you think is the most strategic, and that will give you the highest chance of winning the debate round. The following should not be seen as a permanent set of rules that I utilize to evaluate debate rounds, but instead general predispositions that I have on issues in debate:   <ul> <li>I love seeing a well-developed case debate. A strong, well warranted DA, paired with some strong case arguments, is one of my favorite debates to evaluate.</li> <li>Critical affirmatives should be topical, and if they are not I need a good reason why you shouldn’t have to affirm the topic.</li> <li>I do not like personalized advocacies that rely on weaponizing the experiences of debaters in the round against each other.</li> <li>Clash of civilizations debates awesome, and I very much enjoy judging them.</li> <li>Condo is good, as long as it isn’t abused to an absurd degree. One condo advocacy is almost always fine, two is stretching it depending on the context, and I am highly sympathetic to condo bad if there are three or more advocacies in the debate round.</li> <li>That said, I think just about anything is theoretically up for debate and will not automatically reject anyone for any type of strategy that they would like to read.</li> <li>Most counterplans are also fine. I don’t have an ideological problem with consult, PICs on any topic, etc. But you should be prepared to defend the theoretical legitimacy of the strategy you’ve read.</li> <li>In general, I very much love evaluating theory debates. I may change this later in the year depending on how many theory debates I actually have to evaluate by the time nationals rolls around, but I’ve always loved reading and going for theory arguments, and as a critic I highly appreciate a well developed theory debate.</li> <li>I have a strong love of critical arguments and I think that they perform an important in debate rounds, but do not randomly hack it out for the kritik. Don’t assume because I have a reputation for loving Nietzsche that it means I will auto vote for you if you read that argument.</li> <li>Don’t be an asshole. Seriously don’t be rude. If you’re face crushing another team, you don’t need to continue speaking at 300wpm, and if you’re hitting a new and not experienced team, you probably don’t need to eliminate their access from the debate round to win. This does not decide whether you win the debate round, but I will not hesitate to eviscerate your speaker points.</li> <li>I don’t like offense impact turns. I would prefer not to hear a debate round with rape good and genocide good read as arguments, and will be highly receptive to the other team telling you that you’re wrong. Brandon Fletcher <a name="x-California_State_University_Long_Beach"></a>California State University Long Beach   I think that debate is a space for you to debate however you would prefer to debate. I do not have major preferences with style, and would prefer that you do not try and adapt to what style you think I would prefer, and instead make the arguments that you think give you the best strategic chance to win. While there are particular things that I like and dislike in specific debate rounds, I would prefer that you debate in whatever manner you feel most comfortable.   Also I have a very real learning disability that generally impedes my ability to evaluate arguments and make decisions at the same speed as other critics on the circuit. I will take longer, and may very much be the last one making a decision in certain rounds, but that does not mean that I am worse because I take more time to render a decision. I will not be hassled to make a hasty decision for the convenience debaters are impatient, so if this is a problem for you, please strike me.   That said, no one is 100% objective in evaluating debate rounds, here are some general notes about the way that I evaluate debates:   </li> <li>By default I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or competitive policy option or competitive alternative advocacy. If you want me to change this, explicitly tell me how you want me to view the debate round</li> <li>I only evaluate arguments that are made in the constructives and extended in the rebuttals. If you want an argument as a strategic option, extend it in MG or in the MO/LOR. I will also protect against new arguments in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Each argument needs to have a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation and I am fully comfortable disregarding an argument that is blippy and nonsensical. For example, claiming you win on timeframe is not an argument. Claiming you win on timeframe because economic collapse and ensuing great power wars happen before global warming destroys the environment is an argument.</li> <li>If you want to win theory, read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. If there is confusion or if I do not get your interpretation, I may ask for a written copy after the LOC.</li> <li>Impact calculus wins debate rounds. I leave it up to you to compare the probability, timeframe, magnitude and reversibility of impacts and tell me which ones to prefer and why. The more work and explanation you do, the less I have to do, and the less I will fill in the gaps to render a decision.</li> <li>Generic arguments don’t bother me so long as they are executed well. If you’re really good at the Cap K, 50 states/courts and politics or something, I wont be angry if you decide to read that in front of me and can win it well.</li> <li>I’m generally not expressive when I evaluate debate round, and that doesn’t mean that I dislike you, but instead should be taken as my general demeanor. Unless I look extremely happy or extremely angry, don’t take my facial expressions to mean that you’re doing anything really bad or really good. I generally just look apathetic when watching debate rounds, so don’t take it as a bad thing.</li> <li>To evaluate theoretical issues I rely on violations that are made in round. For those unable to read between the lines, I am not likely to vote on disclosure theory, as I have no way of evaluating whether a violation did or did not occur.</li> <li>   As I said before, I would prefer you to read the strategy that you think is the most strategic, and that will give you the highest chance of winning the debate round. The following should not be seen as a permanent set of rules that I utilize to evaluate debate rounds, but instead general predispositions that I have on issues in debate:   </li> <li>I love seeing a well-developed case debate. A strong, well warranted DA, paired with some strong case arguments, is one of my favorite debates to evaluate.</li> <li>Critical affirmatives should be topical, and if they are not I need a good reason why you shouldn’t have to affirm the topic.</li> <li>I do not like personalized advocacies that rely on weaponizing the experiences of debaters in the round against each other.</li> <li>Clash of civilizations debates awesome, and I very much enjoy judging them.</li> <li>Condo is good, as long as it isn’t abused to an absurd degree. One condo advocacy is almost always fine, two is stretching it depending on the context, and I am highly sympathetic to condo bad if there are three or more advocacies in the debate round.</li> <li>That said, I think just about anything is theoretically up for debate and will not automatically reject anyone for any type of strategy that they would like to read.</li> <li>Most counterplans are also fine. I don’t have an ideological problem with consult, PICs on any topic, etc. But you should be prepared to defend the theoretical legitimacy of the strategy you’ve read.</li> <li>In general, I very much love evaluating theory debates. I may change this later in the year depending on how many theory debates I actually have to evaluate by the time nationals rolls around, but I’ve always loved reading and going for theory arguments, and as a critic I highly appreciate a well developed theory debate.</li> <li>I have a strong love of critical arguments and I think that they perform an important in debate rounds, but do not randomly hack it out for the kritik. Don’t assume because I have a reputation for loving Nietzsche that it means I will auto vote for you if you read that argument.</li> <li>Don’t be an asshole. Seriously don’t be rude. If you’re face crushing another team, you don’t need to continue speaking at 300wpm, and if you’re hitting a new and not experienced team, you probably don’t need to eliminate their access from the debate round to win. This does not decide whether you win the debate round, but I will not hesitate to eviscerate your speaker points.</li> <li>I don’t like offense impact turns. I would prefer not to hear a debate round with rape good and genocide good read as arguments, and will be highly receptive to the other team telling you that you’re wrong. Brandon Fletcher <a name="x-California_State_University_Long_Beach"></a>California State University Long Beach   I think that debate is a space for you to debate however you would prefer to debate. I do not have major preferences with style, and would prefer that you do not try and adapt to what style you think I would prefer, and instead make the arguments that you think give you the best strategic chance to win. While there are particular things that I like and dislike in specific debate rounds, I would prefer that you debate in whatever manner you feel most comfortable.   Also I have a very real learning disability that generally impedes my ability to evaluate arguments and make decisions at the same speed as other critics on the circuit. I will take longer, and may very much be the last one making a decision in certain rounds, but that does not mean that I am worse because I take more time to render a decision. I will not be hassled to make a hasty decision for the convenience debaters are impatient, so if this is a problem for you, please strike me.   That said, no one is 100% objective in evaluating debate rounds, here are some general notes about the way that I evaluate debates:   </li> <li>By default I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or competitive policy option or competitive alternative advocacy. If you want me to change this, explicitly tell me how you want me to view the debate round</li> <li>I only evaluate arguments that are made in the constructives and extended in the rebuttals. If you want an argument as a strategic option, extend it in MG or in the MO/LOR. I will also protect against new arguments in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Each argument needs to have a minimum threshold of coherence and explanation and I am fully comfortable disregarding an argument that is blippy and nonsensical. For example, claiming you win on timeframe is not an argument. Claiming you win on timeframe because economic collapse and ensuing great power wars happen before global warming destroys the environment is an argument.</li> <li>If you want to win theory, read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. If there is confusion or if I do not get your interpretation, I may ask for a written copy after the LOC.</li> <li>Impact calculus wins debate rounds. I leave it up to you to compare the probability, timeframe, magnitude and reversibility of impacts and tell me which ones to prefer and why. The more work and explanation you do, the less I have to do, and the less I will fill in the gaps to render a decision.</li> <li>Generic arguments don’t bother me so long as they are executed well. If you’re really good at the Cap K, 50 states/courts and politics or something, I wont be angry if you decide to read that in front of me and can win it well.</li> <li>I’m generally not expressive when I evaluate debate round, and that doesn’t mean that I dislike you, but instead should be taken as my general demeanor. Unless I look extremely happy or extremely angry, don’t take my facial expressions to mean that you’re doing anything really bad or really good. I generally just look apathetic when watching debate rounds, so don’t take it as a bad thing.</li> <li>To evaluate theoretical issues I rely on violations that are made in round. For those unable to read between the lines, I am not likely to vote on disclosure theory, as I have no way of evaluating whether a violation did or did not occur.</li> <li>   As I said before, I would prefer you to read the strategy that you think is the most strategic, and that will give you the highest chance of winning the debate round. The following should not be seen as a permanent set of rules that I utilize to evaluate debate rounds, but instead general predispositions that I have on issues in debate:   </li> <li>I love seeing a well-developed case debate. A strong, well warranted DA, paired with some strong case arguments, is one of my favorite debates to evaluate.</li> <li>Critical affirmatives should be topical, and if they are not I need a good reason why you shouldn’t have to affirm the topic.</li> <li>I do not like personalized advocacies that rely on weaponizing the experiences of debaters in the round against each other.</li> <li>Clash of civilizations debates awesome, and I very much enjoy judging them.</li> <li>Condo is good, as long as it isn’t abused to an absurd degree. One condo advocacy is almost always fine, two is stretching it depending on the context, and I am highly sympathetic to condo bad if there are three or more advocacies in the debate round.</li> <li>That said, I think just about anything is theoretically up for debate and will not automatically reject anyone for any type of strategy that they would like to read.</li> <li>Most counterplans are also fine. I don’t have an ideological problem with consult, PICs on any topic, etc. But you should be prepared to defend the theoretical legitimacy of the strategy you’ve read.</li> <li>In general, I very much love evaluating theory debates. I may change this later in the year depending on how many theory debates I actually have to evaluate by the time nationals rolls around, but I’ve always loved reading and going for theory arguments, and as a critic I highly appreciate a well developed theory debate.</li> <li>I have a strong love of critical arguments and I think that they perform an important in debate rounds, but do not randomly hack it out for the kritik. Don’t assume because I have a reputation for loving Nietzsche that it means I will auto vote for you if you read that argument.</li> <li>Don’t be an asshole. Seriously don’t be rude. If you’re face crushing another team, you don’t need to continue speaking at 300wpm, and if you’re hitting a new and not experienced team, you probably don’t need to eliminate their access from the debate round to win. This does not decide whether you win the debate round, but I will not hesitate to eviscerate your speaker points.</li> <li>I don’t like offense impact turns. I would prefer not to hear a debate round with rape good and genocide good read as arguments, and will be highly receptive to the other team telling you that you’re wrong.</li> </ul>

Brandon Rivera - Palomar

Section 1: General Information I competed for Northern Arizona University and am now coaching at San Diego State University. This is my second year judging collegiate debate and my first year coaching. My background is in Political Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, and Ethnic Studies. I was a “kritik” debater in my undergrad, but I would appreciate if you did what you know best. The biggest thing for me in debate was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen. I hope to facilitate this role for debaters in the community and give people the opportunity.     Quick Notes:   DO WHAT YOU DO. Just because I know critical arguments more does not mean that I want to see those debates all the time. This is especially true if a team deviates from what they are good at in order to try and please me. Whether its “first strike” or “reject white civil society”, I will vote if I think you win the round.   I vote on examples within the debate more than a certain style of argument. By example I mean a historical, social, popular culture, or another type of event that helps to describe how your argument functions. “Dehum leads to otherization and is the logic of genocide” is not an example.   “Perm do both” is a borderline acceptable perm text. If you read these perms you roll the dice, especially if the other team points out that the alt/cp says vote neg. I know it takes time to read out both plan text, but I think it makes for the most stable perm debate.   Just because its dropped doesn’t mean I have to vote. I vote for well articulated and impacted arguments. Usually when something is dropped this means the other time gets to impact out their argument and prove why that argument is the most important in the round. Simply extending a drop does not guarantee “game over”.      Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following.   1.       Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25-30   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   I think that this is the type of argument that I know the most. I like critical arguments, but think that they require a few levels of analysis. I require a stable interpretation on the framework in order to give me something to evaluate the round. I do not believe that you “win framework = winning the round”, but do think that the framework gives you access to the impacts of your critical argument. I also prefer to have some explanation of your method, especially when the case is much more performative. I think that the affirmative can run a critical argument. The affirmative can both affirm the topic in a critical way, as well as read an affirmative that deals with larger social issues. Regardless of the route you take as the affirmative, the framework must justify the method and the viewpoint that you want me to evaluate the round based on.   I know there is a growing trend towards arguments that “function in multiple worlds” and often contradict each other. My personal disposition on the issue is that I think “contradictory” arguments make the debate confusing and I do not get why severing rhetoric is “ok”, even it is key to competitive flex. That being said, this is debate and if you have good reasons why being contradictory is good, I will vote.   3.       Performance based arguments…   This is another type of argument that I ran as a competitor and am generally familiar with. You need to justify your position and explain how your performance functions. I generally see all debate as a performance, and therefore it is the responsibility of the team to tell me why I should prefer one performance over another.   4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I really like theory and think that it is one of the more under utilized positions in parli. I need in round proven abuse to vote, but will also listen to arguments about potential abuse as a voter. I generally think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate a procedural, but am open to different weighing mechanisms. I think the most important part to theory is making sure that teams have impacts built into the standards debate, and weigh those impacts against other claims made in the debate. I do not do work for you on procedurals. If you do not provide a counter interpretation, or just “cross apply case” I will not infer what you mean by that strategically.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   I think that the “PIC” debate is one of those things that debaters need to resolve in round and is largely contingent on the interpretations of the theory debate. I think that the opposition should give the status of the CP regardless. I think that most perms are best when they are functionally competitive. I have a very limited understanding of what text comp is and why it is important. If this is one of your go to arguments, please clearly explain what you mean and how you think that functions.   I did not read to many counterplans in my day. This means that if I hear something like consult, delay, “cheeto-veto”, I am less prone to know why so many people in the community do not like these positions. In other words, please be clear on your theory if you think these types of counter plans are “cheating”.    On the perm I require a perm text. This is not a written copy of the perm, but the aff should read the entirety of the aff followed by the parts of the negative that they want to perm. This helps me evaluate how the perm functions and increases the likelihood I vote. If a team says perm “Do both”, and does not explain what do both means, I am less likely to vote for those types of perms.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   I can see this being useful, especially if a more experienced team is willing to let a less experienced team have a look. I don’t have a predisposition but don’t waste time and get me in trouble for making the tournament late.   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?)?   I will look at the framework level of the debate in order to see what lenses and prioritizations I should put on the impacts. From there I will usually default to impact comparison made in the debate round. I do not necessarily think that procedurals come before a kriticism, but if no one collapses or weighs impacts, I would probably look at the procedural first. Sorry this section is not more helpful.   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")?   If this is the situation that happens, no one will be happy. I do not have a general rule on these issues, but would probably weigh large-scale flash point impacts over theoretical concepts like “dehumanization”. I think debaters should avoid this situation at all cost, and can do so by making internal link claims in the implications. For example, if one team says that dehumanization is the root cause of all violence and the other says “nuke war”, I would vote for the “dehumanization” impact it comes before all violence.

Brenda Nelson - IVC

Bria Woodyard - ASU

n/a

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.

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 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.

Desi Chavez-Appel - Glendale, CA

Diana Lau - LAVC

n/a

Emma Hong - Grand Canyon

Hugh Lehane - IVC

Jacee Cantler - IVC

Jaime Gomez - LAVC

n/a

Jason Hong - Grand Canyon

Jen Page - IVC

Jeremy Murphy - Palomar

Jessica Kwack - CSUN

n/a

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kristina Rietveld - IVC

Mariel Cruz - Santa Clara

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School  I judge both Policy and Parlia debate. I just both events pretty similarly. I do have a few specific notes about Parlia debate at the bottom. Parlia debaters, be sure to read the notes at the very bottom as well.  Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. This is my second year coaching, but I have seen a lot of rounds and know a lot about debate. I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly. I’m good with speed, but be clear. I’ll let you know if you aren’t. However, if you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow.  I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of K literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater, but I don't work with Ks as much as I used to, so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough.  I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I also think conditionality and topicality are pretty awesome. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this. I'll vote on theory and T if I have to.  I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line, so make sure to make those type of arguments as well, ie impact analysis and comparative claims.  I’m cool with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don’t time exchanging flashdrives, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.    PARLIA Debate I only went to a hand full of parlia tournaments as a debater, but I helped coach the parlia team during my entire debate career, and I coach both policy and parlia. And, as a policy debater, I'm familiar with all your arguments (since most of them come from policy). I'm also really good with speed, since I had to flow fast rounds all the time for policy. Just be sure to sign post so I can flow properly.  Since the structure for parlia is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parlia rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parlia, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation.  I'm pretty familiar with debate jargon, but after judging some parlia rounds, I've come to realize that the some terms have slightly different interpretations in parlia than in policy, so you should err on the side of explaining and elaborating instead of just using these terms. For example, explain what "dispo" means, or explain your "try or die" situation, etc.  For any other argument, I judge it the way I would judge policy, so you can look to the information above if you want to know anything else. Also, feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Matthew Brandstetter - APU

n/a

Matthew Robert Smith - EPCC

n/a

Michael Dvorak - Grand Canyon

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Michael Endick - S@B

I only vote on Heg Good and T. If the round becomes Heg Good vs. T, I will vote on haircuts. What do you want from me? Exclude your opponents and I will exclude you from the circle I make on the ballot. Go too fast and watch my face as it gets gradually more upset. I will not yell "clear". You'll just sound awful and I'll miss half your arguments. Partner communication is fine as long as it is whispered or done through notes. Critical arguments are good but not magical. "We won this round because..." is my favorite fragment to hear in rebuttals. Gentle reminder that fewer, better developed positions are better than a swarm of unfinished and/or unconvincing ones. I keep my RFDs short. Find me after I've turned my ballot in and I'll talk to you more.

Michele Mega - SMC

MyHanh Anderson - ELAC

n/a

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.

Nick Matthews - IVC

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

Richard Regan - Grand Canyon

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Sarah Crachiolo - LACC

n/a

Simon Kern - Canyons

n/a

Sonya Allahyar - SMC

Susie Virzi - IVC

Victor Cornejo - PCC

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. '

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.

2015 Robert Barbera Collegiate Forensics Invitational #1