FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Fullman - Saddleback

Adam Meadows - Biola

Background: I competed in Parli debate for two years. Before that I was involved in theater and Mock Trial; so while I default to voting on the flow, the quality of your delivery can make a difference to me particularly when I’m having to basically dealing with a tie.    I don’t place a lot of value in these things but for those who care I am an ESFP, a Pisces, a Gryffindor, and I choose Squirtle.   I see debate as a game and not necessarily a decent platform for reform, so I need a lot of work in solvency for the K   I enjoying judging a well researched, in depth Policy round more than anything else. In the event of a value or fact based resolution I’m almost always going to be ok with you interpreting it as a policy round as long as you explain to me that you are doing so and why.   Top of Case: I think it’s very important for the affirmative to provide me with a thorough Framework at the top of the case. Tell if this is going to be a policy, value, or fact round. Give me a criteria to judge the round with, or I default to net benefits. If you run a plan text I want to elaborate on your actor, funding, timeline, and any other information that you think will be relevant for this debate round. If aff has little to no Framework and then neg decides to provide this information for me, it will probably become an uphill battle for the affirmative team.    Speed: I really am not a fan of speed at all. Because of my frequent concert attendance as a teenager my hearing is kind of muddled. So please speak clearly and not at a breakneck pace. I will clear you if I need too, but you are only hurting yourself if your arguments don’t make it on my flow. Also, I think speed too often becomes abusive and I don’t really reward teams that try to win by simply speaking faster than the other team can comprehend or by spreading. If you blip out six advantages and your opponents are only able to respond to five of them, I’m probably going to evaluate the round on the arguments they did respond to rather than the one advantage that they didn’t have time for. When in doubt just go for depth over breadth.   Kritik: Kritiks are a very love hate kind of debate for me. On the one hand, a well run Kritik is probably one of the most fun and interesting things to judge, but a poorly run Kritik is really difficult to judge.   There’s a good chance I haven’t read whatever literature you working from. I’m probably most familiar with Econ, Militarization, Eco, and Gender related literature. So please take the time to explain your lit and terminology both for me and for your opponents.    Please spend a good amount of time on Framework. Have a clear ROB Give me a justification for why you are and why you should be able to run an Aff K somewhere in you FW. For me the most important part of your K is probably your Alt and your Solvency. If you have an unorthodox alternative and sparse solvency then I really don’t know on what grounds I should be voting for you.   If what you are discussing in your K can be addressed as a normal advantage, disad, contention, etc. then you probably should just run it as such.   Topicality: I like to see Topicality run. Please articulate that it’s an a priori issue, if you drop that and your opponents call you out on that I’m going to be inclined to ignored the Topicality. If you run three or more Topicalities I might start to get bored and you risk having the other team call you out on a time suck and I’m probably going to agree.   Partner Communication: Yes, I’m ok with partner communication. As usual I only flow what the speaker says.   Timing: You should time yourselves. You may use your phone to do so.   Speaker Points:  I typically assign the best speaker a 29, then second best a 28, third best a 27, fourth best a 26.   A speaker who does an extra good job gets a 30. A speaker who does a poor job gets a 25 maybe lower.   If you are being too loud during the other team’s speech that will hurt your score.   If you are unnecessarily aggressive or, rude, or offensive that will hurt your score.   Swearing can be useful language for getting across a certain emotion or idea, however, doing so excessively will probably hurt your score.   Remember to be careful with speed and enunciation.     Rebuttals: I like to have clear voters in the rebuttals. Please call your Points of Order.   Counterplans: Please articulate how your Counterplan is competitive. I’m open to hearing Delay and Consult Counterplans, but I’m not a huge fan of them, so if you run it just make sure your thorough and explain yourself well. I’ll assume Condo good unless you argue otherwise.  Perms are, of course, just a test of competition. Please read a perm text.   If you see me put my pen down it’s probably because you are repeating yourself.

Adrian Garcia - Santiago Canyon

n/a

Alex Perkins - Saddleback

n/a

Andrea Berning - Glendale CC

Anh Dinh - IVC

n/a

Anthony Kim - IVC

Ashley Johnson - Cerritos College

Brian Fox - Saddleback

Brianna Broady - CSUN

n/a

Brittany Hubble - Compton

n/a

Caleb Sutherlin - CBU

n/a

Cheyenne Mendiola - ELAC

n/a

Chloe Romero - ELAC

n/a

Christian San Jose - Cerritos College

Colin Squyres - IVC

n/a

Cristian Torres - Rio

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>

Dante Johnson - Saddleback

David Turpin - Glendale CC

n/a

David Hale - CSU Long Beach

n/a

Donis Leonard - Cal State DH

n/a

Duc Le - Mesa

Edward Kunkle - ELAC

n/a

Eric Orozco - ELAC

n/a

Eric Chhour - Cypress

Eric Garcia - Biola

George Diamantopolous - IVC

n/a

Grant Tovmasian - Rio

The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point.  Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon)      I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position.  DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them.           I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.  If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

Ivan Hernandez - Chaffey

n/a

Jackson De Vight - Biola

Jacob Rosen - OCC

James Jovanovich - Grossmont

n/a

Jamilah Bazille - Compton

n/a

Jasmine Roman - Santiago Canyon

n/a

Joe Anderson - ELAC

n/a

Jon Davis - Santiago Canyon

n/a

Jordan Grant - Mesa

Jordan Kay - Saddleback

Justyne Gutierrez - ELAC

n/a

Kate Johnson - Chaffey

n/a

Kendall Quan - Mesa

Keren Chulde - Biola

Kristina Rietveld - Compton

n/a

Layla Ramos - ELAC

n/a

Luis Andrade - SMC

Manuel Haro - ELAC

n/a

Mark Durrough - Saddleback

Meaghan Loeffler - IVC

n/a

Megan Imperial - Cypress

Michelle Gironda - OCC

Mina Delavar - CSUN

n/a

MyHanh Anderson - ELAC

n/a

Nader Haddad - ELAC

n/a

Nadiya Dubova - Saddleback

n/a

Naomy Perez - JBU

n/a

Natalie Hollis - CBU

n/a

Natasha Calilung - IVC

n/a

Nicci Stebbins - OCC

Patricia Hughes - Rio

I have 3 years of experience in CC Parli and IPDA debate. I also have minimal experience in impromptu and extempt. I am a graduate student at CSUF and an assistant coach in debate. I am preferential to well warranted, and impacted arguments. When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.             When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters. I am not a fan of K’s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K’s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K’s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.              I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.             I prefer fun, topical rounds; with articulated, well warranted and impacted case arguments. While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

2016 PSCFA Cool-Off