2018 Golden Gate Season Opener - Day 1
San Francisco State University - Sep 22 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Andrew Morgan - UOP
Blake Longfellow - DVC
I am primarily an IE coach and very much approach forensics (including debate) as a communication/persuasive activity. I approach debate with the mindset that all stories are arguments and all arguments are stories. With that said, the story which is the most internally cohesive (narrative probability) and that lines up across the debate (narrative fidelity) is likely to win my ballot.
Here is a list of things Paul Villa thinks you should know about debating in front of me:
- Truth over tech: Blake isn't flowing the debate like this is the national circuit, he is going to take minimal notes, you aren't going to win by pointing out some drop on the flow or technical analysis of the round.
- Don't spread. Like, at all. However fast you are thinking will be fine I'd go slower than that.
- Reading theory is a non-starter, if the other team isn't topical just tell Blake they aren't topical and explain why that means they should lose the debate without getting all technical.
- Blake would probably vote on a K, especially a performance one, assuming it made sense to him in the round.
- Less is more, the more simple the path to the ballot for you the more likely Blake is to vote for you.
Diego Perez - CUI
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.
Hector Palmeno - SFSU
Hector Palmeno - SFSU
Herman Sahi - Chabot
Janene Whitesell - Solano CC
I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:
1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.
2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.
3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.
4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.
5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.
6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.
7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.
8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?
9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.
Jeffrey Antonio - CUI
Jimmy Finney - S@B
n/a
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark
Kelsey Duff - SFSU
Kelsey Duff - SFSU
Kyle Johnson - Las Positas
n/a
Mary Anne Sunseri - SJSU
n/a
Mike Catlos - Lewis & Clark
Neeraj Ginda - Chico State
Pablo Ramirez - SFSU
Ryan Guy - MJC
Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!
- In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
- Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.
I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!
A Little About Me- I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
- Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
- I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.
I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.
How I See Debate 1. Sharing Material- If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
- Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
- If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.
- Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
- If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.
- Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
- If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
- I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.
- I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
- Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
- Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
- Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.
- Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
- If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
- Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
- Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.
- If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.
- Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
- If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.
- Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
- Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
- Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
- Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
- Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
- Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.
- Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
- Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
- Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
- Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.
-
File Sharing
- SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
- If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
- Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.
-
Disclosure
- I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
- If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
- Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.
-
Cardless LD
- I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.
- Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
- Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.
- Please make an honest effort to be topical.
- T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
- Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.
I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.
Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!
Ryan Guy - MJC
Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!
- In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
- Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.
I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!
A Little About Me- I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
- Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
- I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.
I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.
How I See Debate 1. Sharing Material- If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
- Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
- If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.
- Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
- If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.
- Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
- If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
- I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.
- I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
- Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
- Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
- Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.
- Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
- If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
- Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
- Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.
- If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.
- Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
- If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.
- Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
- Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
- Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
- Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
- Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
- Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.
- Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
- Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
- Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
- Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.
-
File Sharing
- SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
- If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
- Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.
-
Disclosure
- I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
- If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
- Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.
-
Cardless LD
- I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.
- Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
- Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.
- Please make an honest effort to be topical.
- T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
- Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.
I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.
Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!
Salim Razawi - Las Positas
n/a
Sean Cox-Marcellin - MJC
edit: I made this paradigm for policy, but the broad strokes apply. Feel free to ask me clarifying questions before round.
Okay, I agree with Jared Anderson:?�?� "Prep stops when you have a) hit send on the email, or b) pulled the flash drive out."
About me:?�?� I debate in college, with most of my experience in NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD. I'm familiar with jargon, theory, "kritikal" arguments, and can follow speed to a degree. Feel free to ask me clarification or specific questions before round. I want to be in the evidence chain, whether you're using email (scoxmarcellin@gmail.com) or speechdrop or whatever. (I'm a big fan of speechdrop). I'll flow what you say, though.
General / Quick Overview:?�?� I consider myself a flow judge, and when it comes to the end of the round that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. Impact analysis in the rebuttal is essential. I think any judge who believes they're tabula rasa is deceiving themselves, but I do try to check my biases and will try not to bring in information external to the round. In round arguments and their analysis takes priority.
Theory:?�?� I like a good theory debate. I think it can be used to 1) collapse and win, 2) prevent shifting or other unfair actions, or 3) as a time trade-off (pure strategery). Whoever reads the theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interp level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (whether I'm rejecting the argument or the team) and why it's more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate as a whole). In your rebuttal, if you collapse to the theory position, it's vital you close all doors. Don't give me any choice but to vote on your theory.
I have some reservations for accepting "Reverse Voting Issues" (RVIs) on theory. By default, if the Aff wins the T, or Neg wins the "Condo Bad" position, I don't automatically vote for them. If you can articulate and impact out good reasons why, and the other side undercovers it, I'll vote on it. But don't blip out a "timesuck" argument and expect to win on it. Kritiks of theory, or linking it through the framework debate can be effective, and is underutilized.
Theory need not be an island. Connect it to the rest of the debate: the weighing mechanism, the kritik, etc. I think it's effective to leverage framework arguments from the first constructives on theory, and vice versa.
Kritik:?�?� I have heard some kritikal arguments, and I've run some kritikal debate, so I have familiarity with the structure. That said,?�?� do not assume I am familiar with the lit?�?� of your author or the ideas being discussed. I believe that someone who presents a kritikal argument has a burden of presenting it clearly enough to connect it to something in the round and impacting it out. I am skeptical of links of omission.
Role of the Ballot / How I vote:?�?� I think the rebuttals are really important speeches. It's a opportunity to clean up and clarify a busy debate into a few key issues that overpower or control the others. I tend to flow rebuttals on a separate sheet of paper, while looking at the arguments you're referencing next to it.?�?� I want you to tell me where to vote, how to evaluate the round, how to weigh different impacts against each other. Don't make me do the work for you.?�?� Ideally, justification for this should have come up before the rebuttals, and I could literally be going through your previous speeches with a highlighter. I also realize this is almost never the case. I think black swan impacts and "reductio ad extinction" are more emotionally effective than probablilistic / systemic impacts, but that's a human fallibility that I'm susceptible to, absent impact framing. I don't think they're logically better.
A magnitudinal impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in probability. A systemic impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in magnitude. One of these impacts is still triggering 100% of the time. Use that. Timeframe analysis is sorely under-utilized.
I'm open to non-traditional roles of the ballot, just be sure to justify it and be prepared to defend it. I default to net benefits, but I'll vote on stock issues, presumption, or "whoever best deconstructs post-truth debate." RotB is as much a part of the debate as any other argument.
Speed:?�?� I'm used to fast debate, but even I can get spread out by the fastest teams when they're dumping analytics at top speed without explication. Evidence-based debate can get really fast, and that's fine, but I recommend you?�?� emphasize your taglines?�?� and slow a little for them if you want to ensure I flow them. I don't like speed (or anything else) being used as a tool to exclude, and am receptive to well-run arguments about that.
Evidence:?�?� Quality of evidence debates are cool. Reading the other team's small-text at them is also cool. I like to see interesting analysis of evidence, and comparisons between different cards in the debate. Quality can beat quantity, but yeah, quantity has its uses too.
Speaker Points:?�?� Arbitrary and problematic, but if I just gave everyone 29.7-30 then it's arbitrarily better for people who get me as a judge. I'm not sure what to do about that. My normal range is 26-30.
Remember that you're debating in front of and with people. To win, you never need to act in ways that intentionally hurt someone.
Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte
I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.
I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:
-Using clear roadmapping
-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)
- Be respectful of your opponent and judges
-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff
- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me
Taure Shimp - MJC
ALL DEBATE EVENTS
Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.
IPDA
I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.
PARLI
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.
LD
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.
Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!
Zachary Herrera - CUI
Zachary Herrera - CUI