2018 Crossman Invitational

El Camino College - Oct 13-14 | Status: Completed

Profile Image
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   Results

Judge Philosophies

Adam Navarro - Cerritos

 

Adriena Young - APU

n/a

Agatha Attridge - Cal State LA

In NPDA, I find clear warranting in-case and impact calculus very helpful, particularly direct comparison between the world each side's impacts create. I am more than fine following quick speed in delivery, though clarity is still appreciated in both delivery and argumentation (the latter particularly within rebuttal). Argumentative consistency helps me in adjudicating, and so clear disclaimer regarding which arguments within cases are being addressed or rebutted is very useful. In line with this organization's values, I value more critically-directed debate, though this approach does not necessarily require argumentative structures idiosyncratic to NPDA or other forms of debate. I believe that the debate space should be safe for protected populations, and behavior that threatens these populations will be at the very least remarked upon on the ballot, and may impact my judging decision if egregious. My familiarity in debate is more philosophically and policy-directed, though arguments making other appeals will still receive full consideration.

Alexander Cadena - RioRunners

Background Information:

 

I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. I have experience judging policy while I was in graduate school. This is my third year of coaching forensics. I enjoy the spirit of this event and I am hoping to do so for more years to come.

How I evaluate rounds:

I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like filled and completed arguments. Do you have Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? I would like Plan texts and CPs to be stated twice. In the rebuttals, tell me what arguments to vote on and why they have greater importance than your opponent's arguments.

If you are running a K, please state the Roll of the Ballot and Alternative twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. For the times when it is K v.s. K debates, (I will question my life choices) I will try to vote on the most articulated position that is flushed out in the rebuttals. I am not a fan of spread. If competitors ask how I feel about spread, I will say Its hurts my head.

Topicality Theory Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. Do not expect me to fill in the blips of your standards and impacts. Im not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Ive been persuaded by a compelling RVI against that tactic in the past. (They made pretty smart argument which had no response.)

Some other comments:

Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to win a ballot. If you dont care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POIs are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals. 

P.S. Flex-Time is NOT a designated CX period. There are still POI allowed in speech time, I am not a fan of this social norm where questions are only allowed in-between speeches! Also if you have time before your speeches, you should be pretty close to speaking by the time FLEX ends!

Alix Lopez - ELAC

n/a

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

For parli: I try to just look at arguments made in the round. Both sides should weigh their impacts and explain why they should win. I expect everyone to be respectful to their opponents. I love counterplan debate. I am not the biggest fan of Ks. If you do choose to run a K spend extra time on alt. solvency. I have no problem with speed or jargon.

For IPDA: I view IPDA separately from parli and try to leave my parli knowledge at the door. I don't think debate jargon or speech belong in IPDA. Delivery and persuasion matter. I view IPDA as a combination of debate and extemp.



Anthony Anderson - CBU

n/a

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

Ashley Graham - El Camino

 

Ashley Johnson - Biola

 

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

  THEORY/THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE - This is my bread and butter. If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and therefore debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well.

When reading fresh new and exciting theory I expect a concise interpretation, a clean violation and a distinct link to the ballot through things that should be prioritized in debate/life. If those 'things' are not fairness and education I'll likely need an explanation as to why I should care about this third priority as well.

Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you're buying the theory here's this disad." 

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just do it because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

Theory positions have differing layers of severity that adjust how I get to prioritize them when writing the ballot. This means that I want to hear arguments that suggest plan plus counterplans are justified when the AFF isn't topical or that MG theory is a bigger offense than topicality etc. Many of my ballots have been decided simple arguments that change the priority of certain theory over others.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

To newer debaters who have stumbled into a paradigm, during the other team's speech you are free to use the words "slow" and "clear" if you feel as though you cannot keep up in the round. If the other team does not acknowledge your request, you should make it an argument that you should win the round because the other team has not accommodated basic requests for an efficient debate.

If you are an older debater with lots of experience and debating a team with less experience, I expect you to know that speed doesn't win rounds. The teams that your speed drills will give you an edge over are teams that you could have beat going at their pace. Additionally, speed good arguments being weaponized as reasons to make a grab at the ballot are not compelling to me and I'll write on your ballot that you're a bully.

For the most part, I can handle your speed. Since my time debating at Long Beach I've not had an issue in any round over speed but I have CLEARed people. I will verbally notify debaters if I can't keep up.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. An older  It could just be a difference in meta between when I debated and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

As a debater I read a fair amount of Derrida and Marx. As a student I spent much of my time writing on Derrida, Marx, Foucault, Baudrillard and most of the writers in the existentialism grab bag of philosophers. If  you aren't reading direct copy pastes out of the Long Beach files that Fletcher sent around, it would probably be to your benefit to assume that you know more than I about the inspiration for the position you're reading.

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Free Stuff - If you don't have access to files from the old Long Beach Dropbox and would like them, tell me after round and I'll send them to you. Many teams have read positions from this collection of files in front of me, which I don't suggest doing (as they're old and other teams have access to them) however, they're great learning tools.

Bill Neesen - IVC

I love debate and think it is an amazing teaching game.

I think that debaters should make it what they want and defend that with sound arguments.

Policy making, DA, K, T and other theory are all good.

I am addicted to my flow and try to decide off of it.

I am also called a speaker point meanie (K. Calderwood)

Some things you should know (not that I will not vote for them but I am sure my opinions have some effect even if I do not want them to)

I hate conditional arguments but do vote on them.

RVI's are just dumb and when I am forced to vote on them I will take speaker points.

Affs should relate at some level to the topic

IPDA

This is the same as parli. Given recent changes to local parli trying to make it ipda, I will view all limited prep debate as parli and will judge it that.

Brigette Mora - IIT

Overall,K's and T's pushes me to intervene in the debate. So please don't put me into that situation unless NEEDED.  I am not a fan of K's, so run them at your own risk because I do not buy K's that often. In my opinion it can take away ground for Neg, so if you do run a K and Neg runs a ground loss argument.. you're are screwed because I will agree with ground loss arguments.

Topicality is fine when needed. If it is being thrown around as a time suck, and if it is pointed out by AFF...I will know, and will not push it through voters on my end. T should be Structured with explicit impacts. Again, run T when it is necessary and show me the ground loss. 

I believe in heavy clash, dropped arguments can count against you if they are called out by the other team. Turn impacts when possible. Also, I don't do sheets system, I flow everything horizontally on a flow pad. I am lenient on definitions, if they are contextual and or derived from the dictionary. Partner communication is ok with me but not while your partner is mid-speech (you can pass notes during speech). I value authenticity, so a conversational tone (this doesn't mean slow speaking, IMP/EXT tempo) is the best way to get high speaks with me. I like having fun rounds and not everything has to be political. Humor in debate is a plus. Please time each other and keep each other accountable. Overall just be nice to each other as debaters.  ALSO, please call point of orders when necessary.

Just so you know

4 year debate experience
2 year judging experience - Parli, IPDA, LD, and Policy

Brigette Mora - IIT

Overall,K's and T's pushes me to intervene in the debate. So please don't put me into that situation unless NEEDED.  I am not a fan of K's, so run them at your own risk because I do not buy K's that often. In my opinion it can take away ground for Neg, so if you do run a K and Neg runs a ground loss argument.. you're are screwed because I will agree with ground loss arguments.

Topicality is fine when needed. If it is being thrown around as a time suck, and if it is pointed out by AFF...I will know, and will not push it through voters on my end. T should be Structured with explicit impacts. Again, run T when it is necessary and show me the ground loss. 

I believe in heavy clash, dropped arguments can count against you if they are called out by the other team. Turn impacts when possible. Also, I don't do sheets system, I flow everything horizontally on a flow pad. I am lenient on definitions, if they are contextual and or derived from the dictionary. Partner communication is ok with me but not while your partner is mid-speech (you can pass notes during speech). I value authenticity, so a conversational tone (this doesn't mean slow speaking, IMP/EXT tempo) is the best way to get high speaks with me. I like having fun rounds and not everything has to be political. Humor in debate is a plus. Please time each other and keep each other accountable. Overall just be nice to each other as debaters.  ALSO, please call point of orders when necessary.

Just so you know

4 year debate experience
2 year judging experience - Parli, IPDA, LD, and Policy

Brigette Mora - IIT

Overall,K's and T's pushes me to intervene in the debate. So please don't put me into that situation unless NEEDED.  I am not a fan of K's, so run them at your own risk because I do not buy K's that often. In my opinion it can take away ground for Neg, so if you do run a K and Neg runs a ground loss argument.. you're are screwed because I will agree with ground loss arguments.

Topicality is fine when needed. If it is being thrown around as a time suck, and if it is pointed out by AFF...I will know, and will not push it through voters on my end. T should be Structured with explicit impacts. Again, run T when it is necessary and show me the ground loss. 

I believe in heavy clash, dropped arguments can count against you if they are called out by the other team. Turn impacts when possible. Also, I don't do sheets system, I flow everything horizontally on a flow pad. I am lenient on definitions, if they are contextual and or derived from the dictionary. Partner communication is ok with me but not while your partner is mid-speech (you can pass notes during speech). I value authenticity, so a conversational tone (this doesn't mean slow speaking, IMP/EXT tempo) is the best way to get high speaks with me. I like having fun rounds and not everything has to be political. Humor in debate is a plus. Please time each other and keep each other accountable. Overall just be nice to each other as debaters.  ALSO, please call point of orders when necessary.

Just so you know

4 year debate experience
2 year judging experience - Parli, IPDA, LD, and Policy

Bryan Davis - OCC

Carl Trigilio - CUI

 

Chathi Anderson - IVC

 

Chris Zarceno - El Camino

 

Christian Pipion - El Camino

 

Claire Crossman - CUI

Ã?Ã

Damon Lawson - El Camino

  TLDR: Been doing this for quite a while. 7 years total in forensics. 7 years doing Interp/Platforms/Limited Prep. 3 years doing collegiate Debate, specifically all of the areas listed prior as well as Parli Debate and IPDA Debate. Do what you want. At the end of the day, I'm judging on the flow.

Debate: My views on debate are very straight forward. I believe that debate is both academic and a game. It is first a basis of argumentation and speech, and secondly an avenue for competition. What this means is, I fully understand the ways how debate has evolved over time to become this great source of competition, however I find it necessary to to respect its academic roots, so please try your best to make well educated arguments and analysis in round, rather than running a bunch of asinine arguments because you think you can win on them. With all that being said, lets go into some specifics. 

Speed: I am okay with speed most of the time. As a collegiate parliamentary debater, I as well as many of the individuals I compete with go rather fast. With that being said, I do believe that speed has a huge trade off. Sure, you can get out more arguments when you speak fast, however the quality and depth of those arguments can suffer. Furthermore, speaking fast often times has an adverse affect on your speaking ability and clarity. To put it simply, Clarity> Speed, everyday. Next, I am a Hard of Hearing individual, so if you are speaking fast and mumbling, I probably cannot understand you, and will call you to clear. If that happens its probably a key sign to either slow down or enunciate.

T: Yes, do it, love it. *okay hand sign emoji*

Kritik: Kirtiks can be awesome... if done right. Please make sure you understand the arguments you are trying to run. I will be the first person to call you out if you try to read some neolib argument you don't actually understand.

Timing: Please time yourselves.

Partner Communication: Sure, don't puppet your partner, and don't be loud and distracting while your opponent is speaking

David Finnegan - El Camino

 

David Sonnenberg - OCC

David Hale - ELAC

n/a

DeRod Taylor - ELAC

n/a

DeRod Taylor - ELAC

n/a

Demarcus Sales - SMC

n/a

El Hussein - SMC

Elizabeth Rivas - Biola

 

Eric Garcia - IVC

 

Erin Roberts - OCC

Farid Taheri - SMC

n/a

Felix Rodriquez - RioRunners

 

Grant Tovmasian - RioRunners

I debated NPDA and NFA-LD. In IE's, focused on Limited Prep and Platforms, minimal personal experience in Interps. Been coaching forensics speech and debate for the last 15 plus years.

You matter, your opponent matters, your speech matters, truth matters, rules matter, I matter. I refrain from 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, hurting, kicking, and just violence in general, I frown upon)

In all forms of debates my guiding principle aside from fairneness, consideration and humility will be the official rules of the event. Although I might disagree with some of the rules, untill they are changed, I will abide by the existing sets.

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any students. Do not isolate, offend, or make your opponent feel less than wonderful human beings and students that they are. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attacks and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments and not a bully pulpit to bash fellow students.

I prefer good On Case/Off Case. Be aware that procedurals force judge intervention. 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. If you are running a CP, you give up presumption. You take upon yourself same burdens as the Aff. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. 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.

I firmly believe that speed kills, "DO NOT SPREAD" 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.

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.)

On IPDA. It is a stand-alone debate. It is not Parli Light, it needs logic, anlaysis and persuasivness, which means for the duration of IPDA round I do not speak Parli. Make your arguments conversational, logical and devoid of lingo that has no place in this event.

On NFA-LD. Its stock issues and spread delivery is antithetical to this event.

Hannah Haghighat - OCC

In debate, I want to see clash! The worst kind of debates happen when it results in 2 ships passing in the night. Make sure you have impacts and clash! I will vote a lot of times based off impacts so provide them and have solid voters in your rebuttal speeches. Make sure you have clear structure and signpost.
I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. Be kind and respectful towards one another. I prefer good on case argumentation over procedural arguments that are run in order to avoid on case analysis. However, if you do feel as though the opposing team is being unfair to you, or ran something that warrants a procedural argument I will accept it. If you are running a procedural argument make sure you run it properly and respond to it properly.
Also, part of being a good debater is in presenting arguments in order to be persuasive, so make sure you are not spreading and speaking too quickly. That is not persuasive! Talk like a human. I do prefer that you stand while speaking, just like you would during a speech. When it comes to partner to partner communication, if it is your team member that is speaking I am okay with it, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches, pass notes instead. Ultimately, I want to experience a fun, constructive, and respectful debate.

Holland Smith - Cal State LA

Isaac Boateng - SMC

n/a

Jabeen Haque - El Camino

 

James Ingram - LACC

n/a

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Cal State LA

Jedi Curva - ELAC

n/a

Jimmy Gomez - OCC

Debate philo: Speed is not good. Be respectful of each other, but some lite cattiness and shade is always fun. Focus on arguments rather than the peripheral stuff. We are here to debate not to win on technicalities. I time road maps, sis so you better get in to it.

Joe Faina - LAVC

My judging philosophy is straightforward: I base my decision on who makes the best overall arguments in support of their side. Preponderance of effective argumentation.

Joe Faina - LAVC

My judging philosophy is straightforward: I base my decision on who makes the best overall arguments in support of their side. Preponderance of effective argumentation.

Joe Anderson - ELAC

n/a

Joseph Ross - SDSU

  Hello, I have 3 years if NPDA experience and real world public speaking on issues similar to the resolutions we get for a dabate round. I enjoy hearing both sides of a debate. I am not a fan of affirmative kritiks, but enjoy neg kritiks when appropriate. I enjoy a good T, but it needs to be relevant. I love good organization and road maps, and by all means, define key terms. Give me your voting criteria, or counter voting criteria--include solvency and impacts. Any other questions ask.


We are all from, and represent, institutions of higher learning from across the country, direct questions or quotes are ok, direct personal attacks I will not allow. 

Joseph Ross - SDSU

  Hello, I have 3 years if NPDA experience and real world public speaking on issues similar to the resolutions we get for a dabate round. I enjoy hearing both sides of a debate. I am not a fan of affirmative kritiks, but enjoy neg kritiks when appropriate. I enjoy a good T, but it needs to be relevant. I love good organization and road maps, and by all means, define key terms. Give me your voting criteria, or counter voting criteria--include solvency and impacts. Any other questions ask.


We are all from, and represent, institutions of higher learning from across the country, direct questions or quotes are ok, direct personal attacks I will not allow. 

Josh House - Cypress College

Justyne Gutierrez - Cal State LA

n/a

Kara Sutton - SDSU

Hi all,

I have competed in forensics in both policy and parli. I will vote for anything but you have to tell me how to. Articulate clear framing of the round and have analysis and weighing between impacts of neg and aff is the clearest path to a ballot. I am inclined to vote on the flow regardless of how weird argument. and I appreciate organized response orders.  your link/impact scenarios should be clearly articulated. 

Speed: I can *generally* keep up, but please be accommodating to other debaters/judges.

Procedurals: down for procedural debates, just situate the arguments/your interp in how/why i should vote. 

K: Down for kritiks, explain your framework well and don't assume i/competitors know what you are talking about/what literature you use. Links should be specific and clear, please repeat your perm.

Be a nice person to everyone in round please!

Katherine Alba - SMC

n/a

Kennedi Carrasquillo - El Camino

 

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

I am not a debate coach, but I teach and understand argumentation. Communicate effectively, lay out your arguments clearly, and tell me why you won. Passion in your performance is always a plus, just be respectful of your opponent.

Li-Ren Chang - El Camino

                                                                         Important stuff:


I believe an argument consists of a claim, data, and a warrant. If an argument is important and is a deciding factor to the round but doesnt have any evidence to support it then I will not vote for it. If the round comes down to two competing arguments that are equally unsubstantiated I will default to the one I think is true. 

I think that if there is a vocalized concern for rude, inappropriate, violent, or unacceptable behavior that occurred within the round and/or at the tournament then I will consult tabroom or the tournament staff to see how I should continue the round. I believe that IVIs or similar reason to reject the team is not a sufficient jurisdictional tool to reform problematic behavior. If you believe that call outs or personalized arguments are necessary to the way that you feel most comfortable in the debate then I ask a few things of you: These debate tend to get really heated and have more of an impact on me than the flow of the debate, and therefore I tend to have really shaky and inconsistent decisions, so recognize that before round. I also am a big wimp and cry a lot so if this happens the chances I give a decision I am confident in is probably very low.

Here are some defaults, predispositions, and random info about how I judge:
- I default to competing interpretations
- I protect against new arguments
- I think a we meet is terminal defense against theory
- I have never voted for a theory position that said all texts and/or interps need to be given (before/after/during) whatever. Teams should be expected to read the interpretation twice and slowly.
- I will vote on rvis, nibs, disclosure, point of order theory, no neg fiat, afc, and other frivolous¢? theory with the caveat that the team should have a reasonable capacity/expectation to meet the theory position before it is read.
- I rarely call speed or clear unless it is persistent (is a problem for more than an argument). I will not call clear or speed if the arguments are blippy or a chain of claims.
- I think perms can only be a test of competition
- Root cause claims should be contextualized to the 1AC
- Alternative solvency shouldnt assume a reverse causal relationship to root cause claims
- I have and will not hesitate to vote on terminal defense.
- I will fact check in round if there are two contesting arguments that are unresolved and is a deciding argument in the round
- Defense is not just impact calculus. Conceded/terminal defense means there is 0% probability of an impact
- Fiat is durable and immediate
- The negative gets access to one conditional advocacy or the status quo
- With one exception, to this day I dont know what a proximal impact is or why fairness and education within the debate round is not one.
- I default to procedural fairness preceding all other theoretical impacts in the round.
- Judge intervention is inevitable to at least some degree. I will do my due diligence in being cognizant of implicit biases and attempt to minimize its influence in the round.
- To me, what is traditionally seen as a fact or value resolution is closer to a metaphor than whatever a contention is.


General
Hello, my name is Li-Ren, aka Fletchers partner. I debated for Long Beach in npda from 2013-2016. I have coached for high school ld since 2013 and am now coaching for El Camino College. I have read a wide range of arguments and strategies ranging from heg and econ every round on the aff and politics, counterplan, and a criticism every round on the neg to rejecting the topic every round and reading a new k every neg. 
My top 5 favorite arguments/strategies that I read are: A topical aff with two advantages predicated on the resolution, a PIC with net benefit with a short criticism and at least one theory sheet, one off criticism, one off T and case, funny strategies. 
If you want to get a better idea of what arguments I am more familiar with just look for the long beach parli files that were shared to everyone on the npda/npte facebook group a while ago. If you read these files in front of me word for word without citing the author I will drop your for reasons of plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
Assuming youve read the above then you should have a pretty good idea of how to best adapt to me. Insert obligatory debate is a game, keep it nice, have a good time.

Mason Jones - IVC

 

Matt Grisat - RioRunners

 

Matthew Grisat - CBU

n/a

Melissa Moreno - MSJC

Michelle Little - Cerritos

 

Mike Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Mike Davis - El Camino

 

Mimi Borbas - Moorpark

n/a

Monica Roldan - Cal State LA

Myhanh Anderson - ELAC

n/a

Nate Wensko - OCC

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

I evaluate IPDA, like any other event, on a combination of content and delivery. Debaters should treat opponents, judges, and audience members with respect. Feel free to make any argument you feel can be persuasively explained to a general audience. Speed, jargon, and technical elements should be appropriate to a general audience. Everything said during your speech (such as roadmaps) should be on-time.

Nichole Barta - IVC

 

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the DOF at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of national circuit NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching college debate since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:

  1. I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will result in me understanding maybe 20% of what you are saying, which is not conducive to your chances of winning.

  2. My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I mostly ran straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.

  3. I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative (!) impact calculus, and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.

  4. I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.

  5. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them.

  6. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
    - Whining: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
    - Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...

  7. In policy rounds, the affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.

  8. Parli: I don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

I am happy to answer specific questions before the round starts. (But please note: "Do you have any judging preferences?" is not a specific question).

Nora Larsson - SMC

n/a

Oli Loeffler - IVC

  I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.

I think neg teams have ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.

Speed shouldn't be a problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down. 

Patricia Hughes - RioRunners

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.

 

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.

Patrick Von Hanzlik - SMC

n/a

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

As a debater, I competed in both NDT and CEDA, however, I left those forms of debate as a coach when I felt that they lacked any semblance of 'real-world' argumentation. I believe stock issues are labeled that way for a reason and I will weigh arguments around those issues heavily (even inherency on policy topics). I do not consider myself a 'games-theory' judge, nor do I consider myself purely 'Tabula Rasa'. I do not abandon my knowledge or common sense when I come into a debate round. This does not mean, however, that I am an 'interventionist.' I will only impose my thoughts/feelings into the round in the event that I am absolutely sure that arguments are erroneous.

One of the topline philosophies I bring to this activity is that I am an educator first and foremost. This means that if your approach to the debate undermines the educational experience for anyone in the round, it will probably result in a lost ballot for you. Additionally, behavior that would not be tolerated in an inclusive classroom will not be tolerated in front of me in the debate space. As a Director of Forensics I am also deeply concerned with the future of this activity, which requires the support of administrators that do not have a background in forensics. If your behavior in rounds is such that it would turn lay decision makers against the activity, that is a more real world impact calculus to me than any disad or theory shell I've ever seen in a debate and will be treated as such.

If I were to describe my philosophy, it would be that of 'a critic of argument.' This is to say that if your opponent drops an argument it does not necessarily mean that you win the round:

  1. You have only won whatever persuasiveness the argument had to begin with. If it had a 'Persuasiveness Quotient' of 0% when it was issued then you have won an argument that is meaningless. If it was a good argument (a PQ of 80%) then the argument will have much more weight in the round.
  2. Not every argument is a 'voter' and simply labeling it as such does not make it so. In fact, there are few trends more annoying than labeling everything a 'voter.' If you want me to vote on it, you need to explain why, in the context of this round, it is.

My first preference has to do with speed. I used to believe that I could flow 'almost' anyone. I am realistic enough to know that this is simply no longer the case. I'm out of practice and in my experience most of the time people do not speak clearly when they spread anyway. Additionally, most of the time spread is unnecessary. Bottom line, if you went too fast for me to flow it - I won't consider it in the round.

My second preference has to do with specific arguments:

  • Topicality - I DO believe that topicality is a relevant issue in NFA LD, Parli, and IPDA. I am tired of seeing Government/Affirmative cases that have little or nothing to do with the topic.
  • Kritiks - Most of the kritiks I have seen are interesting theory with little 'real world' relevance. If you're going to run it, make it real world. I find it hard to believe that a single specific language choice will destroy humanity. Additionally, while I understand the way K's function, do not assume that I understand the specifics of whatever theoretical framework you are using. Make sure you explain it thoroughly.
  • Resolutions - I believe there are three types of resolutions: fact, value, and policy - don't try to twist one of them into something else. Just debate it straight up.

My third preference has to do with behavior.

  • Ad Hominems are never appropriate and the use of them will be reflected in the points awarded in the round.
  • Don't ask me to disclose. If I wish to, and have time without making the tournament run behind, I will.

My fourth preference is that while I view IPDA as debate, it should not be Parli LD. IPDA was created with an attention to delivery baked in. I will respect that on the ballot.

Finally, if you have specific questions, ask me before the round.

Ryan Corso-Gonzales - El Camino

Judging Paradigm

Ryan Corso Pronouns: He/Him/His

Overview-

I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California, and one-time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there, I competed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. My senior year, my partner Benji and I, took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I am now a student at the University of Louisville, I'm getting my masters in communication, my studies focus heavily on Marxism, Neoliberalism, The Public Sphere, and Networking.

I owe all my knowledge in debate and my success to my amazing coaches, mentors and teammates that helped me through my career most significantly Amanda Ozaki-Laughon, Joe Ozaki-Laughon, Benjamin Lange, Alyson Escalante, and Judith Teruya.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow centric judge. Debate is a game; you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I am open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, fascists args, etc) just be prepared to justify your actions, and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran policy args, just as much as I ran kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most. I think people on the circuit would have referred to me as a K debater, yet I would not have.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I love learning new things (Policy, Kritiks and even theory) so you can feel free to use me as a test for a new kritik or position, I'm not affiliated with any school atm, and I just want to experience debates where people talk about what they want to talk about.

Policy:

I default to policy making good framework, if both teams accept this then great, however, this doesn't mean critical arguments don't operate within that framework. Policy debates should consist of advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact structure, because I believe it provides the clearest format for debate. I am very familiar with other structures for policy debates as well. Value and Fact rounds do exist and provide unique educational and fairness aspects to them (this probably has to do with my CC background).

Theory:

Theory is the most important aspect to debate in my view. A good theory consist of a clear interp, and an unique violation that explains the operative nature of that interp. Standards, are not tag lines, this is the substantial aspect of theory. There is a very good lecture on NPTE 14 (youtube) about how standards consist of Links, Internal links and Impacts. Fairness and Education are the only two competitive impacts that I have heard in regards to theory. Do not just read tag lines on in theory debates, I will not fill in arguments for you. Each round is specific and this should be clear in your reading or responding to theoretical positions.

Kritiks:

You need a CLEAR link to the AFF, or the topic, for me to even consider voting for you! I will not do the work for you filing in your links. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round. You do not get to win just because you read a Kritik, you need adequate links in order to win, and an alternative or advocacy that resolves the impacts identified. (This means I'm more then willing to not vote on a kritik that has adequate forms of terminal defense against it. If I believe there isn't an adequate explanation of a link I will not vote on the K.)

If you believe your kritik is complicated, please have a thesis portion! I am a firm believer in providing a thesis for kritiks. Almost all the kritiks I wrote had an in-depth thesis. I enjoy complicated kritiks, and at the end of my career I even began to utilize Kritiks without frameworks, so I understand how a well written kritik has the potential to operate in that manner.

Kritiks are a great method to layering the debate, it doesn't mean that all other impacts are invalid just that new framework arguments are needed to balance or relayer the debate. Please make sure your impacts are terminal and do impact comparison and make sequencing arguments in the rebuttals, even if you believe that you have out framed your opponents.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Nietzsche, Reps and Rhetoric. (This doesn't mean read these Ks in front of me, I am much more open to the idea of voting down a bad K shell, then I am picking up a bad K because it's relatable.)

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, I view it as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. An easy way to think about this is in regards to Ethos, Pathos and Logos. I value Ethos and Logos far greater than Pathos. While all are essential to argument making, I don't find pathos as compelling in the debate setting. I give speaker points based on the idea "Who ever did the best debating".

Fair warning:

* I will clear or slow you if I feel like I need to.

* I do NOT vote on RVI's, they are illegitimate arguments and I will dock speaker points if you read them in front of me!

* Substantial engagement, or whatever this theory arg was called, is NOT an impact! You will not pick up a ballot from me be reading this, it is an internal link to Fairness and Education. If you decide to collapse to a theory shell with this as your only impact, you can just assume you already lost the round.

* Solvency deficit is not a compelling theory position; this is defense at best. Attempting to turn a defensive argument into an offensive position is not how you win that argument. This falls into the category of relabeling arguments in manners that they do not function. I believe this is bad for debate and creates "improper" forms of education which only harms the event.

* DO NOT LIE in round, I feel that debate is first an educational event, I do feel that it's appropriate to fact check people in round if I believe they are lying, or just factually incorrect.

* DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents.

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. Therefore, I do not believe that debate is a space for you to impose or weaponize certain religions or religious, or other non-falsifiable content. For instance, I do not feel educated enough on these matters and or comfortable being put into a spot affirming or disaffirming your faith in a certain religion. I think it's also probably disingenuous to weaponize a religion that you do not believe in within the debate space.

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I don't know what these kritiks are being labeled these days, but I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person (especially at a national tournament). This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, because I will. Being able to witness the link occur is a lot more of a viable link argument in my opinion then one team claiming things happened outside of the round, or in the past. If have no way to validate an argument I therefore won't feel comfortable voting on something. Please don't expect me to already "know" (I'm removed from the debate community for the most part), also please don't attempt to prove something occurred to me. Also, I feel very compelled by apologies as a method to resolve the kritik, for in most instances I've seen this run, I think? I know this is probably a controversial opinion and that's ok with me, if these kritiks are viable and important strategies to you as a debater I think you're better off striking me. Sorry...

Side note:

I am 2 years removed from debate, I do not watch debate rounds frequently and very rarely engage in conversations about debate. I'm sure not as strong at flowing or keeping up with speed as I used to be. Please keep that in mind when debating in front of me.

I will do my best to weigh the round in the manner I think is most fair in regard to how you present them. I will try my best to vote for the team I think won... I guess that's all I can do.

If you think my decision is wrong please feel free to talk to me about it. I won't hold grudges for people defending positions they had in rounds. Debate is a very passionate event, I was a very passionate debater, and I think that's a beautiful aspect about debate! That being said there is a difference between being a passionate debater and a jerk in round, I don't think you should belittle your opponents in debate, but you can question me. It is my job to vote for the team I think won, and I believe it is part of a judges job to defend and explain their decision in the instance that occurs.

Good Luck, Have Fun! DEBATE IS A GAME! ENJOY THE RIDE, PLAY IT HOWEVER YOU WANT!

Note to Seniors: Your success in debate does not in any way correlate with your worth as a person! Debate is a GAME! This should be a fun experience and I hope you make as many friends as possible in debate and cherish every moment with your teammates and opponents. Some of the most incredible people I have ever met have come into my life because of debate and I hope that applies to you. Please try to have fun, don't hold grudges and enjoy every moment. The real world is so different then the debate world and I hope your transition from the debate world is smooth and incredible! I've realized that so much of what I thought was important and damning in debate has very little value outside of that echo chamber. That's not always for the best, but it is the reality. Stay friendly, humble, and smart moving forward in life! I wish the Best of Luck to everyone who leaves this community!

 

Samal Senaratna - El Camino

 

Samantha Thomas - CBU

n/a

Stephanie Cabrera - SMC

n/a

Stetler Brown - SDSU

 

Steven Guerrero - El Camino

 

Taylor Stickle - Cal State LA

Tim Seavey - SDSU