FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Andrew West - CSUN

n/a

Angela Gregory - Chabot College

n/a

Antonio De La Garza - NAU

n/a

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

Ashley Graham - El Camino

This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game.  Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win.  While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds. Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round.  That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important.  On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations.  This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds.  On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism.  I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them. On Speed: Overall speed is okay.  Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity.  Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice. On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to.  This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated.  For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response.

Ashley Nuckels - PLNU

n/a

Ben Bates - LA City

n/a

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

n/a

Candice McFadyen - Pepperdine

n/a

Carl Simmons - CBU

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Christine Law - LSU

n/a

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

Collette Blumer - Fullerton Col

Corey Taft - PCC

n/a

David Hale - Long Beach

n/a

Desi Chavez-Appel - Glendale, CA

Diana Solorzano - PCC

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Duane Smith - LAVC

n/a

Duval Bodden - Long Beach

n/a

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 Cullather - LAVC

n/a

Erin McAlear - Saddleback

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

My comments in this paradigm should be understood as the horizon from my point of view--not dictates.  I love debate because it allows teams to argue about what they feel is important. I have been active in debate for over 20 years at both the high school and the college level.  In that time, I have watched as 2 documentary film crews followed two separate teams on mine (1 high school, 1 college).  I have worked several summer institutes, coached in the Northwest and Southwest, started an English Language Debate League in Mexico City and continue working with the LA Metro League.  I am currently the Director at Cal State LA and have judged about 15 rounds this year. Many years ago I wrote an article about why I think the tricotomy, while conceptually helpful, fails to provide a fair and debater centered approach to topic interpretation.  I feel much the same way about the stock issues, where inherency plays the role of fact, harms the role of value, and solvency playing policy.  Like most of the policy-maker paradigm, I see significance and topicality as derivative of the coordination of other three.  That is to say, I will use my real-world experiences both in and out of rounds, and therefore cannot feign ignorance of their import. I do not feel that the ability to speak quickly is even close to one of the most significant things I have learned from forensics.  I can flow fast debate because I have been trained to, not because I enjoy the tactic.  I do not feel that rate is a substitute for making strategic choices. I believe that the negative has the burden of rejoinder and, as such, must respond to the substantive arguments of the affirmative.  I dislike the 1-off LOC because while tactical choices are made, it also necessitates a “going for everything” strategy that does not necessitate making strategic choices. I rarely vote on procedural arguments because they are usually pale shadows of a more important substantive issue.  There have been times when there is clearly articulated in-round abuse; but it goes without saying that the procedural argument trades off with another actual position, not a potential position. A counterplan needs to test the solvency of the affirmative’s advocacy, which is to say, it competes with the plan on the level of net benefits.  Both textual and functional competition have the possibility of fulfilling this standard, if they can demonstrate an opportunity cost.  Since uniqueness can be counterplanned, the status of the advocacy need not be unconditional.  A permutation is the plan plus any part of the counterplan--“Do both” is not a permutation. Kritik is a label to describe arguments that do not easily fit into either the stock issues or the policy maker paradigm.  Teams should feel free to use “framework” to ease this disparity, but not as a substitute for demonstration of an alternative.  However, I do believe it is possible to defend rejection as such an alternative. Points of order should be called if you are worried that a rebuttal argument is not being understood as new.  I will protect teams from arguments that create a new strategic field once rebuttals have begun.  In preliminary debates, points of order will be well taken or not; in out-rounds, points of orders will be taken under consideration. At the end of the round, the best arguments win.

Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Ian Sharples - PLNU

n/a

Ira Heffler - Glendale, CA

J. Edward Stevenson - CSUN

n/a

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

Jean Perry - Glendale, CA

Jeanne Dunphy - LA City

n/a

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jonathan Burrello - Biola

n/a

Josh Kammert - CBU

Josh Miller - LAVC

n/a

Juan Victorio - CSULA

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.

Keri Moe - EPCC

n/a

Kevin Briancesco - ASU

n/a

Keyon Shokraie - UCLA

n/a

Kyle Van Sant - Chabot College

n/a

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Marcia Regina - LA City

n/a

Matt Grisat - LSU

n/a

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

n/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 Miller - Glendale, CA

1/15/14 ...  PLEASE NOTE:  The original Post entered on the above date has been removed - on a voluntary basis, and by me, acting alone - for the reasons set forth below.  If you read my original Post, please understand that although I very much regret any "problems" it might have created, and I have removed it out of respect for the feelings of others, I stand by it.   Whether you read my original Post or not, I am ALWAYS eager to discuss Debate theory, and/or my "Judging Philosophy," and/or anything "Debate-related" - in excruciating (and some would say extremely BORING) detail - with anyone interested.  So please feel free to call me [818-952-05213] or email me [docdebate88@yahoo.com] and I will gladly answer any/all questions, explain any/all ambiguities in my previous Post, give careful consideration to any concerns/criticisms/complaints you might have about what I previously wrote, and - in short - do whatever I can to make our future relationship in Debate (if any) pleasant, educational, and enjoyable.  :)  - MHM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***  JUDGING PHILOSOPHY ADDENDUM - 2/5/14 ... *** I have most recently been informed, by persons for whom I have the greatest personal affection and professional respect, that my previous Post of 1/15/14 re: my "Judge Philosophy" was offensive and/or unacceptable to a significant number of the people who read it.  I was  - quite literally - shocked, saddened, and totally dumbfounded to learn that some people reading my original Post apparently believe that I am a "Sexist," and/or "filled with hate" and/or "exclusionary," and/or even  violent - "like the Unabomber."  So let me try to put people's minds at ease...  if that's possible. A.  I apologize most sincerely to anyone/everyone (without asserting any qualifications or offering any excuses) whom I offended. B.  I intended no disrespect/offense to anyone. C.  In my previous Post, I made what I earnestly believed to be a full, fair, and complete disclosure of my views re: Judging a (tournament) Debate.  I told the truth about myself - no more, no less.   D.   I am who I am.  Since the Fall of 1966 and to date, for almost 50 years, what I have done in Debate, I have always done in good faith, and with malice (and mallets) towards none.  What I believe about Debate is what I believe.   E.  To the best of my knowledge, information, and sincere belief: (1)  I am not a sexist. (2) I don't hate anyone connected with Debate in any way... at least, not that I know of.   (3) I don't want to "exclude" anybody in Debate from anything, and don't know how I could "exclude" anybody in Debate from anything - even if I wanted to. Last of all,  (4)  I am essentially a placid, gentle, and fun-loving person by nature (aged 65+ years), although I will defend myself and those I love if I (and especially they) were attacked. I  do not live in a secluded shack in the wilderness. I have never owned or possessed a firearm. I wouldn't have the first idea about how to make an IED (although I guess Seikel & I did "bomb out" in the 1969 NDT Final Round).  I do own some rather attractive "Hoodies," but I don't even have a pair of sunglasses.  And, because I have, in the past, worked in the immediate presence (touching distance) of several Presidents of the United States and/or nominees for the Presidency, I have been thoroughly checked out by both the FBI and the Secret Service and am not thought to be violent or "hate-filled." F.  In summation:  If who I am, how I live my life, and what I believe are no longer "acceptable" in the Debate Community, then that is my fate. As far as I am concerned, "Debate" owes me nothing.  I owe "Debate" everything. So now it would appear that it is up to "Debate" to express its "Judging Philosophy" about me.  Whatever decision "Debate" makes - I accept it... and with love and gratitude; but I am not going to disavow the lessons I have learned and deeply-held convictions, values and opinions about Debate that I have developed over a lifetime simply because other people may disagree with me.   WITH PARTICULAR RESPECT TO MY "JUDGING PHILOSOPHY," HERE IS MY UP-TO-DATE, REVISED - AND I HOPE NON-CONTROVERSIAL-  "READERS DIGEST" VERSION: 1.  I follow the NPDA Rules, the NFA-LD Rules, and any other written rules to the letter.  I always try to do this to the best of my ability, but consistent with reason, human compassion, and basic common sense. 2.  I believe that Topicality is a RULE, jurisdictional in nature, like a bounary line in sports; it is not, IMHO, a flexible, arguable "voting issue."   If the Negative/Opposition team/debater persuades me that a Plan violates the Topic, I will vote Negative.  If an Affirmative/Government team/debater persuades me that a Counterplan is Topical, I will - absent unforseen circumstances (which occur in almost every debate) - vote Affirmative. However, I am not an activist Judge on T; in other words, I will vote on T based ONLY upon what the debaters argue in the round - not based upon why I believe or infer. 3.  I will vote Negative if the Affirmative/Government/Proposition blatantly fails to set forth a prima facie case before the conclusion of the Constructive Speeches.  (I have judged literally thousands of debates since 1967, and I can think of only 2 in which, IMO, the Affirmative failed to do so.) 4.  I believe that "spreading," and "K's," and "Performances" are all inferior forms of debating, in that, by definition, they are intended to avoid an in-depth analysis/presentation of the facts about the topic area, to avoid genuine clash between competing intellects, and to win the Debate by circumventing the merits of an argument or arguments; however, I will vote for teams/debaters who employ such tactics - depending upon the unique circumstances of each round. 4.  I believe the basics skills of being a good debater are: A.  Look good (use Aethos); B.  Sound good  (use Pathos); C.  Make sense (use Logos); and, D.  Be courteous and respectful to eveyone involved in the process  (no Bozos).   I would hope that this clears up any problems, misapprehensions, misconceptions, etc. that I may have created via my previous - and obviously-inartful - Post.  Once again, please contact me if you would like any furtrher explanation, clarification, etc.   Thanks to all - and GOOD LUCK, EVEYONE!

2010 California Double-Up #2