Judge Philosophies
Alan Campfield - CSUN
n/a
Alex Leon - Rio
n/a
Ben Miller - Long Beach
n/a
Drew Lobenstein - LA City
n/a
Gary Rybold - IVC
<p> </p> <p>Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold</p> <p> </p> <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>I debated for four years of high school and four years of college. I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges). Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds. Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity. My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know:</p> <p><strong>PREFERENCES – </strong>I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies). I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced). I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions. Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round. The key term for every team is justify. At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position. I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points. I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters. Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet. I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions.</p> <p><strong>CRITIQUES</strong> - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me). Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot.</p> <p><strong>SPEED – </strong>I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out. So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices.</p> <p><strong>ULTIMATE GOAL</strong> - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values. My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Grant Anderson - UNK
n/a
Jessica Rush - CBU
Josh Kammert - CBU
Liza Rios - IVC
<p> </p> <p>Liza Rios – Irvine Valley College – Judging Philosophy</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>I started competing in individual events over twenty years ago. I have a MA in communication and teach a variety of communication courses. Recently, I have been judging more debate rounds. I do not yet have a strong theoretical foundation in advanced strategies, but I will try to understand your arguments and take a flow sheet. </p>
Lorina Tamayo Schrauger - Biola
n/a
Marcia Regina - LA City
n/a
Matt Wilsey-Griset - Chapman
n/a
Michael Marse - CBU
<p>I am a traditional debate theorist. I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years. I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years.</p> <p>What I do not like:</p> <p>Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument. </p> <p>Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus. If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate.</p> <p>Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all. It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others. Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed. Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me. The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds. Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly. The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points.</p> <p>What I do like:</p> <p>Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better. Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech. Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances. My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus. I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation.</p> <p>Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win.</p> <p>Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric. If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose. Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc. If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot.</p> <p>To conclude:</p> <p>The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory". The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there. We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries. We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments. The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate.</p> <p>Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.</p>
Mickey Korac - CSUN
n/a
Nicholas Butler - ASU
n/a
Paul Davis - Azusa
Rachelle Kamrath - UNK
n/a
Rosalyn Khan - Rio
Ryan Castillo - Long Beach
n/a
Whitney Rice - Long Beach
n/a