Judge Philosophies
Aaron Fullman - Long Beach
n/a
Adriana McCain - Chico
Andrea Brown - Ohlone
n/a
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
Bill Brown - Ohlone
n/a
Bradford Phelps - MJC
Cole McLean - SFSU
n/a
Daniel Noriega - CSULA
n/a
Daniel Lopez - Hartnell
n/a
Diego Perez - Concordia
Douglas Mungin - Solano CC
I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.
Evan Haynes - Pacific
<p><strong>Evan Haynes</strong></p> <p><strong>My Background</strong></p> <p>I debated for 3 years at City College of San Francisco and 3 years at University of the Pacific in Parliamentary and LD debate. I graduated in 2016, and have come back to debate this year to be an assistant coach.</p> <p><strong>General Comments</strong></p> <p>I evaluate debates through comparative impact calculous, and I am open to whatever framework you believe the debate should be evaluated through. I think all speech acts are performance, and I am open to any type or structure of argument. I think you should run arguments you believe in or believe are the best strategy, not what you think I would like. However, when it comes to impacts, I prefer topically intuitive impact scenarios with well warranted explanation, even if they are much smaller in magnitude, to large impact scenarios that are relatively unexplained. Equity and compassion are paramount for me. I don’t believe more advanced teams should use speed or lack of clarity to prevent a substantive debate from occurring with less experienced teams.</p> <p><strong>Critical Aff’s/Performance</strong></p> <p>I enjoy many critical affirmatives, but if the Aff does not defend the topic, I become more easily persuaded by negative argumentation that the affirmative has limited the capacity for an educational and fair discussion to take place. Personalized performances can be transformative, but they can also be very difficult to judge in a competitive context.</p> <p><strong>Negative Strategies</strong></p> <p>I am most persuaded by deep and well warranted negative strategies that are topic specific. This can be the DA/CP or the K. CP theory is fine. But know I don’t think text comp is legit. Conditional CP’s are fine, but I am equally open to reasons why condo is abusive.</p>
Jackson Spencer - CSULA
n/a
Jamie Whittington-Studer - Concordia
Janene Whitesell - Solano CC
I have been teaching argumentation and debate for 25 years. I am not a debate coach, but have judged debate rounds for as long as I've been teaching debate. Here's what you need to know coming into the debate: First, I believe that all forensics events are public speaking events. I expect speakers to stand and deliver. As long as lawyers, politicians, and preachers stand, then our community should as well. Second, I feel strongly AGAINST prompting your partner. Again, in the real world a speaker has to stand on their own. Many times debaters interrupt their partner and the partner loses their train of thought. The more egregious the prompting, the more likely it will be that I drop a team. Third, I'm not a fan of topicality arguments. I would rather the the opposition/negative clash with the government/affirmative team. If you want to run topicality, make sure that it is warranted and that you have nothing to say against the affirmative. Fourth, I usually don't vote on K arguments (in a similar fashion as T arguments). Finally, your university/college/coaches have invested time and money into this endeavor. Treat it with respect.
Janet Brehe-Johnson - LPC
n/a
Jason Hough - Hartnell
n/a
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Kelsey Paiz - Chabot
<p>I debated for Chabot College, coached for Long Beach State and am now ADOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in NFA-LD, but I have also participated in/judged/coached some parli. Although I do have debate experience, I have been living in the world of IEs, so it's wise to treat me more like an IE critic than a debate one. I definitely prefer to hear discussion about the topic at hand over a critical case, but will vote on any argument (T’s, CP’s, K’s, etc.) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive. Especially if you run a critical argument, as this was not my forte, make sure you clearly explain everything about it and why it is more important for us to accept your kritik and reject discussion of the resolution. It is up to you as the debater to impact everything out for me and tell me why I should be voting for you over the other team.</p> <p>I’m not a huge fan of speed in either LD or parli. While you don’t have to speak at a “conversational” pace, if I can’t keep up with you, your arguments won’t end up on my flow. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can determine a winner. Tags and impact calculus are going to be the most important things to hit, and you can speed up a bit during evidence.</p> <p>I don’t mind if you communicate with your partner during a round, but the current speaker must say the argument in order for it to end up on my flow. The current speaker should be the one doing most of the speaking during their turn.</p> <p>Above all, keep things civil and have fun!</p>
Kevin McDermott-Swanson - SRJC
Kyle Johnson - San Jose State
MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC
<p>New for the 17-18 season - looked at the poem and was like..... damn, this is old</p> <p>I see debate as a contest of two sides of an argument. The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it. Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party. Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not. What is the point of me trying to enforce rigid standards of competition that are not necessarily agreed upon by the individuals participating in the debate? As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer. I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me. However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me. At the end of the round I will render a decision based off of the arguments in the round as instructed by the participants of the debate. </p> <p> To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate. Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative. The reason I feel this is unfortunate is that I believe the affirmative needs to offer an advocacy that would be better than the sqo. This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion. This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever. While I may not have those requirements the negative team may and they may even have compelling reasons why lacking those concepts is reason enough for you to lose the round. The purpose of this is to explain that the debate I am to observe is up to you to determine as participants in nearly all ways. The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.</p> <p> In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have. The best RFDs I have seen starts with what people are going for in the rebuttals and they work backwards in the debate and I have tried to implement this style into my RFDs. Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them. Not because they are the “right” argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter. Does that mean it affects the round? No, of course not. However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out. Lots of people, the greatest people, like to ask my opinion on what I would do in whatever situation and I think it is a great way to learn a little more by asking these hypothetical questions.</p> <p> When it comes to speaker points I see a 30 A+; 29.5-29.9 A; 29-29.4 A-; 28.8-27.9 B+; B 28.4-28.7 B; 28.0-28.3 B-; 27.8-27.9 C+; C 27.4-27.7 C; 27.0-27.3 C-; 26.8-26.9 D+; D 26.4-26.7 C; 26.0-26.3 D-; Less than 26 = I will be looking for your coaching staff after the round.</p> <p> </p> <p> I feel as though there are certain places my mind wanders in a debate that I am forced to fill in for debaters and so I wanted to share some of those concerns with you. First, impact prioritization. I often times will have one team saying nuclear war will happen and the other talking about poverty and nobody compares the two arguments with one another. They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad. What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact? Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round? Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts. Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur? Maybe you could tell me. Second, how to evaluate the round. I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus. I feel that teams debating in front of me who are surprised by my decisions do not generally compare their impacts against the other team’s as often/thoroughly as they should. They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that’s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart. I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to. I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate. It is not that I do not understand the concepts but it is your job to explain them to me so I can evaluate them fairly. When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on. I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not. I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round. </p> <p> </p> <p>Previous philosophy:</p> <p>Thoughts from Matthew</p> <p>Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing. I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder. If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.</p> <p> </p> <p>Debate has been my home since 2k</p> <p>When it came to competing I did OK</p> <p>It is 2015 and I am still here</p> <p>Doing something that is so dear</p> <p>Before you decide that I am a worth a strike</p> <p>Question if that is really what you would like</p> <p>I have yet to go Mad as a Hatter don’t you fear</p> <p>But some of this may not be what you want to hear</p> <p> </p> <p>Where do we come from and what have we seen</p> <p>Debate is about all of these things and more if you know what I mean</p> <p>Debate has something to offer us all</p> <p>Perform it how you want that is your call</p> <p>But when you say “new off”, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy…</p> <p>Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ</p> <p> </p> <p>Don’t just deposit your arguments, I am more than a purse</p> <p>We all have our own rhyme rhythm and verse</p> <p>As fast or as slow before time has been met</p> <p>Say what you can, leave no regret</p> <p>Teach me these things you believe</p> <p>I will listen to any argument that you conceive</p> <p> </p> <p>Many of you will pretend to be the state</p> <p>If you don’t it won’t make me irate</p> <p>Yet, I read as much of your lit as you did of mine</p> <p>I say this now so you don’t again hear me whine</p> <p>Explain what you mean and mean what you say</p> <p>Wouldn’t want that pesky discourse getting in your way</p> <p> </p> <p>Do you think this is some kind of game</p> <p>Probability magnitude timeframe</p> <p>Impacts are not dead, they represent life</p> <p>Be aware of where you point your knife</p> <p> </p> <p>Now comes the end of my little story</p> <p>Go off and live – fight for your glory</p> <p>I wish you the best with an open heart</p> <p>As a judge, my time is yours, until our ways part</p>
Madeleine Calvi - S@B
n/a
Mary Anne Sunseri - San Jose State
<p>I like clear arguments and good, solid, logical thought processes. I try my very best to leave my biases out of the round and will likely vote on just what happens in the round. I will not vote on issues not presented by the students. I appreciate good delivery, the use of wit and well mannered competitors. I like all forms of argumentation as long as they are presented clearly, warranted and supported logically. I expect courtesy and respect from and for all in the round (competitors, gallery, etc). It is not okay to speak loudly to your teammate while the other team has the floor; nor is it okay to speak for your teammate.</p>
Michael Trujillo - Chico
n/a
Michelle Brownlee - CSUN
n/a
Pablo Ramirez - SFSU
n/a
Paris Player - MJC
Randy Carver - Contra Costa
n/a
Reed Ramsey - Pacific
<p>I <span dir="ltr"> am a policy maker. I evaluate the debate through a comparative impact comparison. If you forgo this comparison I will have to make that call for you, which is never a good thing. I will listen to your kritik, but only if it has specific application (IE specific links/narrative) to the topic. That being said I want you to have a topical plan text. I think topical plans foster a more productive discussion from both sides of the debate. Theory is fine, but only under certain circumstances (mainly when it is egregious abuse). I also think that negative CPs and Ks should be unconditional. In my ideal world, I would like to hear two disads and a lot of case arguments from the negative, and a ton of impact calculus in the rebuttals. My approach to debate is that it is a game, and everyone can play however they want. With that being said I believe that the current trends of parli show that it is hard to be a one-trick-pony, which means that debaters should have a grasp on politics of the world as well as critical argumentation. Bottom line, I think debate is fun, and I would like to keep it that way. </span></p>
Ryan Guy - MJC
<p><strong>UPDATED: 3/8/2018</strong></p> <p><strong>Guy, Ryan</strong></p> <p>Modesto Junior College</p> <p><strong>Video Recording:</strong> I always have a webcam with me. If you would like me to record your round and send it to you<strong> ask me</strong>. I'll only do it if both teams want it, and default to uploading files as unlisted YOU TUBE links and only sharing them with you on my Tabroom ballot. This way no one ever has to bug me about getting video files.</p> <p>Me:</p> <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for at Humboldt State.</li> <li>Coached Parli, NFA-LD, and a little bit of BP and CEDA since 2008.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, debate, public speaking, and a variety of other COMM studies courses</li> </ul> <p><strong>The Basics:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Debate is a game.</li> <li>Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (<a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)</a></li> <li>Use <a href="http://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a> to share files in LD and Policy</li> <li>I’m fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.</li> <li>Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse</li> <li>I prefer policy but I am okay with the K. That said, run it well or I might be grumpy.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul> <p><strong>General Approach to Judging:</strong></p> <p>I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed.</p> <p>Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.</p> <p>I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.</p> <p>If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.</p> <p><strong>NFA-LD SPECIFIC THINGS:</strong></p> <p><strong>Files:</strong> I would like debaters to use <a href="http://www.speechdrop.net/">www.speechdrop.net</a> for file exchange. It is faster and eats up less prep. If for some reason that is not possible, I would like to be on the email chain: ryanguy@gmail.com. If there is not an email chain I would like the speech docs on a flashdrive before the speech. I tend to feel paper only debate hurts education and fairness in the round. If you only use paper I would like a copy for the entire round so I may read along with you. If you can't provide this digitally or on paper, you will need to slow down and speak at a slow conversational pace so I can flow everything you say.</p> <p><strong>Disclosure:</strong> I'm a fan of the case list I think it makes for good debate. If you are not breaking a brand new aff it better be up there. If it is not I am more likely to vote on "accessibility" and "predictably" standards in T. Here is the case list as of 2018. Get your stuff on it: <a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/</a> If your opponent is anti-case list you should run a wiki spec argument on them. I think that teams who chose to not disclose their affirmatives are abusive to teams who do.</p> <p><strong>LD with no cards:</strong> It might not be a rule, but I think it is abusive and bad for LD debate. I might even vote on theory that articulates that.</p> <p><strong>Specifics:</strong></p> <p><strong>Speaker Points</strong>: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 26-30 range. If you do the things in my “General Approach to Judging” section, your speaks will be higher.</p> <p><strong>Topicality</strong>: Hey Aff…be topical. T and other proceedural debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I’m cool with the “test of the aff” approach but please be smart. I’ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components. I prefer articulated abuse, but will vote on potential abuse if you don't answer it well. I’m unlikely to vote on an RVI. In general I enjoy a good procedural debate but also love rounds were we get to talk about the issues. That said if you are going for a procedural argument...you should probably really go for it in the end or move on to your other arguments.</p> <p><strong>Kritiques</strong>: I tend to be more of a fan of policy rounds. That said I do enjoy critical theory and will vote on the K. Please keep in mind that I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of K.</p> <p>I’m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards trend in parli. If you don’t understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.</p> <p><strong>Weighing</strong>: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calc and show me why you won.</p> <p><strong>Speed:</strong> I think going a little bit faster than normal conversation can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to. <strong>Side Note</strong> on NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is “antithetical” to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear” or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.</p> <p><strong>Safety: </strong>I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates of change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the classroom space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.</p> <p><strong>IPDA:</strong></p> <p>I’m a NPDA and NFA-LD judge for the most part. Even in IPDA I prefer that you signpost your arguments and follow the typical structure for advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc. You get 30 minutes prep, you should cite sources and provide me with evidence. Arguments supported with cited evidence and empirics are more likely to get my ballot. In general I am okay with anything in IPDA that I am okay with in LD and NPDA. Meaning I will vote on procedurals, Kritiques, and other debate theory if it is run well. I’m also generally okay with a little speed under the guidelines I provided above. In general I follow arguments on my flow. Make sure to respond to each other because a debate without clash is boring.</p>
Salim Razawi - LPC
n/a
Sheelah Bearfoot - S@B
n/a
Taure Shimp - MJC
<p><strong>OVERVIEW</strong></p> <p>Debate should foster civil discourse and honor the educational integrity of the event. I see it as my responsibility to listen to the arguments you choose to make and evaluate them as fairly as possible. However, I do have some personal preferences. The rounds I enjoy the most have a lot of clash, fewer but higher quality arguments, and clear impact analysis.</p> <p><strong>GENERAL PREFERENCES</strong></p> <p><strong>In IPDA: </strong>The rate of speech should be conversational. I expect to hear well-structured arguments with clearly delineated sub-points. I also expect to hear source citations--you have thirty minutes of prep, so please indicate where your information came from and use it to your advantage. While I get that IPDA discourages the use of jargon, procedurals, and kritiks, I am open to hearing arguments about definitions as well as arguments that identify problematic assumptions/worldviews within the debate. However, these should be articulated in a way that remains accessible to an intelligent, informed lay audience. </p> <p><strong>In NFA-LD:</strong> Please set up a <a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a> room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate. Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along. If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if <em>I</em> am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules. </a>Specifically, the rules state: "Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate. If the evidence is only available in a digital format, the debater is required to make a digital version of the evidence available for the entirety of the debate at the opponent's discretion. For example, if an affirmative case is only available on a laptop, the negative should be allowed to keep the laptop for reference until the debate is over." In other words, it is in your best interest to have additional paper copies of your evidence and/or a viewing laptop that can be used by your opponent during the round.</p> <p><strong>In Parli:</strong> Faster-than-conversation is fine, but I do not like spreading in this event. For me, it decreases the quality of analysis and becomes counterproductive to the in-round education. However, I will not ask you to slow down during the round or say “clear.”</p> <p><strong>Procedurals and Kritiks</strong> can make for good debate…</p> <p>…but I find <strong>AFF Ks</strong> are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity.</p> <p><strong>If you choose to run a Kritik</strong> (on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. If you are unable to articulate—in a concrete way—how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole.</p> <p><strong>Rebuttals </strong>are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters.</p> <p>I <strong>evaluate the round</strong> by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages.</p> <p><strong>Etiquette: </strong>I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don't speak that way to competitors.</p> <p><strong>MISCELLANEOUS FAQ</strong></p> <p><strong>Sit or stand</strong> during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what's comfortable for you.</p> <p><strong>Partner communication </strong>is fine with me, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches.</p>