FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Adam Navarro - ELAC

n/a

Alex Ortega - PCC

n/a

Alix Lopez - ELAC

n/a

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

n/a

Allison Bowman - LAVC

n/a

Amy Wangsadipura - Mt SAC

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>

Bria Woodyard - ASU

n/a

Christine Cummings - Mt SAC

Desi Chavez-Appel - Glendale, CA

Diana Lau - LAVC

n/a

Jaime Gomez - LAVC

n/a

Jeremy Murphy - Palomar

Jessica Kwack - CSUN

n/a

Jessie Bruno - Moorpark

n/a

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Matthew Robert Smith - EPCC

n/a

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.

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

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.

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC

The merit of your arguments is the foremost deciding factor for me. The debater(s) who has the strongest arguments should win. As a personal preference, I like well structured debates. If I can easily flow what you're saying and where you're refuting your opponent, it makes it much easier for me to make a fair decision without interjecting into your round. Try not to be a douchebag. There is really no reason to be rude or condescending; these are strategies of aggression that are usually employed by debaters who lack more refined skills of actual argumentation. You should address me, the judge, not each other. You can communicate with your teammate, but it should not be excessive or distracting... and I will only flow what actually comes out of the speaker's mouth. (Additionally, it always appears like there's not great partner trust when one person tries to dominate his/her partner... and I start to doubt your credibility.) I recommend that you stand when you speak and employ good public speaking traits: articulation, limit non-verbal distractions, fluid delivery with few verbal fillers, eye contact, expressiveness, etc. I am willing to listen to anything you'd like to discuss. However, it is your responsibility to explain clearly why I should prefer your argument to another. This applies to the use of procedurals; running a procedural isn't a guarantee of a win. Your responsibility as a debater is to explain exactly what the violation is and how it impacts the round or to explain clearly why the violation did not occur or how it is irrelevant to the round. Similarly, I will listen to a K, but you have to convince me that this is more significant than the resolution... or why it isn't. Do your job to flush out arguments and rebuttals so I don't have to! I feel speed is a weak strategy as it promotes quantity over quality of arguments. I'd rather hear fewer, more developed arguments than a long list used as a time suck... which sucks. If I can't keep up with your spreading, I will simply stop flowing the round; if your argument doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't consider it when making my decision. Use of jargon is fine, as long as you are using it correctly and linking it specifically into the debate. Don't use jargon for jargon sake; integrate it into the specific debate. If you have other questions, feel free to ask me! But if you ask for my preferences and are not willing to adapt to them, I’d rather you just didn’t even ask.

Sarah Crachiolo - LACC

n/a

Simon Kern - Canyons

n/a

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 Invitational #2