FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

Adam Cassidy - Mesa

Alina Ortiz - Vanguard

Aly Fetzer - Pacific

<div> Speed is not a tool for intentionally skewing someone else out of a round. I will vote on this.</div> <div>  </div> <div> Ts are not your chance to whine. And you should understand grammatical structure before running one.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I hate perms. I think PICs are smart.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I like case-specific Ks.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I take speaker points seriously--if you're a poor speaker or rude to your opponents, you will not win very many points. If you're a good speaker, you will. Simple as that.</div> Have fun!

Amir Sharifi - IVC

Antonio De La Garza - Utah

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

Ashley Nuckels-Cuevas - Pacific

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach/IVC Years Judging Debate: 22+ Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Section 1: General Information I think that debate is up to the debaters in the round. They the privilege of defining what debate should look like, but also the responsibility to defend that interpretation. I like Case debate (this is a lost great art), CP, DA, K and performance (but I really hate performance that is bad). I will listen to and vote on theory but you have to make it clear. Other than that I would say that debate is a game and I always play games to win and would expect you to do similar things. Also while I do not think that any judge can be truly non-biased and not intervene at all, I think intervention is a bad thing that the judge has a duty to try to resist as much as possible. Other things to think about: some people think that I am a hack for the K. While I have coached many great K people (or performance) I was a CP/DA/Case debater. This really does mean I love to see it all. I am a very fast flow. I hate lying in debate and would suggest for people to try to get facts straight. I do not vote against people who lie or make bad arguments (I leave it up to the other team to do that) but your points will reflect it. Well I do not mind critical arguments and think everyone can run them no matter the side. I treat them the same as every other argument. If they have a framework argument I will start there and see how I should frame the debate (and do not think I default crazy, many great debaters have won policy making in front of me). Once I decide how to frame the debate than I use it to evaluate the debate.  As far as contradictory K positions with counterplans I do not like it if the K works on a level of discourse as a reason to vote for the k. I have a hard time with the whole language is most important and what we learn in debate is best, followed up by someone using bad rhetoric and saying the other team should not use it. I do not just vote for it but I do find the whole you contradicted it so either you lose or the K goes away persuasive. I would give some warning before I talk about Crazy in debate. 1. There is a winner and a looser in each debate, just because you were doing something crazy does not mean you get to avoid it. I have very few things I get to do and I enjoy the power (I give winner, looser, and speaker points). 2. Bad performance is not only horrible to watch (which kills speaker points) it also is easy to turn if the other team know performance or makes simple logical arguments. This means that it needs to be prepped and practiced it is not normally something that just comes to you in prep and if it does you might want to resist it because they go bad on the fly. Having said all of it I have seen some amazing performances over the years and it was cool when they were good. I have an old school approach to T. I do not mind it and while it does not have to have in round abuse it is always better to have it.  To vote on it you need to win that there is a reason why what they did is bad and in the round the best thing would be to drop the AFF. As far as competing interps go I have a little rant. I do not know what else there is but competing interp. I mean both sides have their interp and the standards they use to justify it. In the end to win T you would have to prove your interp is the better one (hence the winning interp from the competing interps) and that topicality is a voting issue. I have no idea why people say t is about competing interps (because it always has been and will be) and I have no idea what that argument gets them in the round. I love counterplans. I have heard very few counterplans that are not pics (and they were really really bad). Topical counterplans are the best for debate and policy making because they are honestly the heart of most of the literature.  If you plan on kicking the CP I would put the status in the cp because otherwise you run the risk of the PMR getting angry about the kick and it is always messy for the judge at that point. Perms need to have text unless it is do both (because the text is literally both). Types of competition are interesting text seems a little weaker than functional but both can be good and lame too. I want to remind you here that even though I have told you about what I think about theory arguments I still vote on them all the time.  Even the silly argument that you only get one perm and it is always advocated (Yes cheesewright I am insulting you :P). I also think conditionality bad is a smart argument even if I don’t always get to vote for it. MPJ: My recommendation for teams is to pref me based on the people they are debating that weekend. I see people who are not fast or cannot handle the K (or defend policymaking) well and that is sad because they ranked me an A. You should rank me biased on what is most likely to win you rounds and I would never be offended by this.

Billy Turner - SMC

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brianna Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Brianna Nishie – Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic While my high school did not have a debate program, I spent my high school weekends at PSCFA tournaments watching rounds of debate.  Upon entering Vanguard University I immediately joined the speech and debate program.  I was a modestly successful debater who spent much of her Junior and Senior years as a competitor working as a peer coach.  I graduated VU in May, 2011 and worked the last 2 years as the assistant coach at Vanguard.  I currently work in social media as well as a speaking coach for professionals while continuing to help the forensics community with coaching/judging.    My academic background is in communication with an emphasis in PR.   I was trained by what can best be described as an “old school” parli coach – and I have several of her fundamental traits in my own philosophy.  I have, however, more tolerance for some technical arguments than my former coach may have had.    I do not look at debate as a game.  The fundamental reason for this is that there are too few “rules” and the “rules” get to be “interpreted” for each team….this to me is problematic in terms of fairness.  I do feel that parliamentary debate has its foundation in the ideal of generally educated people being able to present an argument on a topic with limited preparation time Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) As a former debater who lost more rounds than I can count because I ran value on what I considered a value resolution but lost to a judge who thought that the only “true” weighing criteria was through a policy lens, I have to say I’m a bit sympathetic to trichot arguments – assuming there is an adequate justification for the argument.   I believe that there are certain stock issues that should be argued; if nobody talks about definitions or a plan or who enforces the plan (for example) then how do I know if the plan is a good idea?  Tell me where I’m voting and why.   Sometimes resolutions do call for debaters to act as policymakers – in this case one should clearly delineate what the harms are, how the harms are to be solved and what the advantages of solving the plan are….It might help you to know that my political leanings are probably more conservative than the average judge on the circuit when making a plan…   Finally, in the age of group preparation – make sure you understand any specialized case that was constructed in prep time.  Please remember that this is parliamentary debate, don’t just read your plan text and PLEASE don’t toss an extra copy to the opposition so you feel exempt from the obligation to explain your case – this is not CEDA.   Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making   Parliamentary debate was founded in response to what had become a loathsome communication event – CEDA – and it seems that a lot of the reasons people left CEDA (speed, spread, reading evidence with no audience connection whatsoever) are seeping into Parliamentary – that doesn’t make me happy about it.  Speak plainly and clearly – sometimes you have to go fast – ok, but if you go too fast so that the communication has left the event – don’t expect high speaker points and if I can’t keep up don’t expect to win.  This doesn’t mean speak to me like I’m an idiot.  Be persuasive.  You can be a horrible speaker making fabulous arguments and win – you can be an incredibly persuasive, articulate speaker making horrible arguments and you can lose.  Moderation is a good thing here. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making On-case argumentation is important – if you make it important.  Dropped arguments can also be very important in terms of what your opposition decides to do with them.  Not every argument needs a ton of attention – so use your time wisely.   Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for   I am not a fan of critiques – I feel this is more an issue of the way they have been flung around as largely non-linked disadvantages.  I could probably vote on a K if it was very well articulated – but that’s your job.  I’m not a big fan on procedurals – again, a personal bias – but procedurals are an available tool – so if they are necessary – use them, but explain why I should weigh them in the round.   One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech.   I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job.   Be personable, have some fun, and be brilliant.  Tell me what matters in the round.  Tell me what wins.  Give me every opportunity to give you the ballot.    <hr />

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University) Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case. 3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it. 4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy. 5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Chris Hacela - IVC

Chris Joffrion - WKU

Collette Blumer - Fullerton Col

Dana Jean Smith - Long Beach

n/a

Daniel Elliott - Biola

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

Darren Burdett - SDCC

David Finnigan - Santa Clara

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.

Dena Counts - ACU

I am the DOF at ACU.  I have been coaching Parli for the last 7 years.  For those last 7 years, I have judged on average 65 rounds per year.  This year I have been judging less but still should be able to keep up with you.   I vote with the better quality of argument. When I say better quality, I am looking for depth of arguments and warrants behind your claim. I attempt to remove my individual biases from the round and make debaters tell me where and why to vote. I understand that biases do seep into my judgments, but I do feel that I should make decisions based upon your argumentation – not my worldview. Probably, I’m more of a game player when it comes to a decision maker.  Love new and unique strategies. I really think almost anything goes in this thing called debate. I say "anything" as I don't like cursing, nakedness, or slurs, but strategy wise, you can do what you need to do to win. Know that I’m very expressive in my nonverbals. If I am getting your argument, you’ll know. If you’ve lost me, you should know from my nonverbals. I have only been coaching for five years, so there are times that super speed (not typically speed) can lose me. Again watch my nonverbals, and I’ll let you know. I flow, judge on the flow, and don’t do the work for you.  Use your rebuttal to tell me why you win and where on the flow your arguments overwhelm the teams.     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 to 30 25 to 27 means you need work 28 to 30 means you are pretty awesome   2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Kritiks are great from both Aff and Neg. Explain your framework, impacts and give me a realistic alternative.  I do think you need an alternative and it shouldn't bite your story.  No I don’t think when you run other negative arguments they should contradict other neg positions unless through the running of those positions you are trying to make a point.     3.     Performance based arguments…  Great.  Just tell me how I should interpret them, how they function in the round.     4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I will vote on T but would rather vote elsewhere. To pull that trigger in -round abuse is typically necessary. Also, competing interp is necessary.     5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  CP’s are fine. PICS are fine. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run argumentation of why PICS are bad though. Yes, ID the status of the CP. PERM the CP every which way you can. If you can think of a new way to PERM that would be super fun.   6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)  Yes that’s fine.     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?)?  Topicality is first.  Then I look to Criteria or Framework to tell me where to go.  Usually it is impacts or turns on case.  I REALLY like rebuttals that tell me where to vote and WHY to vote.     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 you don’t tell me WHY your impact outweighs their impacts on timeline, magnitude or probability, you are gambling on my choice or priority.  I would probably go with concrete impacts over abstract ones.

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE Background of the critic: I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic.  Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge.  Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention.    Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed.  Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations.  Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case.  I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. Any additional comments: This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds.  I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience.  If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round.  All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches.  Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW.  All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture.  I don’t time road maps but want them.  Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.

Eric Garcia - IVC

Erin Crossman - CSULA

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn. There are lots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, but I try not to bring them into the round. Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you CAN lose a round if you drop one little argument; if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework arrgument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool in any way, or ask me to vote on real world impacts. I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have "won."  A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up.  Because I try to base my decision based only on arguments that are made in the round, I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad. Likewise, you don't have to run only liberal positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or care if they are "true." In general, know that I believe that debate is a game.

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.

Glenn Prince - Rice

n/a

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

n/a

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Hilary Dowdy - Rice

n/a

Ian Sharples - PLNU

n/a

Jace Lux - WKU

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jennifer McGee - Concordia-CA

n/a

Jessica Rush - CBU

Jin Nakama - Mesa

~~As a baseline, I might best be characterized as traditional debate theorist and an ideologue-critic with a symbolic touch. My views can and do change, but there are some things you might like to know about me how I approach debate as an activity… I take a good flow, but I won’t allow my flow to bind me. I will vote on and off the flow in whatever way I think will allows me to render a true and fair decision. As debaters, your role is to debate the resolution and my role is to determine the outcome of a round. I take a humanistic view to debate, and I expect arguments and cases presented are done so in a manner that connects with our experiences. The process of argumentation and evaluation does not happen in a vacuum, it happens within the context of experience. This does not mean that arguments must conform to my worldview, but rather, that arguments should be grounded in the world around us. If you’re going to paint a picture of a different world, that’s fine too. In general, it should just make sense within the narrative you choose. #Policy Where the resolution stipulates a call to action, I adopt a stock issues paradigm and artificial presumption. Stock issues answer the questions needed to resolve questions regarding the adoption of the resolution—and so, the Affirmative team must affirm all five stock issues (Inherency, Significance/Harms, Solvency/Advantages) in order to secure the round. Failure to bring a prima facie case, will result in my defaulting to the Opposition team on presumption. Because of the nature of parliamentary debate and its limited prep, my thresholds aren’t as stringent as they are in traditional policy formats, but please know that the less time you spend laying out and defending each stock issue, the weaker they will be and the easier it will be for the Opposition team to negate them. You need only lose one to lose the round. Absent a specific call to action, I will look to Framework first before I look to line-by-line argumentation. The Resolution should remain the focus of the debate, and any impacts on cause should be both reasonable and probable outcomes. Extremism, terminal impacts or arguments that are morally bankrupt hold little sway over me, however, if you think you can argue these points with success, I will listen to what you have to say, albeit with a raised brow. Whether or not the Affirmative team has met their burden upholding the resolution will determine the outcome of the round. #Fact/Value In F/V rounds, I look to the body and quality of arguments and weighing analysis. Arguments should go to the probative and have a clear link to the criterion and how that proves or disproves the resolution. Remember, facts and examples are not arguments. They should be used to support your arguments. #Procedurals I look here first as these are a priori issues. Generally, these should be employed as a means of demonstrating in-round abuse, though if you think you have good enough reason to run it based on competing interpretations, by all means, go for it. I vote on issues of fairness before the impacts of case because fairness as a practice extends beyond the round while the impacts of case are limited to just that round. #Speaker Points Speaker points and ranks are determined based on style and conduct. I was taught to debate traditionally, and I proceed accordingly. When the round begins, address me directly and not the other team during -all- points of interaction. Please stand when you speak.  Partner-to-partner communication is strongly discouraged, however you may pass notes. I value etiquette very much and I am likely to punish any perceived hostility by deducting speaker points with liberty. #Speed I view debate as an art and practice in persuasion. Parliamentary debate provides little justification to speak at nigh unintelligible speeds. Speak to me as you would your grandfather, though please not so much as though I were a golden retriever. #Final Thoughts I believe judges have three major functions in this activity; Educator, Adjudicator, and Trustee. As Educator, a duty to help guide and provide perspective on the event; as Adjudicator, the task of deciding the outcome of a round; and as Trustee, the responsibility of preserving and protecting the integrity of the activity as a whole. So, even if you win on my flow, but I find you sorely lacking in good conduct, you will lose on my ballot. I have a great love for this activity and oral tradition. I will judge your round with enthusiasm and give you my very best, without exception. My request of you is that you please give me yours. I’m delighted by good company, so if you see me wandering around during tournaments, feel free to say hello and have a chat! Happy debating and good luck!

Joey Mavity - Azusa

Notes collected over the 2012-2013 season most up-to-date version at http://bit.ly/myrfd   I fundamentally approach debate from a principle of charity: I assume the best arguments that can be made are the arguments you make. This makes it fairly easy for me to make my decision based on what you argue rather than what I think about an issue. Thus, while I speak at length on my biases and preferences, I’ll vote on an argument even if I think its bonkers. When I say something like, “the negative shouldn’t,” it’s not an absolute rule. I probably over-value clever and snarky. I don’t value taking it too far. Argument Quality Increasingly I’m reaching the point where too many unwarranted arguments mean I simply don’t flow them. I understand one or two or even 10 over the course of the debate. But 10 in a row, I’m just going to peace out and probably start flipping my pen. This has not happened in the ‘11-’12 year, but it did twice in ‘10-’11. If you don’t respect co-participants enough to make an argument, I have a hard time feeling compelled to push buttons on my laptop. I think I have a much higher threshold here than some people. Competition/Plan text My default perspective is that the affirmative has broad access to parametric limits on the advocacy they present. This means if the resolution is, ‘Pass X piece of legislation,” you must pass all or part of that legislation. I tend to think passing something not in that legislation is probably going beyond the scope of the resolution. As a result of your choice, I think you’re responsible for the consequences of your plan text. More plainly: I tend to think “textual competition” is a silly standard. If you didn’t want to defend the extent of your actions, you should have written a different plan. “But the resolution made me do it!” is probably one of the most asinine claims ever. CP text Don’t read CP/alt text and not take questions. CP/alt in the last minute is absurd and has often been a voting issue in years past (though this practice is less common today). Neutral concerns I don’t flow points of information unless you tell me to. POIs are binding. It’s difficult for me to vote on RVI’s. Points of Order I expect you to call points of order if an argument is new in a way that will affect my decision. For the one objecting, this consists of a clear articulation of what argument you think is new and why you think it is new. For the respondent, this consists of a clear articulation of why the violation identified by the opposing team is incorrect. For instance: “Their argument that death trumps ethics is a new argument that radically alters the impact calculus of the round by mooting our critique,” is a good point of order. “This argument is new,” on the other hand, is not. When responding, “We answered this in the MG,” is a fairly vague answer. I’m not willing to look through every word of the MG and guess which line you think was a response. Instead, “Our #2 on the alternative is that ethical obligations find their ultimate expression in the preservation of human life. That’s a wordy way of saying ‘life trumps ethics’ and hence is not new.” Impact analysis Arguments about how to evaluate and weigh issues in the debate are themselves arguments and should be presented early and often. Past RFDs I’ve made every single RFD since Fall 2010 available at <a href="http://bit.ly/myrfd">http://bit.ly/myrfd</a>. I think that gives you a much more detailed feel for my judging philosophy than this will because you can see what my recurring complaints are. Time use Don’t feel compelled to fill time. If you’ve won, end it. If you need the time, use it. Effective time management, though, can only help you. Saying “let me review all our arguments” and then spending 3 minutes repeating what you’ve already said can only hurt you.     <hr />   <h2>Coloring Book Edition</h2> Special thanks to Mike Allen <hr />

John Migaiolo - CSUSB

n/a

Jon Sonoda - PLNU

n/a

Jon Williamson - Long Beach

n/a

Jonathan Burrello - Biola

n/a

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

Jules Throckmorton - IVC

JULES THROCKMORTON-FRENCH: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE   Background of the critic:   I've been involved with Parliamentary Debate for the last 10 years; whether that be competing, coaching, or judging. I competed from 2001-2004 for what was then known as the South Orange County Forensics Team (SOC). Since that time, I went on to earn my Juris Doctor at law school. However, my love for forensics brought me back to the speech and debate community. I've coached debate and individual events at both Saddleback and Irvine Valley College. I am also the Director of Individual Events at Concordia University.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I consider myself a flow judge. I don't have any particular likes or dislikes- I will be open minded to whatever you choose to run in front of me. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible. With that said, call every "point of order," or I will flow it.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   Communication is important as, after all, this is a communication event. However, good communication will only get you so far; I may award you high speaker points, but good communication skills will not necessarily win you the round. As far as speed goes, I am ok with a moderately-fast pace so long as it is CLEAR, necessary, and well signposted.  Remember that I have been focusing more on individual events this year, and as a result my flow has gotten a little slower. Be careful, b/c if you are going too fast I will not give any verbal signals.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:   I think a good debate involves offense and defense, and a good debater will never put all their eggs in one basket. However, there have been plenty of rounds where I've picked up OPP even though the on-case was conceded.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:   I will be open-minded to whatever you want to run.   Any additional comments:   I will time road maps!!! Make the round an easy call for me- weigh everything out and tell me EXACTLY where you're winning and why. Give me clear voters & tell me where to pull the trigger. Please be clear and signpost. Also, please do not be rude! Finally, I am old-fashioned in the sense that I believe you should stand for your speeches, and if your partner has something to contribute they can simply pass a note rather than yelling out.

Justin Harris - Concordia-CA

n/a

Kathleen Bruce - Pacific

n/a

Kay Flewelling - PLNU

n/a

Kayla Douglass - CSUF

n/a

Kim Gerhardt - Mesa

n/a

Kristen Apruzzese - Chabot College

n/a

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Linda Farnan - Mesa

n/a

Liza Rios - IVC

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

Lorina Tamayo Schrauger - Biola

n/a

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

Marc Oimet - Palomar

n/a

Mark Faaita - El Camino

Matt Strawbridge - UCLA

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

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

n/a

Meadows Chad - WKU

Debate should reward hard work. Your strategies and in round execution should reflect intensive research and thought about the topic/your opponents arguments. My speaker points AND ballot will be used to reinforce a curriculum that normalizes debate practices I believe are needed for the overall health of the community. 1 -Evidence Debate should be a referendum on the quality and quantity of research done first, and then a matter of execution later. I will reward debaters who do excellent and thorough research over debaters who have “slick tricks” to win debates. I think evidence is VERY important, its quality and qualifications should be debated. I will usually prefer excellent evidence to spin. When comparing a good card which was not well explained/had no spin vs. no card or a bad card with excellent spin I will typically prefer the good card. I will call for cards after the debate. I will generally only call for evidence which is referenced in the final two rebuttals. Refer to evidence by last name and date after it has been cited in the first instance. If you do not READILY share citations and evidence with your opponent in the round - I WILL be cranky, probably vote against you, or at the very least give you TERRIBLE speaker points. 2 - Speed/Flowing If speaking at a more rapid rate is used to advance more scholarship in the round, I encourage debaters to speak quickly. If speaking quickly devolves into assaulting the round with a barrage of bad arguments in the hope that your opponent will not clash with them all, my ballot and speaker points will not encourage this practice. I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and researched explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by evidence on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. You can check your rhetorical bullying at the door. Posturing, repeating yourself (even loudly), insulting your opponents (except during cross-x), or insisting that I will "ALWAYS vote here" are probably a waste of your time. 3 - Argument Selection Any argument that advances argument on the desirability of the resolution through valid decision making is persuasive. The source of argumentation should be left up to the debaters. I am very unlikely to be persuaded that the source of evidence justifies its exclusion. In particular I am unconvinced the methodology, epistemology, ontology, and other indicts pertaining to the foundation of the affirmative are unjustified avenues of research to explore in debate. Above all else, the content of your argument should not be used to duck clash. Specific Issues: 1 - Topicality is a voter and not a reverse voter. "Proving abuse" is irrelevant, well explained standards are not. 2 – The affirmative does not have to specify more than is required to affirm the resolution. I encourage Affirmatives to dismiss specs/vagueness and other procedurals without implications for the topicality of the affirmative with absolute disregard. 3 – Conditionality is logical, restraints on logical decision making are only justified in extreme circumstances.  4 – There is nothing implied in the plan. Consult, process, and other counterplans which include the entirety of the plan text are not competitive. 5 – I will decide if the counterplan is competitive by evaluating if the permutation is better than the counterplan alone or if the plan is better than counterplan. Ideological, philosophical, and redudancy standards for competiton are not persuasive and not useful for making decisions. 6 – I mediate my preferences for arguably silly counterplans like agent, international, and PICS/PECS primarily based upon the quality of the counterplan solvency evidence. 7 – Direction/Strength of link evidence is more important than “controlling uniqueness” This is PARTICULARLY true when BOTH sides have compelling and recent uniqueness evidence. Uniqueness is a strong factor in the relative probability of the direction of the link, if you don't have uniqueness evidence you are behind.  8 - I do not have a "threshold" on topicality. A vote for T is just as internally valid as a vote for a DA. I prefer topicality arguments with topic specific interpretation and violation evidence. I will CLOSELY evaluate your explanation on the link and impact of your standards. 9 - I am very unlikely to make a decision primarily based upon defensive arguments. <a href="mailto:chadwickmeadows@gmail.com">chadwickmeadows@gmail.com</a>

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Rodriguez - IVC

Nicholas Paliewicz - Utah

Nicholas Butler - ASU

n/a

Noah Guest - IVC

Paul Davis - Azusa

Peter Ludlam - IVC

Rachel Resnick - IVC

Rachel Hastings - IVC

Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

Ryan Castillo - Long Beach

n/a

Sarah Black - CSULA

Sarah McDermott - CSUF

n/a

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Sherris Minor - Palomar

I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  I tend to not vote for fact or value debate and overall I prefer policy because I think the former encourage judge intervention.  I also do not find the “trichotomy” of debate particularly compelling unless it is used to justify policy debate.<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "></o:p> <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter, most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become to much for me to handle. I haven’t had to do that yet this year. Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot. The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Procedurals are fine to run in front of me, but I do not vote on potential abuse. I don’t tend to vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”   <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Condo, Overall, I believe all arguments in debate are conditional you choose to go for the ones you are winning and not go for the ones you are losing. If you want to run condo bad and impact out why their conditional cp/ alt is detrimental to the round go for it. I think it is all part of strategy. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate and I will always listen to them. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> CP/perm theory is anything goes until someone tells me why it is not ok. You need to explain your theory to me don’t just expect me to know what your perm means. Multiple perms are ok. I believe both perms and CPs should have a text. You should also explain how your perm functions in the context of the round. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run (for the most part).  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.   <div> </div>

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Stephen Thomas - CBU

Steve Robertson - Saddleback

Tariq Bruno - Pacific

Tariq Bruno: I an open to multiple interpretations as to the purpose/rules of debate (as either a competitive activity or an educational activity). Absent any arguments to the contrary I will default to a tranditional net-benefits paradigm, and evaluate augments according to the direction of the debaters. Assuming a close round, the magnitude, scope, and probability of your impact scenario might matter in round. Terminal impacts should be BIG (at least to get my ballot). While it bothers me to my core to do so, If you fail to articulate any offense against your opponent I will vote for the other team on a 1% risk calculus. Anything more specific feel free to ask me in-round.

Tim Kamermayer - Pacific

n/a

Tim Milosch - Biola

Toni Miller - IVC

Tyler Rising - NAU

n/a

Vivian Amezcua - Concordia-CA

n/a

Whitney Hart - Pacific

Experience: I have been around some form of debate since 2003. I debated policy in high school for two years; in college, I debated LD four years and parli for a semester at Missouri Southern State University. And I’ve been coaching/judging in some capacity since 2009. <o:p> </o:p> In general, run whatever you want. As long you as explain how the position accesses my ballot, I will vote on it. Debate is a game. Be strategic to win. The round is yours and you should make it your own. The following information is about my general judging philosophy, but I am willing to suspend my ow<a name="_GoBack"></a>n preconceived notions to vote where the debaters tell me to vote. These are my defaults. <o:p> </o:p> Please do impact calculus. I have found myself having to weigh issues in such a way that it gives me a headache, so do it for me to make my decision easy. I tell debaters to “write my ballot for me.” What I mean by that is do sophisticated comparative analysis and explain exactly what I should vote on and why and you will probably come out ahead. Impact calculus does not necessarily mean that your argument “outweighs” in a traditional sense of the word. But each argument you make in the debate round should serve a purpose and you should make that purpose explicit to me. On a related note, I am really tired of hearing ridiculous impact scenarios without internal links. If your impact is global nuclear war, tell me how you get there in a way that actually makes sense. Too often, positions are much like fat bottom girls (bottom/impact heavy and not link heavy) … and while they do make the rockin’ debate world go ‘round, they give me a headache. I am more likely to vote on probability than magnitude if you neglect your internal links. And do not tell me something is dehumanization without explaining HOW it is dehumanizing. An individual not getting paid what they deserve is not dehumanization. <o:p> </o:p> Speaker points: I award these based on a combination of how well you present yourself and the quality of your arguments. If you are excessively rude, your speaker points will reflect that. If you argue with me about a decision I have made, expect to see 1 speaker point on your ballot (yes, that’s o-n-e). Also—do not prompt your partner. This annoys me beyond all else. They are your partner. You should trust them. If you must help them, pass them a note. If you have to tell them what they should say every time they start a sentence, you need a new partner or you need to stop being such a control freak. I will tank your speaker points for this. Also, if the person who is giving the speech doesn’t say it, I don’t flow it. <o:p> </o:p> Speed: I do not care how quickly you speak. I will keep up. I really love listening to someone who is fast and articulate. As long as you do not sacrifice clarity to speed, we will be fine. If you are gasping for air and incomprehensible, your speaker points will suffer. I want a good, substantive debate. Speed should not be used to exclude others from the round, but should be used to enhance the quality of the debate by allowing debaters to a greater number of warranted arguments. <o:p> </o:p> Procedurals: I love debates about debate. Specification arguments regarding funding, enforcement, agent, etc. are great, but I prefer they be resolution-specific and the negative must explain how that particular specification is important. It’s difficult to convince me that the resolution sets a precedent for what the plan text should include since everyone has only known about it for about 20 minutes, so be prepared for me to be empathetic to a “normal means” response. I default to competing interpretations, but part of the standards debate should probably be ground arguments. Topicality: I love topicality debates and I view topicality as an issue of competing interpretations. Don’t blip out voters. I don’t know why I would vote on “fairness and education.” I have never heard a compelling RVI. I do not really know what it means to be “reasonably topical” because I have only heard it articulated in a way that wasn’t totally asinine once. The opposition can just as easily come up with an arbitrary interpretation of the resolution and use topicality to exclude the government as the government can arbitrarily demonstrate the resolution with their case to exclude the opposition. <o:p> </o:p> Criticisms: I was not a K debater, but that does not mean I have not voted for them. However, a clearly articulated alternative is a must. To win the K in front of me, you have to win the framework and the alternative. Do not assume that I know the same things you do about what your specific author says. Explain the thesis of their argument to me and explain why your criticism accesses my ballot. This is largely neglected. What role does my ballot serve? This needs to be explicit. Critical affirmatives: I will listen to them, but I will also listen to arguments about why your critical affirmative isn’t topical. <o:p> </o:p> Counterplans: are conditional unless otherwise specified. Counterplans should be held to the same standards of solvency as the affirmative. <o:p> </o:p> General information: When the PMR or LOR makes a new argument, I cross through it on my flow, whether you call the point of order or not. Call points of order if you’d like; they are a useful check against your opponent and a tool only available to parli debaters. But if you’re going to call a point of order, explain why your opponent’s argument is new. Also, if you’re going to respond to points of order, explain why it’s not new with direct reference to the previous argument (speech where the argument was originally made, how it was phrased, etc.) so I know what you are talking about and can rule accordingly. But I don’t evaluate new arguments. <o:p> </o:p> I don’t believe in shadow extensions. If you are the LO and you make an argument in the LOC and your MO does not extend it, an LOR extension is a new argument to me. Same thing goes for PMs and MGs.

2011 California Double-Up #1

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

zz-bye

Adam Cassidy - Mesa

Alina Ortiz - Vanguard

Aly Fetzer - Pacific

Amir Sharifi - IVC

Antonio De La Garza - Utah

April Griffin - IVC

Ashley Nuckels-Cuevas - Pacific

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Billy Turner - SMC

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brianna Nishie - Vanguard

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Chris Hacela - IVC

Chris Joffrion - WKU

Collette Blumer - Fullerton Col

Dana Jean Smith - Long Beach

Daniel Elliott - Biola

Darren Burdett - SDCC

David Finnigan - Santa Clara

Dena Counts - ACU

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

Eric Garcia - IVC

Erin Crossman - CSULA

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

Gary Rybold - IVC

Glenn Prince - Rice

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Hilary Dowdy - Rice

Ian Sharples - PLNU

Jace Lux - WKU

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jennifer McGee - Concordia-CA

Jessica Rush - CBU

Jin Nakama - Mesa

Joey Mavity - Azusa

John Migaiolo - CSUSB

Jon Sonoda - PLNU

Jon Williamson - Long Beach

Jonathan Burrello - Biola

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Jules Throckmorton - IVC

Justin Harris - Concordia-CA

Kathleen Bruce - Pacific

Kay Flewelling - PLNU

Kayla Douglass - CSUF

Kim Gerhardt - Mesa

Kristen Apruzzese - Chabot College

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Linda Farnan - Mesa

Liza Rios - IVC

Lorina Tamayo Schrauger - Biola

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

Marc Oimet - Palomar

Mark Faaita - El Camino

Matt Strawbridge - UCLA

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

Meadows Chad - WKU

Michael Marse - CBU

Michael Rodriguez - IVC

Nicholas Paliewicz - Utah

Nicholas Butler - ASU

Noah Guest - IVC

Paul Davis - Azusa

Peter Ludlam - IVC

Rachel Resnick - IVC

Rachel Hastings - IVC

Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB