FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alvin Ng - Chabot College

n/a

Aly Fetzer - Pacific

<div> Speed is not a tool for intentionally skewing someone else out of a round. I will vote on this.</div> <div>  </div> <div> Ts are not your chance to whine. And you should understand grammatical structure before running one.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I hate perms. I think PICs are smart.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I like case-specific Ks.</div> <div>  </div> <div> I take speaker points seriously--if you're a poor speaker or rude to your opponents, you will not win very many points. If you're a good speaker, you will. Simple as that.</div> Have fun!

Ana Petero - Solano

Judging Philosophy for Ana Petero, Solano College   I like structure! It is the responsibility of the Government to define the terms reasonably. If not, I will vote on Topicality, though I really would prefer not to have to. Label your arguments and impact them. I detest tag team constructive speeches, that is, when one person is speaking and his/her partner is talking to them and telling them what to say. I don’t particularly care for critiques unless they are warranted. Some like to run critiques because they think it’s cool. Finally, speed is not necessary in Parliamentary debate (so, unless you plan to be an auctioneer or a voice-over at the end of television commercials, don’t talk fast).

Andrea Adams - Ohlone College

n/a

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

Ariana Gonzalez - SJDC

Ben Miller - Long Beach

n/a

Bettina Brockmann - San Jose State

n/a

Beverly West-Dorny - SJDC

Brandi Lawless - CCSF

Chelcy Gibbons - SJDC

Danielle Allen - Concordia-CA

n/a

David Mitchell - SJDC

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Denise Donn - SJDC

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE Background of the critic: I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic.  Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge.  Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention.    Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed.  Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations.  Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case.  I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. Any additional comments: This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds.  I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience.  If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round.  All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches.  Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW.  All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture.  I don’t time road maps but want them.  Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.

Elinor Fox - SJDC

Eric Campanano - Chabot College

n/a

Eric Small - SJDC

Ericka Hulstrom - SJDC

Genelle Austin-Lett - San Jose State

Ginger Holden - SJDC

Harry Mersmann - SJDC

Janice Takahashi - SJDC

Jasraj Deol - SJDC

Jesus Valles - Long Beach

n/a

Jim Dobson - LPC

n/a

Jonathan Garzoli - SJDC

Joseph Young - SJDC

Julian Plaza - CC

Karen Pehrson - SJDC

Kay Harrison - Ohlone College

n/a

Kelly Williamson - SJDC

Kelsey Winther - Concordia-CA

n/a

Kristen Apruzzese - Chabot College

n/a

Kyle Caprista - LPC

n/a

Libby Simas - Solano

Marjorie Hazeltine - San Jose State

n/a

Mark Nelson - SRJC

Mary Blackford - SJDC

Melissa Green - SJDC

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Patrick Wall - SJDC

Paul Davis - Azusa

Raman Deol - SJDC

Rebel Rickansrud-Young - SJDC

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Simone Walter - Lewis & Clark

Simone Walter – 2012 Judging Philosophy   Background: I competed for Oregon for 4 years. This is my second year at Lewis & Clark.   How I conceptualize the round: the duty of the affirmative is to provide a policy action* that will provide a substantial benefit to the resolution-specific context; the duty of the opposition is to prove why the affirmative should be rejected (ie. why the disadvantages of the AFF plan outweigh its advantages). I will conceptualize ‘the world’ in which the round is located based on how I am ‘told’ to adjudicate the round, the ballot, and the in-round arguments. On a side note, this is not to say that I enjoy being ‘spoken for’ as a critic.   *I am not opposed to hearing critical affirmatives. In fact, I think they can be awesome if deployed strategically. If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy. To win my ballot with a critical affirmative, it is imperative for the AFF – a) If you do not read a plan text, you still must defend a stable advocacy; and b) demonstrate that the critical affirmative is topical, competitive, and permissible.   Debate is a game, a really fun game; most so when the players engage in ways that best suit their interests and knowledge base. As a judge, I will listen to anything. But do not be morally repugnant. Even so, I find tricot to be silly (in other words, awful). I saw a few of these rounds last year. They were bad and just got worse. As a judge, I will do my best to not intervene. Except for tricot. So, just don’t do it.   Prior to giving my RFD, while I am making my decision, I would appreciate your silence. You can leave the room if you would like. If you have questions following the round, please talk to me immediately. Three rounds later, I guarantee that I have already stopped thinking of YOUR round.   Arguments:   Theory – Raising theoretical objections to whether a team’s strategy is justified is always permissible. Demonstrating tangible in-round abuse over potential abuse is preferable.   I assume theory arguments to be voting issues on competing interpretations. The specificity of the standards in justification of your interpretation is imperative to providing an effective comparison of why I should preference/reject an interpretation.   The Kritikkkk –   Discursive implications are real and so we should be held responsible for our rhetorical choices. Thus, my default mechanism for evaluating the K is that the critical implications presuppose the impacts of the affirmative. If the AFF team does not want me to default to this assumption, then explain to me how you would prefer me to evaluate the K in juxtaposition to the affirmative. For an AFF team to pick up my ballot against the K, I need tangible reasons as to not only why I should weigh the case against the K but also why doing plan is still a good idea.   I enjoy the critical debate. I will preference unique topic-specific critical arguments over generic backfiles. Nevertheless, I am often disappointed by the lack of explanation awarded to the nuance of the literature from which the K is derived. So please, fully articulate the thesis of your argument, its application (ie. framework/link arguments) and thus, its implications to the “world” in which the debate is located.   I believe that the most effective critical arguments are topic specific and function essentially as disadvantages that turn the affirmative. If you choose to operate outside the realm of “playing as policy-making,” then you must still defend a stable advocacy. Thus, your alternative should DO something. Often times, critical debates frustrate me because the alternative does not solve and/or the function of the alternative is not adequately explained, which causes me to err that plan is still a good idea. Though I may default to the assumption that the impacts of the K presuppose the case, if the alternative doesn’t do anything, then you will not win my ballot.   Counterplans – Please read text twice (This also applies to the PMC plantext, perm texts, the alternative to the K, and the T violation). A written copy would be preferable if the CP text is particularly long/convoluted.   In regards to specific CP theory arguments (ie. PICS good/bad, the status of the CP, textual v. functional competition, etc.), I assume these to be negotiable questions to be decided in the round and not based on my predisposition towards these arguments. So long as they are deployed strategically, I do not perceive to Consult/Delay to be inherently illegitimate. I tend to favor the arguments that best support topic-specific education, rather than fairness or predictability.   For me, CP theory arguments are most effective if accompanied with nuanced impact calculus as to their implications upon decision-making processes. In other words, the substantive solvency evidence in favor of your CP (or AFF plan) is what is going to win my ballot on this part of the flow.   LOR/PMR – please help me by providing substantive comparisons of the world of plan/perm and counterplan. How actually am I suppose to evaluate the risk of the solvency deficit to the risk of the DA if you do not explicate this for me?   Disadvantages – I will award full potency to defensive arguments. Even so, (particularly in the rebuttals) I would like a clear articulation of how the probability/risk/timeframe arguments interact with offensive arguments on magnitude. Also, be realistic about what offense you are winning and what offense the other team is winning. Don’t assume that you are winning ALL the things because then you will fail to explicate why what you are legitimately winning is more important than the other team’s offense.   If there is a NO link to the DA, then there is no link. If there is a link turn argument without any arguments at the uniqueness level, then I will still evaluate the argument (assuming the no link argument is fully articulated): for me, the no link isn’t washed away by what is happening at the uniqueness level.   Presentation:   Speed is fine; delivery that is unclear is not fine. If the other teams calls you out for your poorly articulated plantext/cptext/whatever, then do not assume that it was clearly articulated to me either.   In terms of speaker points, I award them based on a few things – <ol> <li>fulfilling the duties of your speaker position</li> <li>good smart arguments – multiple warrants are better than claims with none</li> <li>you debate the side of the resolution that you are given, but I don’t think that this is an excuse to be a prick</li> <li>if you teach me something</li> </ol>

Sophia Alberti - Long Beach

n/a

Stacey Bagnasco - SJDC

Terry Petersen - SJDC

Theresa Perry - Chico

Tim Heisler - LPC

n/a

Tina Lim - San Jose State

You can convince me to vote for any argument as long as you are using reasonable evidence with logical warrants. Do NOT confuse evidence and warrant; they are different for a reason.  My preference is for you to tell me what's winning and why with clear impacts. I prefer reasonable impacts to improbable impacts with huge magnitude. I also prefer specific link scenarios over generic links. As for procedurals, I prefer actual abuse. Keep in mind that these are preferences that can change depending on how well you are arguing for your position. As for speaking style, I prefer a conversational style, but can tolerate speed provided that it's clear. The gist of my philosophy is that since we all chose to be here, it's important to be collegial, be smart and have a good time.

Tony Bernacchi - Chabot College

n/a

2011 Mustang Invitational / Pacific Swing Part I