Judge Philosophies

Abas Idris - SFSU


Adam Austin - Sac State

<p>Adam is in his first year of graduate school and still new to debate. He has been working hard on this process, attending lots of tournaments and observing, but still has limited experience judging. He flows fairly well, but you should still take it pretty slow and be sure to explain your arguments in depth, particularly impact comparisons.</p>

Adreanna Tirone - SFSU


Alex Severson - Sac State


Andrea Adams - SMC

<p>The short version: It&rsquo;s your time; you do what you want.</p> <p>I competed in both parli and policy. I have judged a substantial number of rounds this year but have not kept count.</p> <p>I believe debate is what you make it and I will follow whatever guidelines you tell me to in-round. But unless told otherwise, I default to using the flow as my basis of judging. Basically, this means in-round discourse with slight preference going to the better warrants and impacts and offense over defense. (But you can still win with only defensive arguments)&nbsp; As long as I can understand you, I will flow you.&nbsp; I&rsquo;m fine with speed although I am also open to speed Ks. (See the first line.)</p> <p>On case arguments are as important as you tell me they are unless argued otherwise by the other side. (See the first line)</p> <p>Kritiks and critical affs are fun and interesting, please run them. That said, I won&rsquo;t prefer them over other arguments and my first line still trumps everything. I flow alt and alt solvency on two separate pages (it keeps the&nbsp;perm and solvency debates separate) so please pause between the two so I have time to switch to a new page.</p> <p>Projects and performances- also fun and interesting but I want a clear role of the judge/role of the ballot and/or weighing mechanism. Not saying you will necessarily lose if you don&rsquo;t provide me one but it helps me from feeling lost. That said, for projects and performances, my default might shift from strictly the flow towards a more &lsquo;being present&rsquo; approach unless told otherwise by either team.</p> <p>Topicality, theory, counterplans, disadvantages, framework, etc, are all fine arguments. Go for offense over defense but I&rsquo;ll vote on anything. See first line.<br /> <br /> Perms-They can be a test of mutual compatibility or the perm can become aff advocacy. Debate it out in-round.</p> <p>Please call points of order for new arguments in the rebuttals. If you don&rsquo;t call it, I will consider it (obviously this doesn&rsquo;t count for new arguments in the PMR that respond to new things brought up in the MOC speech).</p> <p>I will also give you give you better speaker points if you pleasantly surprise me with an argument. You can win with your international relations DA but it&rsquo;s unlikely to impress me.</p> <p>I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).</p>

Anvita Patwardhan - S@B


Brittany Brennecke - SFSU


Daniel Lopez - Chabot

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.

Erika Anderson - Chico

Ernest Dunlap - MJC

Hal Sanford - SRJC

<p><strong>Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College</strong></p> <p><strong>Short Version:&nbsp; </strong>I&#39;m a stock issues judge.&nbsp; I&#39;m not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.&nbsp; Thank you Joe Allen.&nbsp; Be nice to each other.&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#39;ll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion <strong>Long Version:&nbsp; </strong>Some debaters may want more.&nbsp; Here&#39;s more.&nbsp; Remember, being electronic, it&#39;s length&nbsp; does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? </strong>I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; AFFIRMATIVE:&nbsp; Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the &quot;best.&quot;&nbsp; Be sure your interpretation of the resolution gives ground to the negative.</p> <p>In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.&nbsp; Weigh impacts.&nbsp; Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).&nbsp;</p> <p>In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them.</p> <p>NEGATIVE:&nbsp; In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.&nbsp; Too often negatives think they are being clever with &quot;time suck&quot; topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.&nbsp; Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.&nbsp; Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable.</p> <p>In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative&#39;s when in relation to the actual resolution.&nbsp; Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it)are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?&nbsp; </strong>Be nice.&nbsp; Don&#39;t belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.&nbsp; Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.&nbsp; Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?&nbsp; Really?</p> <p><strong>What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?&nbsp; </strong>Stock Issues:</p> <p>In policy debate, these are key for me.&nbsp; Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.&nbsp; Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.&nbsp; Affirmative must win all four to win round.&nbsp; Stock issues are:</p> <p>1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot.&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality:&nbsp; Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren&#39;t argued by negatives.&nbsp; You&#39;ve got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I&#39;ll really resist.&nbsp;</p> <p>Counter plans:&nbsp; It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I&#39;ll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.&nbsp; They also should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine choice between the plan and counter plan.&nbsp; Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad.</p> <p>Critiques:&nbsp; Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.&nbsp; I dislike generic critiques that don&#39;t relate to the resolution, the opponent&#39;s arguments, or reality.&nbsp; Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that&nbsp; &quot;we should all hurry up and die because life&#39;s greatest gift is death.&quot;&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; I vote on the flow, but I won&#39;t turn off my brain.&nbsp;&nbsp; Still, if your names are Robert or&nbsp; Sterling, I might buy it.&nbsp; They&#39;re eloquentus-maximus.&nbsp;</p> <p>Weighing:&nbsp; Explain why you win.&nbsp; Weigh impacts.&nbsp; Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.</p> <p><strong>How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?&nbsp; </strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>SPEED - NFA-LD:&nbsp; This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.&nbsp; Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.&nbsp; That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.&nbsp; Only one has been &quot;too fast&quot; for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.&nbsp; After all, &quot;speed is antithetical to the event&quot;, right?&nbsp;&nbsp; If I or the opponent call &quot;clear,&quot; heed that request.</p> <p>SPEED - PARLI:&nbsp; Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.&nbsp; I&#39;ll stop you if you&#39;re going too fast and I&#39;ll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.</p> <p>JARGON:&nbsp; Don&#39;t just sling jargon around and assume I&#39;ll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.&nbsp; For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say &quot;perm&quot; and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.&nbsp; Say something like:&nbsp; &quot;Perm.&nbsp; Do both the plan and the counter plan.&nbsp; If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.&nbsp; Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together.&quot;</p> <p>TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:&nbsp; Please be organized.&nbsp; I won&#39;t time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.&nbsp; I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.&nbsp; I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.&nbsp; If you really need to sit while speaking, I&#39;m fine with that.</p>

Hilary Clair - Chico

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.

Jared Anderson - Sac State

<p>NFA-LD judging philosophy</p> <p>I have been coaching and judging debate for about 10 years now. I&#39;ve primarily coached CEDA/NDT debate but I am also very familiar with Parli. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I will try to keep this brief and answer any questions you may have...</p> <p>NFA-LD rules - I have read and&nbsp;understand the&nbsp;rules and I will &quot;enforce&quot; them if arguments are made. I will not intervene, you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules&nbsp;to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won&#39;t make sense, so I&#39;ll end up voting on it.</p> <p>Speed - I understand that this is one of the rules. It is also a rule that makes very little sense, is written poorly, and difficult to interpret. I take a good flow and I suspect that there are very few folks in LD that can test my pen. That being said, I am not encouraging any one to try to spread people out. That should never be the goal of debate. If there is a legitimate concern raised about the rate of delivery from somebody, I will consider the argument, but it needs to be well developed and explained.&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality - is a voter.&nbsp;</p> <p>Kritiks - must link to the action of the plan. Winning &quot;doesn&#39;t link to the plan&quot; will function the same as &quot;no link&quot; for me.</p> <p>Basic Logistics:</p> <p>Prep - The prep clock stops when you stop prepping! When the clock stops, everyone needs to stop prepping. Don&#39;t tell me you are ready and then look for more cards or that you have to find your flow. Prep is done when you are ready to speak. If you are paperless, I will stop prep when the flash drive is in the other teams hand or the email is sent.&nbsp;</p> <p>Evidence Sharing - be adults about this. If you want a paperless debate, awesome. I think it works the best, however...get your tech together. If both debaters are prepared for paperless that is great, if you are providing a viewing computer it better be of a quality that allows your opponent to actually view the evidence without wasting their prep time. If the debate is on paper, pass down cards as you read them and avoid bickering about who has access to the evidence. The person who is prepping should be in control of the evidence.</p> <p>Disclosure - unless specifically forbidden, I will disclose my decision after the debate and give you brief feedback. Since we need to keep the tournament on time I will keep my comments brief. I&#39;m happy to answer additional questions at a later time.</p>

Jason Hough - Hartnell


Jeff Toney - SJDC

Jim Dobson - LPC


Jonathan Bruce - Pacific

<p><span dir="ltr">I competed in Parli and LD for four years at University of the Pacific. I am pretty much fine with anything being run in front of me. However, as the cliche goes--do not assume I know the literature base behind the K you wish to run. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>NEG:</strong></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Disads: </strong>My favorite type of debate to watch is a Disad vs. Case debate. So I like them, is what I&rsquo;m getting at there. I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me. Albeit, if you chose to run a Politics DA, what helps to make Politics more compelling is if you include a specific reason X Plan Text of the AFF would cause a reaction to the specific BILL/Proposal your D/A is about. In other words, please don&rsquo;t say &ldquo;Repub backlash because yeah!&rdquo; raising thumbs like Fonzie.</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>CPs: </strong>Sure, they&rsquo;re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won&rsquo;t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Theory: </strong>Proven abuse is more compelling, to me, than potential. I might actually be light weight vexed to have to sit and listen to potentially being abused in some hypothetical round in the future, for 17 minutes. That aside, I am not a fan of someone running multiple (3+) theory positions to me in one LOC. If you run any form of Vagueness, just make sure the link to what is vague and the link to what offense you lose, subsequently--is clear. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>K: </strong>Like I said above--make sure the thesis of the K is clear. So, perhaps, chose to slow down in the portion of the K that has a thesis. Parli is not Policy, I can&rsquo;t check your arguments afterward, so clarity is the most important item here. Now, K debate becomes a game of controlling some type of grand Uniqueness frame. It&rsquo;s a great home, subsequently, for tech, advanced debaters. I will give leeway, thus, to new debaters and their responses to the <em>normative</em> tricks of all such &ldquo;non-normative&rdquo; K&rsquo;s. &nbsp;</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>BOTH:</strong></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Performance:</strong> Nah. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Critical Affirmatives: </strong>Just establish the link between your literature and the resolution&rsquo;s topic. I&rsquo;m not saying you have to be topical. You don&rsquo;t. I&rsquo;m asking you to briefly describe why your K is relevant to this topic. </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Impact Calc:</strong> <em>Timeframe &gt; Magnitude &gt; Probability</em> is the default way I will frame impacts in the rounds. If you don&rsquo;t like that, then do impac calc in the LOR/PMR and tell me the 1) The frame 2) Why that frame is important (given the context of that round&rsquo;s arguments.) </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span dir="ltr"><strong>Speed:</strong> Blaze it. That being said, don&rsquo;t be rude to new debaters, allow them to engage. </span></p>

Joshua Harzman - Sac State


Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Kelly Lootz - Pacific

<p><span dir="ltr">I am an Interper by trade and currently an Individual Events coach. That being said, I&rsquo;ve been around debate in various capacities for over eight years and love the activity. Some things to consider if you find me at the back of the room:</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Speed &ndash; Take it down a notch or two and enunciate. If I can&rsquo;t understand you I can&rsquo;t vote for you.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Arguments &ndash; Anything goes. Just make sure you take the time to explain what you are going for. Impact Calculus is always a great thing!</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Jargon &ndash; Be sure to explain exactly what you mean. If you just throw debate jargon at me, I may not catch it.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">At the end of the day, tell me why I should vote for you. As a former interper I love to see the passion in a round &ndash; in your last speech break it down for me and tell me why you win! </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Kevin Steeper - SRJC

<p>Kevin Steeper, Santa Rosa Junior College</p> <p><strong>Most Important Criteria</strong></p> <p>I&#39;m a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn&#39;t respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I&#39;ll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won&#39;t do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I&#39;m also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you&#39;ll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts).</p> <p><strong>Predispositions</strong></p> <p>The only thing I&#39;m predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you&#39;ve been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I&#39;ll still vote on it even though I won&#39;t want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it&#39;s warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative&#39;s case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I&#39;d rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren&#39;t, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations.</p> <p><strong>Speed/Jargon/Technical</strong></p> <p>I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I&#39;m not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don&#39;t speed the other team out of the room. If they call &quot;clear&quot; or &quot;slow&quot;, slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed.</p> <p><strong>NOTE:</strong>&nbsp;I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It&#39;s your debate, it&#39;s up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn&#39;t a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say.</p> <p><strong>NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES:</strong> Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.</p>

Kyle Johnson - San Jose State


<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.&nbsp; The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it.&nbsp; Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party.&nbsp; Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer.&nbsp; I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me.&nbsp; However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate.&nbsp; Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion.&nbsp; This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them.&nbsp; Not because they are the &ldquo;right&rdquo; argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter.&nbsp; Does that mean it affects the round?&nbsp; No, of course not.&nbsp; However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out.&nbsp; 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;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.&nbsp; First, impact prioritization.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad.&nbsp; What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact?&nbsp; Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round?&nbsp; Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts.&nbsp; Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur?&nbsp; Maybe you could tell me.&nbsp; Second, how to evaluate the round.&nbsp; I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus.&nbsp; 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&rsquo;s as often/thoroughly as they should.&nbsp; They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that&rsquo;s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart.&nbsp; I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to.&nbsp; I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on.&nbsp; I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not.&nbsp; I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Previous philosophy:</p> <p>Thoughts from Matthew</p> <p>Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing.&nbsp; I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder.&nbsp; If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.</p> <p>&nbsp;</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&rsquo;t you fear</p> <p>But some of this may not be what you want to hear</p> <p>&nbsp;</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 &ldquo;new off&rdquo;, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy&hellip;</p> <p>Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Don&rsquo;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>&nbsp;</p> <p>Many of you will pretend to be the state</p> <p>If you don&rsquo;t it won&rsquo;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&rsquo;t again hear me whine</p> <p>Explain what you mean and mean what you say</p> <p>Wouldn&rsquo;t want that pesky discourse getting in your way</p> <p>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</p> <p>Now comes the end of my little story</p> <p>Go off and live &ndash; 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>

Mark Underwood - CCSF

Mark Faaita - Chico

<p>I value debate because i believe it creates a space to engage in critical thinking and intelectual creativity. I appreciate arguments that are rooted in logic and&nbsp;reason, and I feel that leaves plenty of room for procedurals, K&#39;s, and case debate. Well warranted arguments are appreciated. Keep in mind that each of your positions are ultimately a part of an overarching story, and a story should be fairly easy to follow. There are no positions that I am adverse to. Speed wise, I haven&#39;t been spread out thus far this season, if that happens in a round I will verbalize it on the basis&nbsp;of fairness. I can&#39;t evaluate the arguments properly if they are not on my flow, but I don&#39;t expect you to be able to read my mind. I may ask for a line or two after the speech if I feel it is needed. My feedback this season has seemed to revolve around the importance of questions, the logical flow of arguments, and people missing the obvious. Also, I realize that debte is competitive, but competition can be fun, so have fun!&nbsp;</p>

Marnie Salvani - Concordia

Mary Anne Sunseri - San Jose State

<p>I like clear arguments and good, solid, logical&nbsp; thought processes.&nbsp; 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>

Matthew Hogan - UNR

<p>Name: Matthew Hogan School: University of Nevada, Reno Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. To begin, I have about 12 years experience in the activity between competing in high school policy, competing in college parli, and coaching parli for 3 years. My general approach to evaluating the debate is that the government team has the responsibility to defend the topic and their case, while the negative can challenge either of those two burdens to win the round. I believe the affirmative team should defend the resolution. This means that if you want to run a critical affirmative, you need to explain to me how this position is topical under the specific resolution. I allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to affirmative interpretations of resolutions, so the least you can do is spend the extra 30 seconds explaining how you are topical. My only exception to this burden is a project affirmative, but I need a good framework explaining why this is more important than the topic, and probably an explanation as to why you are not running the position just to skew your opponents out of the round (ie: disclose your project if it is that important to you). Opposition Teams, your Kritik should also be topical either to the resolution or specifically to the plan text. Generic links, links of omission etc, don&rsquo;t really do it for me. Link specific discourse, the plan text or the wording of the resolution. Really try to engage your opponent or the resolution with the kritik, don&rsquo;t run the kritik just for the sake of running it. Also, I believe in negation theory, so you can have contradictory arguments in the round. Just make sure you parameterize down to one of the two arguments by the rebuttals. If you are going for both arguments in the rebuttal and are winning both, I don&rsquo;t know what to do with the two competing claims you are winning and, thus, disregard them both (government teams should know this too). I am open to procedurals of all kinds, kritiks, diusads and counterplans. I am willing to vote for either liberal or conservative positions, so long as those arguments are not deliberately racist, sexist, etc. I am ok with speed, so far as you give a little pen time between claims, since this is parli after all. A good idea would be to give a warrant after the claim, so I can get pen time and so you can actually support your argument. Above all else, I expect both teams to be respectful to each other. Don&rsquo;t deliberately be mean, rude or patronizing. I am ok with banter, sarcasm, etc, but being rude just for the sake of bullying your opponent will upset me. Not enough for me to vote against you, but enough for me to dock your speaker points substantially. Points of order should be called in front of me. If something is blatantly new for me, I will do disregard the argument. If there is a grey area, I may allow the argument unless a point of order is called. I think it is better to be safe than sorry. My idea of net-benefits is probably not traditional, where whomever has a higher magnitude wins. Unless you tell me why I need to prioritize magnitude first, I will evaluate net-benefits to my default standard which is: probability&gt;timeframe&gt;magnitude. My political philosophy is that high magnitude debates stagnate real action and reform, which is why I prioritize probability. That isn&rsquo;t to say that I won&rsquo;t evaluate magnitude first if you tell me why I should abandon my default judging standard. If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me atmchogan86@gmail.com. Best of luck to you all!!! Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. 1.​Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ​26-29 2.​How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be &ldquo;contradictory&rdquo; with other negative positions? ​Critically framed arguments are cool with me for both teams. Critical affirmatives should be topical to the resolution (see above), and still give the negative some ground in the round. Critically framed arguments should have a clear framework for both teams that tell me how I should prioritize the position. Without a winning framework that prioritize the critical argument first, I will weigh it equally to other positions. Yes the position can contradict other positions, as long as you collapse to only one of the positions in the rebuttal. My one exclusion to this rule is that if you run a critical position based off the discourse someone uses, and then you use that discourse, then your contradictory positions can cost you the round, since you can&rsquo;t take back your discourse. 3.​Performance based arguments&hellip; ​I am also ok with performance based positions, so long as they meet a standard of relevance to the resolution. However, it needs to be clear to me that I am evaluating the performance rather than the content, with reasons why I should evaluate performance first. The opposing team should have the right to know if they are actually debate the performance or the content, instead of being excluded by a team switching back and forth between frameworks. 4.​Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ​ ​I don&rsquo;t require competing interpretations. If you tell me why your opponent has a bad interpretation, I won&rsquo;t vote for it. If you want me to vote for your competing interpretation, though, I need counter-standards. I don&rsquo;t need in-round abuse as long as the standards and voters you are going for aren&rsquo;t related to ground (ie: grammar and Jurisdiction). However if you are going for a fairness voter with a claim to ground loss, then I need the abuse to be present in round. I do give government teams flexibility in being creative with the topic, as long as they can win topicality, but I am also more likely to vote on topicality than some other critics may. 5.​Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ​Counterplan is assumed dispositional to me unless told otherwise. If asked about the status of the counterplan, the negative team should answer their opponent. Counterplans of any kind are ok with me, as long as you can defend the theory behind the counterplan you ran. All theory is up for debate for both teams when it comes to counterplans. My favorite counterplans are plan exclusive counterplans, but I will entertain any kind. 6.​Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ​Yes, teams can share flowed arguments. 7.​In the absence of debaters&#39; clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals first, krtiks second, then net-benefits. You can easily tell me why I should prioritize differently in the debate. Additionally, if nobody is winning the theory as to why I should look to one argument first, then I will weigh procederuals vs. kritiks vs. plan/da/cp equally under net-benefits and weigh the impacts of each. So you should be winning your theory debate on your position.​ ​ 8.​How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. &quot;dehumanization&quot;) against concrete impacts (i.e. &quot;one million deaths&quot;)? ​As mentioned before, I prioritize probability first. I will still consider things like magnitude and timeframe, I just give more weight to more probable impacts. Therefore things like dehumanization can outweigh extinction or vice versa, as long as you are winning the probability debate. The other option is give me framework reasons as to why I should prefer magnitude or timeframe first. BOLDED TEXT REFLECTS CHANGES TO MY PHILOSOPHY ON 10/29/12 Case Arguments: Fact cases generally make me upset and uncomfortable because I feel I must always intervene. Value resolutions, a little less so. I am most comfortable with policy rounds because I think it incorporates the other two types of rounds and then goes beyond; however, I will listen to the round no matter how it is formatted. Affirmative cases should be well-warranted, clear, and solvent; after all, affirmative does get the benefit of choosing their case. I think inherency is a difficult battle to win for the negative; however the link and impact debate are incredibly important. I probably give more value to solvency attacks then other critics. I view solvency/advantage links as the internal link to all the impacts I weigh for the affirmative, so for the same reasons why proving a no link on a disadvantage make it go away, I feel the same is true for solvency. Lastly, I will default to a net-benefits framework until either team provides me with a different framework in which I should view the round. Disadvantage Arguments: Generally enjoy the disadvantage debate. Disadvantages must be unique, with well-warranted internal links and articulated advantages. I hate hearing big impacts like global warming or nuke war without a clear articulated scenario of how we get there and how the impact occurs (same goes for the affirmative case). Example of a bad impact: Emissions create ocean acidity and lead to extinction in the ocean and the world. Example of a good impact: CO2+H2O results in carbonic acid, eating away the calcium shells of shellfish and coral, which are the 2nd most biodiverse place on earth and a major food source for all animals. I WILL NOT DO THE WORK FOR YOU ON THE IMPACT DEBATE. Links are very important as well, and while a risk of the link will get you access to the impacts, probability will greatly decrease, which given the right affirmative rebuttal may still not result in me voting for large impacts. Link turns are only offense if the government is winning the uniqueness debate. Counterplan Arguments: The following are my default views on counterplans; however, counterplan theory is completely up for debate, and I will listen to any counterplan if you defend and win the theory debate. I actually enjoy very clear, competitive counterplans. Delay counterplans generally are unfair and honestly quite unnecessary, since if you are winning the disadvantage, the CP isn&rsquo;t required unless you have small impacts. Consult counterplans are a little less unfair than counterplans, but I feel somewhat the same towards these counterplans as I do towards delay. Consult CP&rsquo;s have a little more offense, though. PICs are fine, but a little abusive (just a little J). I would just hope that you have a specific disad to the part you&#39;re PICing out of. I&#39;m fine with topical counterplans. My default view is that perms are a test of competition, and not an advocacy. A perm is all of plan, and all or part of the counterplan. Anything outside of this, and I&#39;ll have a sympathetic ear to Opp claims of severance or intrinsicness. I prefer if you write out the counterplan and perm texts on separate pieces of paper to avoid debates about shifting perm/CP texts. I view all CPs as dispositional unless I&#39;m told otherwise. To be clear, this means that Opp can kick it only if Gov perms it. If Gov straight turns the CP, Opp is stuck with it, unless they&#39;ve declared it conditional at the top of the CP. Lastly, losing the counterplan doesn&rsquo;t mean a loss for the opposition. Multiple Conditional (and usually contradictory) Counterplans will probably lose you the round, if your opponents tell me why they are abusive. They force the gov team to contradict themselves, run multiple uniqueness scenarios and definitely skew your opponents out of the round. Please do not run them. You already get the option between the status quo and/or a competing advocacy. You don&rsquo;t need 3 more! (This applies to a kritik alternative and a counterplan, unless the counterplan is the alternative. Kritik Arguments: Framework of kritiks is incredibly important. Without a clear framework, I will simply weigh the kritik against the case, which generally means all you have is a non-unique disadvantage. I would much more prefer specific links to the aff case/rhetoric over resolution links (I am somewhat sympathetic to the affirmative when they don&rsquo;t get to choose the resolution or side). More local impacts (personal/individual) will get you further in terms of the solvency of your alternative than huge impacts like &ldquo;root of all violence&rdquo;. However, I will listen to larger impacts as well, as long as your solvency can convince me that I can solve the root cause of all violence simply by signing my ballot!!!. Your alternative should be written and clarified if requested, and your solvency needs to be articulated well. Best option for the affirmative to answer the kritik is to perm, answer framework, or challenge the solvency. Impact turning something like, &ldquo;the root of all violence&rdquo; is risky, and chances are, the kritik probably will link in some way to the affirmative case. T and Theory Arguments: I give a lot of flexibility to the affirmative to be creative with their interpretation and affirmative case. On the flipside, I enjoy topicality debate more than most judges. I guess the two balance each other out and will result in me being able to hear arguments from either team regarding topicality. Interpretations should be clear, and preferably, written out. Ground/Fairness claims should have proven in-round abuse in order to win them; however, you might be able to convince me that prep-abuse is important too. Otherwise, in-round is the only thing that will win you a fairness debate. Other standards and voters can still win you topicality, though. Your voters should be related to the standards for your interpretation. Short, blippy, time-suck topicality will make me very sad and less likely to vote for it. If you are going to run topicality, you should be putting in at least as much effort as your other arguments if you expect me to consider it. Other theory arguments like vagueness, policy framework best, etc are all up for debate in front of me. However, theory should be explained clearly, and you should give enough pen time on these arguments, since generally there are not as many warrants for theory arguments as there are for case arguments. Approach to Deciding: Net-Benefits paradigm until told otherwise. I cannot stress enough the importance of the rebuttal for evaluating impacts. Tell me where to weigh, how to weigh, and why I should weigh the impacts the way you tell me too. I prioritize impacts in the following order unless told otherwise: Probability of impacts comes first, Timeframe second, and magnitude last. I will not vote on a try or die of nuclear war that has low probability if the other team has a 100% chance of feeding 100 people and saving their lives. This is contrary to my personal political perspective that catastrophic rhetoric can lead to political paralysis. However, if you want to go for big impacts, you can convince me to change my prioritization of impacts by arguing why I should prioritize timeframe or magnitude. Convince me why timeframe matters more than anything, or probability, or magnitude. Any of these can be enough to win you the round, even if you are losing one of the other standards for weighing. Big impacts don&rsquo;t necessarily result in a win, unless you tell me. Without any weighing, I feel like I must intervene and do the work for you (which I don&rsquo;t want to do), and you may not enjoy the decision I make if I do. Without weighing being done, I will default to probability over timeframe and then timeframe over magnitude. If you fail to argue why I should change the way in which I prioritize impacts, you may lose the round despite winning the line by line because I will default to a more probable impact scenario. THIS IS IMPORTANT, since most judges evaluate magnitude first and this is not in-line with my own views on policy-making. So if you are a large magnitude impact debater, you must make it clear why the magnitude should come before a highly probable, small impact advantage for your opponents. Presentation Preferences: Speed is generally fine with me. There are only a few teams that may be fast for me, and I will let you know during your speech if you are going to fast. Should you decide not to slow down, then you may not get your argument on my flow. However, I believe that this is an educational activity while also a competitive one. Therefore, if your opponents are asking you to slow down because they can&rsquo;t engage, and you refuse to, you may win the round, but you may not get very good speaker points in front of me. I believe using speaker points is the best way of balancing my responsibility in making sure debate is inclusive and educational, but at the same time not being interventionist by giving somebody a loss for speaking to fast. Sitting is fine and won&lsquo;t affect your speaker points, but you&rsquo;ll generally speak clearer and quicker standing, so I don&rsquo;t know why you wouldn&rsquo;t want to stand for your own sake. I am fine with communicating with your partner, but will only flow those arguments that are coming from the speaker. If communicating with your partner is excessive, then your speaker points may be affected. The person speaker should be answering cx questions (but you can get input from your partner). CLARITY is the most important thing in terms of presentation.</p>

Michelle Brownlee - CSUN


Nicole Sandoval - SJDC

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&nbsp;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>

Rob Killian - Sac State


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>&nbsp;I always have a webcam with me. If you would like me to record your round and send it to you<strong>&nbsp;ask me</strong>. I&#39;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&nbsp;<a href="http://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;to share files in LD and Policy</li> <li>I&rsquo;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&#39;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&#39;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&mdash;if necessary&mdash;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&#39;t. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I&#39;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>&nbsp;I would like debaters to use&nbsp;<a href="http://www.speechdrop.net/">www.speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;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&#39;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>&nbsp;I&#39;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 &quot;accessibility&quot; and &quot;predictably&quot; standards in T. Here is the case list as of 2018. Get your stuff on it:&nbsp;<a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/</a>&nbsp;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>&nbsp;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 &ldquo;General Approach to Judging&rdquo; section, your speaks will be higher.</p> <p><strong>Topicality</strong>: Hey Aff&hellip;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&rsquo;m cool with the &ldquo;test of the aff&rdquo; approach but please be smart. I&rsquo;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&#39;t answer it well. I&rsquo;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&rsquo;m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards trend in parli. If you don&rsquo;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&rsquo;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>&nbsp;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&rsquo;t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear&hellip;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&#39;m pretty good if I&#39;m on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.&nbsp;<strong>Side Note</strong>&nbsp;on NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is &ldquo;antithetical&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;clear&rdquo; or &quot;slow.&quot; That said if you use &quot;clear&quot; or &quot;slow&quot; to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I&#39;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:&nbsp;</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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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


Sara Parker - Hartnell


Scott Laczko - Chico

<p>Copied over from tabroom. My basic beliefs about debate have not changed. for LD ... rules are debatable the more like policy debate you make the round for me the happier i&#39;ll be</p> <p>Updated 10/29/13</p> <p>&nbsp;I&#39;m still figuring out my paradigm and it is an every changing process as this is my first year out but, below ar my basic beliefs about debate. With that being said i&#39;m also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points.</p> <p>To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information. I debated for 3 years at CSU Chico</p> <p>the reason you read the philo- &nbsp;</p> <p>Framework and non topical aff&#39;s - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community &nbsp;bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it&#39;s own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the aff is very compelling to me.&nbsp;</p> <p>stolen from Sue&#39;s philo:&nbsp;if you are going to &quot;use the topic as a starting point&quot; on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I&#39;m probably not going to be your favorite judge.&nbsp;</p> <p>If that is unclear i&#39;ll state it another way. If you are not even loosly related to the topic you should not pref me. I believe that the debate should at least in the same hemisphere as the resolution. I believe it at the most basic level the resolution is the commonality that binds the activity together.</p> <p>K&#39;s- &nbsp;holy batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are running an uphill battle before me. I think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time it is impossible to talk about all of these problems in the world in a 9 minute speech. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense, I am not familiar with the liturture base. Why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do?</p> <p>T&#39;s - go for it i&#39;m down. i default to competing interpretation and don&#39;t like to vote on potential abuse</p> <p>C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA&#39;s. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized.</p> <p>case: 2a&#39;s hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days.&nbsp;</p> <p>theory: should always be where it applies. however i&#39;m pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team</p>

Stephanie Eisenberg Todd - Chabot

<p>I debated and judged at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in policy debate, but I have also judged/coached some parli and NFA-LD as well. I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for people who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over people who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them. I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply &quot;reject the team&quot; and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it&#39;s an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative with real world, coherent impacts. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate. I&#39;d say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. I&rsquo;m very sympathetic to &ldquo;reject the arg, not the team.&rdquo; &nbsp;I am always going to protect teams from new arguments in rebuttals, so you probably don&#39;t need to call a billion points of order to let me know what&#39;s up. &nbsp;I don&#39;t mind partner cross-talk so long as it&#39;s minimal, however I&#39;m not going to flow anything your partner tells you unless you&#39;ve set up a framework for sharing speeches...aka, if your partner wants to help you with an argument, you need to say it for it to end up on my flow. &nbsp;I am not cool with one partner dominating another partner&#39;s speech time, cross ex, etc.&nbsp; I&nbsp;believe many debaters could benefit from some sort of overview or round framing argument in their speeches, especially in the rebuttals. In debates where neither side is giving me a clear view of how I should evaluate the round, what I should prioritize or how I should weigh impacts, I will generally default to the side who I feel is most persuasive from a rhetorical perspective. I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the &quot;style&quot;. I look forward to watching you do your thang!</p>

Stephen Ban - Butte

Steve Farias - Pacific

<p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Steven Kalani Farias &ndash; University of the Pacific</p> <p><strong>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Updates: My threshold to vote on theory has decreased. Proven abuse is not a necessity on T, though it is preferred. Also, my thoughts on role of the ballot has changed under my section for K&#39;s.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Section 1: General Information-</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY IF PROBABILITY MEANS ANYTHING BESIDES A DROPPED, BLIPPED INTERNAL LINK&mdash;which I think it does.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don&rsquo;t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say &ldquo;I didn&rsquo;t get that&rdquo;. So please do your best to use words like &ldquo;because&rdquo; followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Section 2: Specific Arguments</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;The K&rdquo;- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that K&rsquo;s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.<strong> NEW:</strong> In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provied a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how should perform that role will be ahead on Framework. For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Also, please do not make myself or your competitors uncomfortable. If they ask you to stop your position because it emotionally disturbs them, please listen. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not. I believe you should be able to run your argument, but not at the expense of others&rsquo; engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality/Theory- &nbsp;I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either.&nbsp;Caveat- &nbsp;I think that negative teams should remember that a contextual definition IS A DEFINITION and I consider multiple, contradictory definitions from an affirmative abusive (so make Aff doesn&rsquo;t meet its own interp arguments).</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win my ballot on theory.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Counterplans- CP&rsquo;s are the best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team (or at least some alternative advocacy). It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with. I do not think that &ldquo;We Bite Less&rdquo; is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not in the end prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. This means if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the CP should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. Finally, CP&nbsp;perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T&rsquo;s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K&rsquo;s and Alts or CP&rsquo;s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Section 1 &ndash; General Information</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Experience</strong>: Rounds this year: &gt;50 between LD and Parli.&nbsp;8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 6 years coaching experience (3 years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale)&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>General Info:</strong> I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round; however, theory I generally have a high threshold for voting on except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Section 2 &ndash; Specific Inquiries</p> <p>1. How do you adjudicate speed?&nbsp; What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debater&rsquo;s lack of clarity you will say &ldquo;clear&rdquo; (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater&rsquo;s excessive speed, I expect you to say &ldquo;speed.&rdquo; In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to &ldquo;report&rdquo; me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don&rsquo;t find yourself voting for very often?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Evaluating rounds-</strong> I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T&rsquo;s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K&rsquo;s and Alts or CP&rsquo;s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achieveable at the end of the debate.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons i should ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all therory arguments are voting issues.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>5.&nbsp;Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Yes</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way you tell me too. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

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:&nbsp;</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.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>In NFA-LD:</strong>&nbsp;Please set up a&nbsp;<a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate.&nbsp;Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along.&nbsp;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&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;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&nbsp;<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules.&nbsp;</a>Specifically, the rules state: &quot;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&#39;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.&quot; 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>&nbsp;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 &ldquo;clear.&rdquo;</p> <p><strong>Procedurals and Kritiks</strong>&nbsp;can make for good debate&hellip;</p> <p>&hellip;but I find&nbsp;<strong>AFF Ks</strong>&nbsp;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>&nbsp;(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&mdash;in a concrete way&mdash;how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole.</p> <p><strong>Rebuttals&nbsp;</strong>are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters.</p> <p>I&nbsp;<strong>evaluate the round</strong>&nbsp;by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages.</p> <p><strong>Etiquette:&nbsp;</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&#39;t speak that way to competitors.</p> <p><strong>MISCELLANEOUS FAQ</strong></p> <p><strong>Sit or stand</strong>&nbsp;during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what&#39;s comfortable for you.</p> <p><strong>Partner communication&nbsp;</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>

Tim Heisler - LPC


Yaw Kyeremateng - Concordia

Zack Lampitok - Sac State

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>My Name is Zack Lampitok, I did both parli(4 YEARS) and policy(1 YEAR) in college. My function as a judge in a debate round is to render a decision based on what I am told to do by the participants in the round. I flow and go in the direction I am told. I have no qualms with any argument or style of debating. If you argue it, win it and tell me how it wins you the round, Ill vote for you. I do tend to enjoy creative argumentation but just because its creative doesn&rsquo;t mean it&rsquo;s a round winner. Critical arguments are as any other argument in a round, if explained how they function in the round and how they work in relation to the rest of the round, they are in play. If neg positions contradict the Aff must explain why that matters, why I should care and how that somehow delinks them or means it&rsquo;s an aff win.&nbsp; <p>&nbsp;</p> There does not need to be abuse to win a round on T, if there is a standard explained that provides the grounds for me to vote on T, I will. Competing interpretations can help but are not always required. Run any counterplan you like. Knowing the status does help. Be competitive in any way you see fit and can defend. <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;I try to avoid weighing arguments not weighed for me, so if they are directly opposing and not clarified by either side, they wash. Impacts are interesting, when competing, there absolutely has to be explanation of why to prefer and that explanation needs warrants for both sides. Death or dehum. I only care as far as I am told to care.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>