FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

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.

Adriena Young - APU

n/a

Alaina Owen - Grand Canyon

Hi friends. My name is Alaina Owen, I competed for Grand Canyon University, and you’re hopefully here to try and decide how you want to prep and adapt before your round. You’ll find more about me in the following sections   About my experience: 4 years of high school debate on the national (NSDA) circuit (I competed in Policy for 2 years, LD for 1 ½ years, PF for ½ year, and Congressional debate for 4 years), 1 year of Open NFA-LD, and 3 years in Open Parli at Grand Canyon University. I have not judged any college debate thus far, but please don’t fret, I like to think I know what I’m talking about and I regularly judge at high school tournaments around Arizona.   About my debate philosophy: I am partial to creative arguments and narratives that prove the policy that you’re advocating for. In my opinion, value and fact are subsumed by policy and so every round should be a policy round. Partner communication is fine as long as you’re not puppeting. Always take at least one question. I haven’t encountered speed that I haven’t been able to understand (b/c hs policy and also shout out to Dallas Phillips ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯). I am comfortable with all forms of debate, but my heart will always be kritikal.   Important note: I will immediately drop you and give you 0 speaks if you are an asshole to your opponent or use insensitive rhetoric regardless of whether or not you are winning case debate. If that is a problem for you, for whatever reason, strike me. I will not tolerate that type of behavior.   Now back to our regularly scheduled programming…   About theory: Don’t run theory just to run theory. Let there be a purpose behind it and prove the abuse otherwise I won’t buy it. Also, condo arguments are probably bad (I debated under Joshua Vannoy so ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ ), but I love dispositionality so...   About case debate: Everything needs warrants please. If you don’t have those, you probably won’t get my ballot. Also, address everything in case. Like, if something goes dropped, it’s a pretty easy extension and voter for me. Terminalize your impacts and please do weighing throughout your speeches.   About my feelings regarding the k: I have always been a kritikal debater. I started out my debate career doing high school LD and running anthro (<3) whenever I could and then progressed into policy debate where the k became second nature. That carried over into college where I debated the k as often as I could. I am extremely well read in most kritikal literature and am willing to listen to whatever you present me (give content warnings for touchy subjects). I debated ks that didn’t follow traditional structure, but they had all of the necessary components. Your k should also have all components.   My feelings on topicality: Hey, so I’ll be 100% honest here… I hate it. I feel like it is a whiny, copout argument that people run when they have nothing else to run. That being said, I ran topicality when it was necessary and know that topicality is important when the aff is just straight abusive in how the case is presented.  I won’t disregard your topicality on face. Tell me why it is important. Also, hey, please read the right t shell if you’re going for a different argument (don’t run regular topicality when you mean extra-t or fx-t or whatever)   About other arguments: The perm is a test of competition ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ Your disad is probably nonunique ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ non-topical affirmatives are probably going to be dropped if your opponent proves that there was a topical version ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯   About speaker points: higher speaks are awarded to those who are clear, concise, and kind. Low speaks go to those who are the opposite of that. Extra speaks will go to whoever is able to make the most seamless MCR, Fall Out Boy, or Panic! reference during their speech (partially joking)   If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Alexis Arredondo - PCC

n/a

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - Concordia

Hello,  I am the Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 3rd year coaching and judging.  I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.  Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.  Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.  Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.  Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG: I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. Impacts: You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. Case Debate: I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. Diadvantages: Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. Counterplans: Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. Conditionality: I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad.  Kritiks: I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. Identity Arguments: With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. Theory: I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. Speed: Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. Speaker Points: If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. Miscellaneous: Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

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

Caleb Moore - PLNU

Pronouns: He, Him, His TL;DR: You do you. I competed in four years of high school policy in KS and then 4 years of parli at Point Loma.  I believe that it is my job as a critic to adjudicate the round that the debaters want to have without bias; although, I know this is easier said than done, so here are some specific feelings I have about things:   Delivery/Partner Communication: Speed can have two functions. It can add depth to a debate in a way that positively contributes to the competitive nature of the activity, or it can be used as a tool of exclusion to cheaply win ballots. If it is the former then I am all about it. The latter will lose you a lot of speaks. For partner communication, parli is a partnered activity, as long as there isn’t parroting it isn’t a problem. I will only flow the argument that the person speaking says.   Please read all texts, interps/counter-interps, and perms slowly and twice. If you want to, it would also be helpful to just write me a copy; although, I understand if that takes you away from your flow for too long.   Case: Case debate is tragically underutilized. I am not saying you have to go 8 minutes of case out of the LOC (but hey it’s super fun to do that), but teams often don’t dedicate enough time to generating offence against the PMC. I think that is a mistake.   The K: I ran the K in about half of my rounds while debating. If this is your preferred strategy, I encourage you to go for it. All I ask is that you don’t assume that I know your literature, to be honest I probably don’t. I can’t vote for a position I don’t understand. It is very important to me that you explain exactly how the alternative functions, what a world of the alternative looks like, and how the alternative resolves the links. That means that solvency isn’t a good time to just throw out jargon and be vague/generic. On the aff, I feel like K affs are a legitimate strategy. Resolutions often only seek to reform or uphold structures that are oppressive to large populations of people. For this reason, I understand why people feel uncomfortable defending the state; however, don’t think that just because I am sympathetic to the importance of the K Aff that I will ignore a well articulate Framework argument. Justify why your framework comes first and why there is not a topical version of the aff you are running.   Performance Arguments: If you want to run a performance based position that’s fine, but I don’t love positions where the performance itself is the advocacy. If you are running a performance, please give me a concrete advocacy or statement of method to vote for. Someone sharing their narrative, poetry, or performing requires an amount of vulnerability that is not usually present in a debate round. It is important to honor that vulnerability and recognize that their narrative specifically isn’t up for debate (like, don’t be that person that impact turns a narrative). A narrative can garner some unique solvency but to vote for/against someone on the basis of their narrative and its specific ability to solve feels like a unique form of ontological violence. A concrete advocacy makes the debate about the method and not about the person and both gives the other team access to method based offense and doesn’t put the judge in a position where their ballot affirms or denies the ontological existence of a debater.   Topicality: T is fun. Don’t be afraid of T. I default to competing interpretations, but am open to other ways to frame the position. I believe that T is always A-priori (in a straight up debate) but I still want you to say it. I don’t need articulated abuse but it does make the argument a lot more persuasive.   Theory/Procedurals: I don’t have a lot of predispositions on theory. I am up for pretty much any theory you might want to run and should be relatively unbiased when evaluating it. For things like SPECS my threshold is a little bit higher. It becomes harder for me to vote for these arguments if there is no articulated abuse.   CP’s: I understand why cheater CP’s are super abusive, but I also think they are really fun. I think it is probably important that a team be able to defend the entirety of their aff, including the timeframe, actor, and each part of the bill, but I also understand how difficult it is to generate offense against these positions. PICS, delay, and consult are all fine to run in front of me, but be ready for the theory debate.

Chang Li-Ren - IVC

n/a

Claire Crossman - CSULA

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

Darron Devillez - Palomar

n/a

Emily Shaffer - NAU

Emily Shaffer NPDA Judging Philosophy   Whatever Caitlyn Burford said. But also:   I believe the debate space belongs to the competitors and shouldn’t be dictated by what I used to run as a debater. You should run what you’re best at and/or what you care most about. I don’t believe in rules, which means you’re going to have to justify your procedural arguments (probably applies more to LD than parli). I am comfortable with whatever position you want to run. Speed is fine, as long as it isn’t used as a tool of exclusion. Give me a clear weighing mechanism, and I will vote where you tell me to vote. Most of my judging philosophy is contextual to the round being run. You should be kind to your opponents and conscious of the language you’re using in round. Unless otherwise told I will prioritize animal life over human life.

Emily Crosby - Concordia

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

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

Ged Valenzuela - PLNU

I am open to whatever you want to do, the round is yours as long as you can justify why I should prefer viewing the round in your way.     I do not like doing work for competitors, so please extend your arguments in your rebuttals.  Otherwise I will just go off who dropped the most arguments, and that is never fun.   With regards to topicality and procedurals, I don't need proven in-round abuse, but it definitely works in your favor.   I enjoy hearing kritikal arguments, but I especially like when teams emphasize their links and articulate how their opponent's arguments specifically interact with yours.    Be kind to your opponents.

Grace Laidlaw - Grand Canyon

Greg Gurham - Grand Canyon

Haley Courtney - PLNU

I competed for Point Loma Nazarene University for 3 years and have been judging and coaching at Point Loma for 3 years.  First and foremost, this is your debate round and I will listen to anything if you can show me why it is relevant to the round. I love learning, so even if it is a position I am not familiar with, I will always do my very best to engage your arguments.   I like procedurals and have no problem voting on them if they are run well. I’m down with rules of the game. If you’re breaking them, tell me why it’s okay to do so. If the other team is breaking the rules in a way that makes it impossible for you to engage in the round, please tell me about it.   I do like Kritiks. I will listen to them and engage them, but I will not fill in the blanks for you while you run them.  I really appreciate knowing that teams genuinely care about the positions they are running, and this especially comes out in criticisms. It bothers me when critical discussions are devalued or dismissed in rounds because teams refuse to try to engage. That being said, I understand that debate is a game, but I also would really love that if you’re running something, it matters to you. That’s just a personal preference.  Just like in a straight up round, if I don’t understand how your criticism works or why it links, or most importantly, how you are actually gaining any solvency (in round or otherwise, just depends what you’re going for), I won’t vote on it. If there is no obvious link, you’ll probably have to work a little harder to convince me of your ability to have that particular discussion in that particular round, but don’t let that stop you from going for it.   That being said, I really value creativity and strategy. Have fun with debate. No matter what you run, critical or straight up, impact weigh. If you’re going to run an out of the ordinary position, just explain why it matters and how to vote on it. Show me why you’re winning in a tangible way. Impact calculus is super important. Tell me exactly where and why I should be voting for you.     Speed: I’m cool with speed. I have no problem keeping up with speed, but you need to be clear. If I can’t physically hear/understand you, I’ll let you know, but if I or the other team has to clear you and you make no change, it’s irritating. At that point, I can’t get all your arguments because I literally don’t know what you’re saying. Don’t use speed to exclude your opponents.   That being said, pay attention to my nonverbals; I’m expressive, I can’t help it. Mostly, I really want to know and understand what you’re talking about! If I don’t understand your argument initially, I will probably look at you while processing it and trying to understand it. Use that to your advantage, just clarify briefly.   Finally, please read me your plan text, counterplan text, or alt text at least twice so that I can get it down. It is extremely hard for me to weigh arguments being made for or against a particular text if I don’t know what you are doing. If you want to write me a copy, that would be cool, too.

Harrison Shieh - El Camino

Holland Smith - CSULA

Jacee Cantler - PCC

n/a

Jackson Spencer - CSULA

n/a

Jamie Lee Whittington - El Camino

Jared Morrison - Mt SAC

n/a

Jasmine McLeod - Mt SAC

n/a

Jay Arntson - PCC

n/a

Jessica Beard - APU

n/a

Johnny Kelly - PCC

n/a

Jonathan Veal - PLNU

Basics   -- Take at least one question during constructive speeches. -- I prefer unconditional arguments and I will listen to conditionality bad arguments. -- Have a copy of the text for advocacies and perms and repeat them at least once. -- I recommend your advocacy engage the topic in some fashion. If you do not, you need justification for why the issue you are discussing comes prior to the resolution and prove there is not a topical version of the aff.   -- Avoid delay, time travel and any other artificially competitive counterplans. -- Points of information check back against most spec arguments. -- I enjoy seeing K arguments and policy based arguments alike. Just treat me as if I am not steeped in the lit of whatever argument you’re making. (I am probably not)     I am a second year Graduate Student at SDSU studying communication and rhetoric. I was a competitor for four years in parliamentary debate on the national circuit at Concordia University. I spent a year coaching debate at the high school before rejoining the college circuit.   I should be fine with the speed your comfortable speaking at, but I value clarity first. I will be sympathetic to teams sitting across from an incredibly unclear or disorganized debater even if I am familiar with the argument. On theory I default to competing interpretations. Debate is a game but games are not fun or useful without clear limits. Competing interpretations allows me to determine those limits. With criticisms, please be clear on what the alternative does. Additionally be clear on the links of the K so I can evaluate a debate with clash. K’s without links will likely lose to the perm. For affirmative K’s use your advocacy to affirm the topic in some way or explain how your K is prior question to the resolution. Debate is inherently performative and I will not discriminate on the nature of that performance. If you have something unique to bring to the table I am willing to listen. If anything I am partial to critical arguments.     Disadvantages are great. I want to see disads with strong uniqueness claims and reasonable impacts. Don’t say, “…the economy collapses and nuc war kills us all.” Explain your scenarios thoroughly. Also I have a high threshold on tix scenarios. Make sure there is a specific election or bill that is actually on the docket and explain it thoroughly. Counterplans are cool as long as they are competitive and the timeframe is now. I enjoy the perm debate. Also, perms are a test of competition and a bad perm is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Have fun and ask any questions you may have.

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Joseph Laughon - Concordia

" I debated for five years, 2 for Moorpark College and 3 for CUI. I part time coach parli for CUI. I am a fairly straight up critic. A few points though;   - The K Despite my reputation during competition, I do not discourage it and towards the end, Will and I ran it fairly often. I am familiar with most generic kritiks (cap, whiteness, militarism, Virilio, borders, coercion, the gift, etc...) and have no problem voting on it. However my threshhold for defense on the k is likely lower than most judges, though not extremely so. You can't win on defense as much as I might sympathize with your struggle to do so. For me the vast majority of frameworks are poorly written and debates exclusively about this are fairly boring. Debates on the alt solvency/alt offense/perm solvency/perm NBs are far more interesting and will help you win more often.  For those who are really into the K, please be topical. Most Ks on the aff can easily be topical. Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad." Also understand I do not spend even 1/25th the time you have spent reading the literature for your K (unless its cap or coercion). Be gentle with it.* Lastly I see debate largely as a game we do largely for fun with the side benefits of being smarter/well rounded. I do not see it primarily as a catalyst for revolutionary social change.   *Language Ks I am not super sympathetic on and I will usually buy an apology unless its particularly egregious. Obviously thats up for debate but whatever.    - The Performance No clue what is going on with it. Honestly. In 5 years, I saw it twice. Once was in practice and the other was in a prelim my first year. The prelim we got ourselves waxed and most of the practice round I spent my time rolling my eyes and yelling at Bear.   -DAs. Obviously I'm a fan. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.  Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. Please do that.   - Counter plans. Competition is good. Personally I prefer NB competition as I think its the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not. Shockingly, unlike Robear, I am not a fan of philosophical competition.    Impact Calc: If no one tells me how to judge straight up impact debates then I revert to magnitude and then probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. some one feels bad about themselves). Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa.  I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc. Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.   Theory Most theory debates are fairly boring to me but that won't stop me from voting on it. I am not likely to vote on specs. Topicality: I enjoy good T debates and by good I mean the debate focused on the field contextual nature of the word in contention. Critical Ts I am less sympathetic to.  Condo: I am pretty sympathetic to someone arguing against conditionality however I am not a stickler for it, despite Kevin's best attempts.    -House keeping Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. POOs: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a fit, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to POO this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

Josh Vannoy - Grand Canyon

Joshua Vannoy – Grand Canyon University Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood has heavily influenced my views regarding debate. General: Debate is a game.  There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make.  I am the current director of debate at GCU and this is my second year as a judge. <ul> <li>One question should be answered during each constructive.</li> <li> If you read my favorite Ks (Marx/Symbolism) I will have a higher threshold regarding them, since I ran them so much.</li> <li>Partner communication is fine, but do not puppet your partner.</li> <li>Be friendly!</li> </ul> Theory: Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All standards should be read slowly twice, or I won’t be able to flow it.  I do not need articulated abuse.  Competing interps is my go unless you have something else.  I most likely will not vote for “you must disclose” arguments. Case: If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg.  If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say “poverty” without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you. Performance: So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not “perform” anywhere else I will wonder why it was argued in the first place.   I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. The K: When I first started debating at CUI I was afraid of the K, towards the end of my career I loved it. All K’s should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces are missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better).  The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates.   Like I said above I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K.  I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is, name dropping means nothing to me. Non topical Affirmatives: So if you decide to run a Non topical affirmative I would keep a couple of things in mind when arguing them in front of me. I am not a fan of militarized agency and find it difficult to weigh the debate when it becomes Arguments vs People. I do believe the topic has some importance in the debate, since it arguably is one of the only stable locust that both teams have access to, if you are going to run a non-topical affirmative a discussion of why the topic is problematic/harmful to debate would be needed. If the neg argues that there was a topical version of your affirmative (and its true) it would be pretty easy for me to vote on T. CP Theory: Is condo bad? Probably… Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this is the argument that stuck with me the most. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate) Never run delay. 50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so. Pics are awesome if done well, and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice.  If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down, things will not look good when I make a decision. Permutations: I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1 – 2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 4 – 8 perms.  If your perm does not solve links to the DA’s/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition. Speaker Points: I honestly do not know how I will be with speaker points. When judging high school, I always leaned on the higher side of speaker points, I most likely will keep things in the 27 – 29 range.  Odds are I will not pass out 30s often unless you speak like Richard Ewell or topically find a way to take out Kim Jong-un.

Judith Teruya - Concordia

Kaitlyn Bull - Washburn

My background: I debated for 5 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit (2 years at the University of Texas at Tyler and 3 years at Washburn University). I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years. I have my BA in Political Science with a minor in Women and Gender Studies and I’m currently in my first year of coaching and judging for Washburn University. Highlights: I think that debate is a game in which you should make use of all the tools that you can creatively deploy. I prefer debates that engage the topic and in an ideal situation utilize fiat to do so, but I will definitely listen to arguments that interpret the topic differently. I would prefer that you read advocacies unconditionally, but I will not vote you down without the other team winning the condo bad theory. I’m most familiar with the following arguments: Politics, T, Hegemony, Feminism, Black Feminism, Queerness, Anthropocentrism, and most other identity or state based criticisms. I protect from new arguments in rebuttals, but if you feel the need then still call them if you must. I will vote for who wins the round, regardless of my personal views as long as you can clearly explain your offense and how to weigh the impacts of your strategy. And finally, impact calculus is the most important thing to me as a judge. I want the rebuttal speeches to help me craft my ballot through the lenses of timeframe, probability, and magnitude (not necessarily in that order). Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I judge these arguments similarly to other criticisms. Therefore, I need a clear advocacy; it does not need to be an alternative, but make your advocacy clear (whether it be a poem, metaphor, alt, etc.). I still think you need to have very strong solvency for your argument and I need some type of way to weigh the debate through impacts. I’m willing to listen to framework debates and many times Ryan and I would elect to use framework as an answer to critical affirmatives. I do think that if you are rejecting the resolution then you need some sort of justification for doing so or some kind of explanation or link to the resolution because I think this fosters creativity. Flowing: I flow on my laptop because I can type a lot more quickly and clearly than I can write. This means that I would prefer if you just gave me enough time to switch tabs on my laptop when you switch sheets. If I think you are too quiet, unclear, or fast I will let you know immediately. I keep a good and fast flow as long as you’re clear. Texts and Interpretations: You can either provide me with a written copy of the text  or slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and repeat it. I think this is very important during theory debates and framework debates. Procedurals/Theory/T: I enjoy a good T debate and I default to competing interpretations, but this does not mean that I won’t listen to other frameworks for evaluating T. I think that all procedurals can have a role depending on the round. I am not a fan of RVI’s. I understand the utility of these arguments, but they likely aren’t going to win my ballot. I do not need real in round abuse, but an abuse story needs to exist even if it is potential abuse. I need procedurals to have clearly articulated interpretations, violations, standards, and voters not just blips in the LOC of, “vote for us for fairness and education”. I view topicality similarly to a disad in that I view standards as being the internal links to the voters (impacts). When it comes to theory concerning advocacies I find multiple worlds bad theory to be quite compelling because I find that inherent contradictions in strategies for the sake of winning take away from the in round education. I am not a huge fan of multiple new theory sheets in the MG. I can see the utility of MG theory arguments, but reading them to simply shotgun the other team hyper-expands the debate into a jumbled mess. Disads: I enjoy topic specific disads. However, I was a politics debater and so I understand the utility of reading politics on a variety of different topics. However, I have higher standards for voting on politics than most others because I ran the argument so often. I need specifics such as vote counts, those whipping the votes, sponsors of the bill, procedural information regarding passage, etc. CPs: I love counter-plans and I regret my under-utilization of them while I was a competitor. I am not prone to vote against any type of counter-plan. I prefer functional competition over textual competition because it is easier to weigh and more tangible to me.. Ks: I enjoy criticisms and I believe that they can offer a very unique and creative form of education to the debate space. If your criticism is complicated then I would like a thesis page or an explanation of what the alternative does. I really enjoy a good perm debate on the K and am not opposed listening to theory regarding the alternative/perms (floating PICs, severance, etc.). I’m going to borrow a bit about alternatives directly from Lauren Knoth’s philosophy as it describes my feelings regarding complicated alternatives perfectly. “***Important*** I need to have a clear explanation of what the alternative does, and what the post-alt world looks like. Stringing together post-modern terms and calling it an alternative is not enough for me if I have no idea what the heck that means. I prefer to know exactly what action is advocated by the alternative, and what the world looks like after passage of the alternative. I think this is also necessary to establish stable solvency/alternative ground for the opposing team to argue against and overall provides for a better debate. Good theory is nothing without a good mechanism with which to implement it, and I'm tired of this being overlooked.” Perms: I really enjoy perm debates. I think that the text of the perm is critical and must be clear in the debate. Slow down, read them twice, and/or give me a copy of the text. You don’t have to read the entire plan text in K debates and instead it is sufficient to say, “do the plan and x”. My definition of a legitimate perm would be that they are all of the plan and all or parts of the CP/Alt. IE: the alternative is to vote negative to recognize the dehumanizing struggle of indigenous populations. The perm in this case could be to do the plan and recognize the struggle of indigenous populations (thus picking out of the word dehumanizing and reading net benefits/disads to the use of that word). I think that perms serve as tests of competition.

Lane Schwager - CSULA

n/a

Malcolm Gamble - Concordia

Marnie Salvani - Concordia

Matt Doty - El Camino

Matthew Beyer - UCSB

Short Version: Read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with/think are most strategic, I’m fine with pretty much anything. Tech over truth in most cases. Speed is fine, but be clear. Warrants, clash, framing and impact calc are all appreciated. The debate is about you, not me, so do what you do best. Having said that, if you’d like some specific insights into how I evaluate rounds, continue reading. Some specific things Ks/K affs: - Framing is important. I’m perfectly fine with “non-traditional”/kritikal affs, but I have to understand what I’m voting for and why I’m voting for it. - I have a basic understanding of most critical theory but don’t assume I’m familiar with the nuances of more obscure or specific literature. Having said that, if you’re debating the K successfully, I shouldn’t need to have any prior knowledge. DAs : - The more specific the better - Impact calc and turns case arguments are appreciated CPs - I generally think CPs should compete functionally and textually but I can be persuaded otherwise - Well researched, advantage CPs were some of my favorites arguments to read in HS T: - I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise - The impact debate is important. “The aff explodes limits” is not an inherent impact. Theory: - Generally, a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but I can be persuaded to pull the trigger on theory if you give me a compelling reason to. Misc: - I love a good case debate - I will always be impressed by a strategically utilized CX - Flashing =/= prep - Have fun, be nice

Michael Dvorak - Grand Canyon

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Monica Eslamian - S&D@UCSD

n/a

Nick Bishop - El Camino

Nick Kjeldgaard - PLNU

I've done seven years of debate and a few years of speech (largely extemporaneous). All four years of college I spent in the open level and competed at national circuit tournaments every year.    My basic philosophy is simple. Tell me why your argument should make you win the round. I've dropped teams who have "won" positions because they couldn't tell me why on earth it mattered.    I'll consider pretty much any type of debate argument you want to run (I'd even vote on inherency if you told me why it mattered/ran it well), but my favorite rounds are policy rounds with some great clash and deep knowledge of the subject.

Paxton Attridge - CSULA

n/a

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

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..

Steve Doubledee - Washburn

Debate is a game of strategy and persuasion. Those who can strike the perfect balance between these two will always win my ballot. Things I prefer... 1.I prefer debaters embrace the topic... Topic specific Aff, DA, K, CP, Politics-(specific links), Case, T, Specs etc...are all appreciated. I also understand sometimes you have to run a critical aff via poor ground for the Aff.If you like running identity based arguments I am probably not the judge for you but I will listen. 2.I prefer debaters give impact analysis via timeframe, probability, and magnitude. I will always privilege high probability small impacts over low probability big impacts. 3.I prefer debaters not attempt to speak at a rate they cannot handle. Things I demand... 1.I want a written copy of all texts Plan, CP, Alts, Perms etc... if overly complicated...if plan is the rez then no need. 2.Be kind to each other. If you are rude it will hurt your speaker points. I am not a big fan of cursing in debate rounds. Theory thoughts...All theory arguments are fine. Below is my only "theory pet peeve". Conditional strategies are fine but should be justified through the lens of Aff/Neg flex. So many times debaters want to list off all the advantages of conditional strats but fail to justify why they deserve the right to conditionality in the first place---Aff/Neg flex is how you do so. If the Aff has high flex--(meaning a lot of possible Affs, bidirectional resolution etc...) then the Neg probably has some good justifications for why they need the reciprocal right of conditionality to counter the Aff's use of parametrics.. If the Aff has low flex--(meaning one possible Aff) then the Neg probably will have a harder time justifying why they should have the right to conditionality....Seems like a PIC would be better in this instance. peace dd

Ted Atteberry SR. - SUA

n/a

Theodore Atteberry II - SUA

n/a

Tim Seavey - PCC

n/a

Trevor Greenan - PDB

Background I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 3 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years, and now exclusively coach/run the program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.   General Issues <ul> <li> I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the worse argument if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments, arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of. </li> <li> In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR. </li> <li> The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I prefer to not flow it on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer that format I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.   </li> <li> I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well. </li> <li> Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice. </li> <li> I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe. </li> <li> I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. </li> </ul>   Framework <ul> <li> I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. That being said, absent substantial argumentation either way, I’ll usually defer to each side being able to leverage their advocacy/offence against the other. </li> <li> I have a pretty high threshold for voting on presumption. I find it difficult to buy that either side has actually won terminal defense, absent a good amount of work in the round. That being said, I default to presumption flowing negative. </li> <li> Prior question arguments in framework are fine/good, just make sure that there’s sufficient explanation of these arguments and application to the rest of the round. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped prior question/independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round. </li> </ul>   Theory/Procedurals <ul> <li> I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text. </li> <li> I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation, although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one. </li> <li> I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless. </li> <li> I have a very high threshold on RVIs. If extremely well-developed and extremely mishandled by the other team I could imagine myself voting on one, but I would hope to never have to. </li> </ul>   Advantage/DA <ul> <li> Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. </li> <li> I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments. </li> <li> Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, the more you can contextualize your argument to the round the greater weight that I will give it. Specific and substantial case debates are great. </li> <li> I default to fiat being durable. </li> </ul>   CP <ul> <li> Please give me specific texts. </li> <li> Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory. </li> <li> I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies. </li> <li> I generally won’t buy textual competition absent arguments in the round telling me why I should. </li> </ul>   K   <ul> <li> I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, and I have a decent understanding of postmodern theory (particularly Foucauldian/Deleuzian/Derridean). That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I will do my best to not just vote for an argument I understand absent explanation in-round, and there’s definitely a good amount of literature I won’t know of. </li> <li> I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. </li> <li> Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact. </li> <li> I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round. </li> <li> I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow. </li> <li> Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible. </li> </ul>

Victor Akioyame - APU

n/a

Whitney Gamble - El Camino

William Neesen - IVC

<h2>Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3>   Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach & Irvine Valley College Parli Debates judged this year: 40+ Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 10+ Years Judging Debate: 15 Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it.' Decision-making Approach: 'I really don t like any of the above. It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you. ' Assessing Arguments: 'I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were droped and why that makes them important.' Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to imput what I think and I love that.' Strong Viewpoints: 'No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scarry shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.' Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.' Other Items to Note: 'I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debator. '

2018 Jannese Davidson Memorial Tournament