FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Donaldson - Humboldt

n/a

Aliki Stogiannou - Claremont

n/a

Blake Plante - Claremont

n/a

Cristal Zeas - DUC

n/a

Dave Zimny - Los Medanos

~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA BACKGROUND:  I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge.  Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament. JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice. PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams.  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points.  I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation.  I will never award fewer than 20 points. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques. DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me.  I believe that: A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs.  If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed. The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.  I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans. The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government. Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.” The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal. PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins. Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!

Drew Reid - DUC

n/a

Erika Rosales-Shelfo - DUC

n/a

Giulia Welch - DUC

n/a

Isaac Schick - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Joshua Rosenberg - DUC

n/a

Katherine Koyfman - DUC

n/a

Marie Arcidiacono - Los Medanos

~~Judging Philosophy: M. Arcidiacono Affiliation: Los Medanos College Years Judging: 3.5 Rounds Judged: 80-100 (rough estimate) Background of the Critic: I competed in Parliamentary Debate while attending California State University, East Bay. I have been coaching parliamentary debate since Spring 2011 at the Community College Level. This year I have judged approximately 30-45 rounds of parliamentary debate (I don’t keep track, this is a rough estimate based on the number of tournament my team has attended). Both of my degrees are in Communication/Speech Communication with an emphasis in Interpersonal Communication, which may or may not matter much in the round, but information for you nonetheless. On Decision-Making: I attempt to be as much of a “tabula rasa” judge as possible. I do NOT like to bring my background knowledge on a topic into the round. If I know that what you are saying is factually untrue, and the other team does NOT call you on it, I will let it happen (even if I don’t like that you’re not presenting factual information) because I try to also be a “non-interventionist” judge. Occasionally, I will have to do work for both teams, and if that happens I am a) not happy about it and b) probably going to put in my own viewpoint and background knowledge into making the decision and no one wants that. Tell me where to vote, tell me how to vote and tell me why to vote there. I do not want to have to do work for anyone in the round. I love CLEAR impact calculus in the Rebuttals. If I am weighing the round on N/B you want to make sure you’ve shown me how your AD’s/DA’s tie back to the weighing mechanism and how your impacts clearly outweigh your opponents impacts on Timeframe, Probability, and Magnitude. Of these, I tend to look at the order of importance in the following manner: Probability (if it’s not probable that your impact will actually happen, I won’t vote for it over another impact that probably will), Timeframe (if the impact occurs sooner than your opponents that matters, we live in the here and now, not the far, far away distant future), and then Magnitude. Speaking of Magnitude of your impacts, let me take a second to get on my soapbox: It really bothers me when teams try and impact out to Dehumanization and there is NO legitimate link to Dehumanization and/or they use the term Dehumanization wrong. Seriously, dehumanization does not occur because I didn’t get to cast a vote one time, or I didn’t get a new laptop. Dehumanization is a process that occurs over time via repeated acts against your humanity. I like when teams run actual Dehumanization arguments, not arguments that just magically lead to Dehumanization. On whether or not Dehumanization is worse than Death as an impact: You had better convince me with clear examples that one is worse than the other because you’re asking me to pick from the lesser of two evils here. On Stock Issues/On-Case Arguments: It is extremely important to me as a critic that as an Aff team you uphold The Burden of Proof in the round and meet your Prima Facia Burden. It’s actually a big pet peeve of mine when Aff teams just jump into the Plan Text without providing ANY type of Background to the round. I understand that you can provide the Background points in the Uniqueness of your Advantages, but I personally do not like having to wait that long to know what’s going on in the SQ that’s so bad that you are advocating for change. The sooner the better. I want to have clear cut Solvency articulated following the Plan Text as well. If you’re Plan doesn’t solve the problems in the SQ then I will vote on the Solvency Press. I like hearing Solvency Press arguments, however, if the Aff can convince me that they have Risk of Solvency of their Harms I will not vote on the Solvency Press. That “Risk” is a big factor for me. If there is even a 1% chance they can solve the Harms I will throw out the Solvency Press argument. I want warrants from both sides here though. FIAT: I believe that the Aff team does have the power of FIAT in the round—to an extent. Yes, you can FIAT that the Plan will happen, but I also believe that there are times and resolutions where the Opp team can argue, successfully, that FIAT is illusory. These arguments are AWESOME to listen to when they are run well. If you want to try it out, I’m your judge. On Counter Plans: I like Counter Plan argumentation. I believe that Opp teams can run Counter Plans and win the round. Just make sure that you have convinced me, without a doubt that your Counter Plan and the Plan are Mutually Exclusive and specify HOW the Aff cannot PERM your Counter Plan. One of the biggest things I want to see here once you have convinced me that the Counter Plan cannot be Perm’d is how the Counter Plan de-links out the Dis-Advantage AND provides an Advantage that the Plan cannot link to. Aff teams: If you want to PERM the Counter Plan I need to have clear cut argumentation on why you can do both and not be Extra-Topical. The Counter Plan should NOT be topical, but you can always run a Plan Inclusive Coutner Plan. Conditional/Provisional Counter Plans are fine to run, but the Leader of the Opposition needs to make that known ASAP when running the Counter Plan. On Procedurals: 1) The Tricot: I firmly believe that there are three (3) types of debate and that each type of debate is relevant and provide us with educational value. I will vote on a Trichot argument as long as it is a) warranted and b) ran well. Aff teams: If you want to win a Trichot argument you need to convince me without a doubt that debating the topic through a different resolution type is BETTER than the originally intended resolution. This argument is an aprioi issue for me as a judge. 2) The “T”: I used to really dislike the “T” because so many Opp teams ran it improperly and were too vague. That being said, I don’t mind the “T” when it is ran properly and you clearly lay out your Standards and Voters and provide specific reasons to warrant your Standard/Voter. If you are claiming “ground loss” or “loss of education” you need to tell me exactly what ground you lost and/or what education you specifically lost. Vague arguments here will NOT work in your favor. Aff teams: I love when you know you’re topical and you knock out the “T” and offer me a Reverse Voter. I love the Reverse Voter and I will vote for the Aff if they run this Voter well.  It’s highly under-utilized. I will vote on the “T” as an apriori issue. 3) The “K”: If you want to run a “K” in the round then by all means, do so; just make sure you have the theoretical framework clearly articulated. Do NOT assume I have a background in the theoretical framework, even if I do, I will NOT inject my personal background knowledge into the round. That being said, if you use a theory I know well you want to get it right. I am very interested in hearing Critical/Cultural Arguments and Gender/Feminist Arguments. Sidebar: Language “K’s” are awesome. I think there are some definite times where teams use offensive terms in rounds and I appreciate when a language critique is ran. If you run this well, I will vote for you. On that note: If you refer to people in ways that are deemed “offensive” or “politically incorrect” I will dock your Speaker Points. On Points of Information/Order: 1) You can call as many POI’s as you want and you can take as many as you want. My one pet peeve (and this will hurt your Speaker Points) is when you say, “I’ll take you at the end” and then don’t. That’s rude. If you won’t have time for it, let them know right away. If you have SO much information to get through that you don’t have time, you might not be using the right time management skills in the round. 2) Let’s all make sure that POO’s are handled correctly. I will rule as often as a possible without holding up the round. If I rule “under consideration” that means you should proceed with caution when it comes to your argument. You can call as many POO’s as you want in the Rebuttals—it’s your debate to win, or lose. On Structure/Sign Posting/Roadmaps: Clear structure is very important in the round—especially if you are trying to bring up the rate of delivery in the round. I like a nice, concise roadmap IF you are going to follow it and if you don’t follow it that’s frustrating so you had better signpost. If you are going to follow the EXACT same order as the speaker before you then you can just say, “Same Order” and save us all some time. I will not time your roadmap, but don’t think that’s an excuse to squeeze extra prep time. You get 30seconds maximum. On Speed/Spreading/Partner Prompting/General Delivery: I am NOT a fan of spread speaking in parliamentary debate. I will give you one warning if your speaking rate has gone past my threshold and after that I will stop flowing. Debate is a speaking performance and thus, should be presented in a way that a majority of people (i.e. non-debaters) can follow and spread speaking does not do this. Speed as an exclusionary tool is also frowned upon. If the other team asks you to be “clear” or “slow” more than twice you need to adapt to that and/or risk being labeled as “exclusionary,” and potentially losing my ballot. Note: If I stop flowing in the round because of excessive speed your ballot is in trouble. I do not mind if you prompt your partner. Just remember, that if you want it to get on my flow it needs to come out of the speaker’s mouth. I DO mind if you sit while speaking. This is a performance and speaking activity and that requires standing and speaking. If you choose to sit down and speak that might hurt your Speaker Points. Let’s all remember this is an educational activity and is essentially a GAME. Yes, there are big awards involved, but that is not a reason to be rude to each other in the round or overtly aggressive. There’s no need for big, over the top theatrics or yelling in the round. Foot stamping, hitting the lectern, etc. are frowned upon. Let’s keep it civil and as polite as possible. On Speaker Points: I usually give out points in the 25-28 range when speakers are above average. I try to not score you lower than a 21, but that has happened before. Ways to earn a score lower than 25: You have excessive filler words (uh, um, like, but, etc.), you are rude to the other team in the round, you are rude to me in the round, you disrespect speed warnings, your phone goes off (and it’s not your timer). If you want to score higher than a 28: You need to be an exceptionally strong speaker with clear articulation, assertiveness, politeness, and limited to no filler words. I like to give out scores higher than 28 when they are earned so give me a reason to award you a 29 or 30! Lastly: Have fun. Debate should be fun. If debate isn’t fun, you aren’t doing it right. If you want to get me to laugh in the round or earn some brownie points, throw in a couple solid references from the movie, “Mean Girls.”

Ryan Johns - DUC

n/a

Ryan Hund - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Sid Aggarwal - Claremont

n/a

Star Steers - Los Medanos

n/a

2016 Fall Penguin Invitational (WUDC/BP)