FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amy Jung - Azusa

April Griffin - IVC

Baoquan Liu - SUFE

n/a

Ben Qin - GXU

n/a

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.

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chathi Anderson: Judging Philosophies   2 years experience as a platform speaker/competitor and 1 year experience as a debater/competitor.   I appreciate clear arguments delivered in a respectful manner, and I pay close to attention to non-verbals during a round. Make sure to warrant all your claims and tell me why your side should win—I will not debate the round for you. If an argument is dropped, make sure to point it out. I will entertain any type of case you want to run, just make sure to clearly argue it and back it up. Above all, play nicely with each other and enjoy the debate.   FYI:  I started debating last year and competed  in NPDA for over a dozen tournaments. I will only be judging novice competition, so I hope that you will try your best to keep the debate organized.  Stick to the basics and you should be fine. Do not try to run any theories you do not understand.   I will award the win to the team who can get the most significant arguments on my flow sheet. I will award points based on how well you deliver, organize and operationalize your critical thinking. Rudeness will get points subtracted.

Chenqi ZHOU - CAU

n/a

Chunxiao Wu - DLNU

n/a

DONG TIANYUE - BFSU1

n/a

Dan WANG - CAU

n/a

Debra Yancy - Ole Miss

n/a

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Di Wu - NEDU

n/a

Diya Ning - BLCU

n/a

Eric Davis - SUFE

n/a

Fangbiao Wan - NIT

n/a

Fuyi YANG - UNNC

n/a

G L Forward - PLNU

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.

Hao LV - SCUEC

n/a

Hong Wen - NCUT

n/a

JIANG SHAN - BFSU1

n/a

Jeff Archibald - Mt SAC

Jia-pei Jiang - NCUT

n/a

Jiangang GUO - UNNC

n/a

Jianhua Liu - NEDU

n/a

Jiawen Zhu - Xidian-n

n/a

Jin Dan - HBUE

n/a

Jinfeng Chen - FZU

n/a

Jing Song - BLCU

n/a

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 Lewellen - IVC

Junqi Zhu - NIT

n/a

LI XI - BFSU1

n/a

Lei Zhou - HBUE

n/a

Lei YANG - CAU

n/a

Li Zhang - XJTU

Li Gao - NCUT

n/a

Li Na - Lanzhou and WU

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.

Lu Wenyue - DUFL

n/a

Meimei Wang - NEUQ

n/a

Mengqi Jiang - BLCU

n/a

Min Xu - HBUE

n/a

QIU MING MAO - FDU

n/a

RACHEL HUANG - FDU

n/a

Ran Yonghong - NEUQ

n/a

Renyi Deng - NWAFU

n/a

Rong Wang - CQUPT

n/a

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!

Rui Liu - XJTU

Russ Taylor - NENU

n/a

SOPHIA SHAN LI YANG - FDU

n/a

Shaodong Xie - NWNU

n/a

Shuang MA - LNU

n/a

Shuangshuang Shi - soochow

n/a

Sijie Shu - BLCU

n/a

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..

Su Jianguang - NEUQ

n/a

Taoyu LIU - CAU

n/a

WANG GUOYUAN - BFSU1

n/a

Wang Zifeng - Lanzhou and WU

n/a

Wei Feng - NEUQ

n/a

Wujie Ma - ZWU

n/a

X X - ZUCC

n/a

Xi CHEN - CAU

n/a

Xiao Geng - SCUEC

n/a

Xiaohong GU - CAU

n/a

Xiaowei Kang - XJTUCC

n/a

Xing ZHAO - CAU

n/a

Xu Su Yun - XJTUCC

n/a

Y Y - ZUCC

n/a

YAN LIN WANG - FDU

n/a

YI DONG - FDU

n/a

Yan Sun - SUFE

n/a

Yan Ge - NEUQ

n/a

Yan Zhao - XJTUCC

n/a

Yanfeng Song - SWUFE

n/a

Yanfeng Song - Swufe

n/a

Yangluan LUO - UNNC

n/a

Yao WANG - CAU

n/a

Yashu Xie - SISU

n/a

Yawen Chen - BLCU

n/a

Ying Chen - GXUFE

n/a

Ying Li - XJTU

Yiwei LI - UNNC

n/a

Yong Li - GXU

n/a

Yongsheng Zhao - XJTUCC

n/a

Yu Song - BLCU

n/a

Yue Hu - SNUTC

n/a

Yue Xing - SNUTC

n/a

Yuxin SHAO - CAU

n/a

Z Z - ZUCC

n/a

ZHANG XIAO YANG - FDU

n/a

Ze Zhou - GXUFE

n/a

Zeyu KONG - CAU

n/a

Zhang Jing - PLA UST

n/a

Zhen Qiang - LJU

n/a

Zhijin Hu - Xidian-n

n/a

Zhiyuan Li - NEDU

n/a

bowen xu - cqupt

n/a

jianming yue - SUST

n/a

jingyu yang - XJTUCC

n/a

lining wang - XJTUCC

n/a

peike fu - cqupt

n/a

si Chen - HUE

n/a

yi xiao - SUST

n/a

å¨Ÿå¨Ÿ å¼ - è¥¿å—ç§‘å¤§

n/a

2013 China Open