FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adriana McCain - Chico

Andrea Brown - Ohlone

n/a

Carrie Evon - Concordia

Cole McLean - SFSU

n/a

Daniel Noriega - CSULA

n/a

Daniel Lopez - Hartnell

n/a

Diego Perez - Concordia

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

Evan Haynes - Pacific

Evan Haynes My Background I debated for 3 years at City College of San Francisco and 3 years at University of the Pacific in Parliamentary and LD debate. I graduated in 2016, and have come back to debate this year to be an assistant coach. General Comments I evaluate debates through comparative impact calculous, and I am open to whatever framework you believe the debate should be evaluated through. I think all speech acts are performance, and I am open to any type or structure of argument. I think you should run arguments you believe in or believe are the best strategy, not what you think I would like. However, when it comes to impacts, I prefer topically intuitive impact scenarios with well warranted explanation, even if they are much smaller in magnitude, to large impact scenarios that are relatively unexplained. Equity and compassion are paramount for me. I don’t believe more advanced teams should use speed or lack of clarity to prevent a substantive debate from occurring with less experienced teams. Critical Aff’s/Performance I enjoy many critical affirmatives, but if the Aff does not defend the topic, I become more easily persuaded by negative argumentation that the affirmative has limited the capacity for an educational and fair discussion to take place. Personalized performances can be transformative, but they can also be very difficult to judge in a competitive context. Negative Strategies I am most persuaded by deep and well warranted negative strategies that are topic specific. This can be the DA/CP or the K. CP theory is fine. But know I don’t think text comp is legit. Conditional CP’s are fine, but I am equally open to reasons why condo is abusive.

Jackson Spencer - CSULA

n/a

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Concordia

Janene Whitesell - Solano CC

I have been teaching argumentation and debate for 25 years. I am not a debate coach, but have judged debate rounds for as long as I've been teaching debate. Here's what you need to know coming into the debate: First, I believe that all forensics events are public speaking events. I expect speakers to stand and deliver. As long as lawyers, politicians, and preachers stand, then our community should as well. Second, I feel strongly AGAINST prompting your partner. Again, in the real world a speaker has to stand on their own. Many times debaters interrupt their partner and the partner loses their train of thought. The more egregious the prompting, the more likely it will be that I drop a team. Third, I'm not a fan of topicality arguments. I would rather the the opposition/negative clash with the government/affirmative team. If you want to run topicality, make sure that it is warranted and that you have nothing to say against the affirmative. Fourth, I usually don't vote on K arguments (in a similar fashion as T arguments). Finally, your university/college/coaches have invested time and money into this endeavor. Treat it with respect.

Janet Brehe-Johnson - LPC

n/a

Jason Hough - Hartnell

n/a

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Kelsey Paiz - Chabot

I debated for Chabot College, coached for Long Beach State and am now ADOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in NFA-LD, but I have also participated in/judged/coached some parli. Although I do have debate experience, I have been living in the world of IEs, so it's wise to treat me more like an IE critic than a debate one. I definitely prefer to hear discussion about the topic at hand over a critical case, but will vote on any argument (T’s, CP’s, K’s, etc.) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive. Especially if you run a critical argument, as this was not my forte, make sure you clearly explain everything about it and why it is more important for us to accept your kritik and reject discussion of the resolution. It is up to you as the debater to impact everything out for me and tell me why I should be voting for you over the other team. I’m not a huge fan of speed in either LD or parli. While you don’t have to speak at a “conversational” pace, if I can’t keep up with you, your arguments won’t end up on my flow. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can determine a winner. Tags and impact calculus are going to be the most important things to hit, and you can speed up a bit during evidence. I don’t mind if you communicate with your partner during a round, but the current speaker must say the argument in order for it to end up on my flow. The current speaker should be the one doing most of the speaking during their turn. Above all, keep things civil and have fun!

Kyle Johnson - San Jose State

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

New for the 17-18 season - looked at the poem and was like..... damn, this is old I see debate as a contest of two sides of an argument.  The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it.  Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party.  Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not.  What is the point of me trying to enforce rigid standards of competition that are not necessarily agreed upon by the individuals participating in the debate?  As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer.  I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me.  However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me.  At the end of the round I will render a decision based off of the arguments in the round as instructed by the participants of the debate.              To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate.  Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative.  The reason I feel this is unfortunate is that I believe the affirmative needs to offer an advocacy that would be better than the sqo.  This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion.  This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever.  While I may not have those requirements the negative team may and they may even have compelling reasons why lacking those concepts is reason enough for you to lose the round.  The purpose of this is to explain that the debate I am to observe is up to you to determine as participants in nearly all ways.  The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.             In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have.  The best RFDs I have seen starts with what people are going for in the rebuttals and they work backwards in the debate and I have tried to implement this style into my RFDs.  Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them.  Not because they are the “right” argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter.  Does that mean it affects the round?  No, of course not.  However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out.  Lots of people, the greatest people, like to ask my opinion on what I would do in whatever situation and I think it is a great way to learn a little more by asking these hypothetical questions.             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.               I feel as though there are certain places my mind wanders in a debate that I am forced to fill in for debaters and so I wanted to share some of those concerns with you.  First, impact prioritization.  I often times will have one team saying nuclear war will happen and the other talking about poverty and nobody compares the two arguments with one another.  They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad.  What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact?  Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round?  Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts.  Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur?  Maybe you could tell me.  Second, how to evaluate the round.  I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus.  I feel that teams debating in front of me who are surprised by my decisions do not generally compare their impacts against the other team’s as often/thoroughly as they should.  They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that’s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart.  I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to.  I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate.  It is not that I do not understand the concepts but it is your job to explain them to me so I can evaluate them fairly.  When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on.  I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not.  I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round.    Previous philosophy: Thoughts from Matthew Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing.  I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder.  If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.   Debate has been my home since 2k When it came to competing I did OK It is 2015 and I am still here Doing something that is so dear Before you decide that I am a worth a strike Question if that is really what you would like I have yet to go Mad as a Hatter don’t you fear But some of this may not be what you want to hear   Where do we come from and what have we seen Debate is about all of these things and more if you know what I mean Debate has something to offer us all Perform it how you want that is your call But when you say “new off”, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy… Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ   Don’t just deposit your arguments, I am more than a purse We all have our own rhyme rhythm and verse As fast or as slow before time has been met Say what you can, leave no regret Teach me these things you believe I will listen to any argument that you conceive   Many of you will pretend to be the state If you don’t it won’t make me irate Yet, I read as much of your lit as you did of mine I say this now so you don’t again hear me whine Explain what you mean and mean what you say Wouldn’t want that pesky discourse getting in your way   Do you think this is some kind of game Probability magnitude timeframe Impacts are not dead, they represent life Be aware of where you point your knife   Now comes the end of my little story Go off and live – fight for your glory I wish you the best with an open heart As a judge, my time is yours, until our ways part

Madeleine Calvi - S@B

n/a

Michael Trujillo - Chico

n/a

Michelle Brownlee - CSUN

n/a

Pablo Ramirez - SFSU

n/a

Paris Player - MJC

Salim Razawi - LPC

n/a

Sheelah Bearfoot - S@B

n/a

Stephen Sulyma - SFSU

n/a

Steve Farias - Pacific

Steven Kalani Farias – University of the Pacific PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   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's.   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.   Section 1: General Information-   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—which I think it does.   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’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” 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.   Section 2: Specific Arguments   “The K”- 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’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. NEW: 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’ 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.   Topicality/Theory-  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. Caveat-  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’t meet its own interp arguments).   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.   Counterplans- CP’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 “We Bite Less” 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 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.   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’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’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.   LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY   Section 1 – General Information   Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 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)    General Info: 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.    Section 2 – Specific Inquiries 1. How do you adjudicate speed?  What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?   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’s lack of clarity you will say “clear” (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater’s excessive speed, I expect you to say “speed.” 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 “report” me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.    2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?   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.    3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:   Evaluating rounds- 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’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’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.    4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue   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.    5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?    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.    6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months   Yes   7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?   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.    8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?   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.   9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?   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.    10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?   My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.   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!

Taure Shimp - MJC

OVERVIEW 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. GENERAL PREFERENCES In IPDA: 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.  In NFA-LD: Please set up a <a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a> room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate. Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along. If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if I am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules. </a>Specifically, the rules state: "Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate. If the evidence is only available in a digital format, the debater is required to make a digital version of the evidence available for the entirety of the debate at the opponent's discretion. For example, if an affirmative case is only available on a laptop, the negative should be allowed to keep the laptop for reference until the debate is over." In other words, it is in your best interest to have additional paper copies of your evidence and/or a viewing laptop that can be used by your opponent during the round. In Parli: Faster-than-conversation is fine, but I do not like spreading in this event. For me, it decreases the quality of analysis and becomes counterproductive to the in-round education. However, I will not ask you to slow down during the round or say “clear.” Procedurals and Kritiks can make for good debate… …but I find AFF Ks are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity. If you choose to run a Kritik (on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. If you are unable to articulate—in a concrete way—how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole. Rebuttals are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters. I evaluate the round by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages. Etiquette: I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don't speak that way to competitors. MISCELLANEOUS FAQ Sit or stand during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what's comfortable for you. Partner communication 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.

2017 Golden Gate Season Opener #2