FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

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

Ben Bates - LACC

n/a

Billy Hatton - Canyons

n/a

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Chaz Kelly - Chico

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

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

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.

Janice Tessman - CSUN

n/a

Jonathan Hensley - Biola

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.

Kyle Van Sant - Chabot College

n/a

Leah Freeman - Biola

Lindsey Ayotte - Chabot College

n/a

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Natalie Kellner - Chico

Nathan Wensko - Long Beach

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Nicholas Butler - ASU

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.

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.”

Sarah Black - Glendale, CA

Scott Tuggle - CMC

n/a

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.

Judge Philosophies

Andrew Silverstein - CSULA

August Benassi - Moorpark

Ben Bates - LACC

Billy Hatton - Canyons

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Chaz Kelly - Chico

Collette Blumer - CSUF

Dave Machen - PCC

David Hale - CSULA

Gary Rybold - IVC

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

Janice Tessman - CSUN

Jonathan Hensley - Biola

Josh Fleming - PCC

Kyle Van Sant - Chabot College

Leah Freeman - Biola

Lindsey Ayotte - Chabot College

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Michael Leach - Canyons

Michael Kalustian - LACC

Natalie Kellner - Chico

Nathan Wensko - Long Beach

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

Nicholas Butler - ASU

Nick Russell - Long Beach

Paul Davis - Azusa

Peter Ludlam - Biola

Reyna Velarde - Long Beach

Robert Black - Glendale, CA

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

Ryan Guy - Chico

Sarah Black - Glendale, CA

Scott Tuggle - CMC

Sean Connor - CSULA

Suzanne DeWalt - Glendale, CA

Ted Levatter - Glendale, CA

Tim Milosch - Biola

Will Fay III - Chabot College

Willie Washington - CSUF

2012 Robert Barbera Invitational #2 (Sun)

Judge Philosophies

Andrew Silverstein - CSULA

August Benassi - Moorpark

Ben Bates - LACC

Billy Hatton - Canyons

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Chaz Kelly - Chico

Collette Blumer - CSUF

Dave Machen - PCC

David Hale - CSULA

Gary Rybold - IVC

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

Janice Tessman - CSUN

Jonathan Hensley - Biola

Josh Fleming - PCC

Kyle Van Sant - Chabot College

Leah Freeman - Biola

Lindsey Ayotte - Chabot College

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Michael Leach - Canyons

Michael Kalustian - LACC

Natalie Kellner - Chico

Nathan Wensko - Long Beach

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

Nicholas Butler - ASU

Nick Russell - Long Beach

Paul Davis - Azusa

Peter Ludlam - Biola

Reyna Velarde - Long Beach

Robert Black - Glendale, CA

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

Ryan Guy - Chico

Sarah Black - Glendale, CA

Scott Tuggle - CMC

Sean Connor - CSULA

Suzanne DeWalt - Glendale, CA

Ted Levatter - Glendale, CA

Tim Milosch - Biola

Will Fay III - Chabot College

Willie Washington - CSUF