FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adrian Gonzales - Whittier

n/a

Alex Pineda - PLNU

n/a

Andrew Braun - IVC

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

Ashley Graham - El Camino

This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game.  Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win.  While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds. Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round.  That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important.  On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations.  This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds.  On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism.  I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them. On Speed: Overall speed is okay.  Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity.  Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice. On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to.  This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated.  For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response.

Bryan Lee - El Camino

n/a

Bryan Braun - IVC

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

n/a

Carl Simmons - CBU

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Chris Hacela - IVC

DANNY CANTRELL - Rio

n/a

David Berver - Palomar

n/a

David Beever - Palomar

n/a

Dshene Cotton - Cerritos College

n/a

Eric Garcia - IVC

Eric Lindgren - Whittier

n/a

Grant Beeson - PLNU

n/a

Ian Sharples - PLNU

n/a

James Dabaggian - AVC

n/a

Jason Croudace - IVC

Jen Clarry - El Camino

John Lewellen - IVC

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

Jules Throckmorton - IVC

JULES THROCKMORTON-FRENCH: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE   Background of the critic:   I've been involved with Parliamentary Debate for the last 10 years; whether that be competing, coaching, or judging. I competed from 2001-2004 for what was then known as the South Orange County Forensics Team (SOC). Since that time, I went on to earn my Juris Doctor at law school. However, my love for forensics brought me back to the speech and debate community. I've coached debate and individual events at both Saddleback and Irvine Valley College. I am also the Director of Individual Events at Concordia University.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I consider myself a flow judge. I don't have any particular likes or dislikes- I will be open minded to whatever you choose to run in front of me. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible. With that said, call every "point of order," or I will flow it.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   Communication is important as, after all, this is a communication event. However, good communication will only get you so far; I may award you high speaker points, but good communication skills will not necessarily win you the round. As far as speed goes, I am ok with a moderately-fast pace so long as it is CLEAR, necessary, and well signposted.  Remember that I have been focusing more on individual events this year, and as a result my flow has gotten a little slower. Be careful, b/c if you are going too fast I will not give any verbal signals.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:   I think a good debate involves offense and defense, and a good debater will never put all their eggs in one basket. However, there have been plenty of rounds where I've picked up OPP even though the on-case was conceded.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:   I will be open-minded to whatever you want to run.   Any additional comments:   I will time road maps!!! Make the round an easy call for me- weigh everything out and tell me EXACTLY where you're winning and why. Give me clear voters & tell me where to pull the trigger. Please be clear and signpost. Also, please do not be rude! Finally, I am old-fashioned in the sense that I believe you should stand for your speeches, and if your partner has something to contribute they can simply pass a note rather than yelling out.

Ken Lee - AVC

n/a

Libby Curiel - Rio

Liza Rios - IVC

Liza Rios – Irvine Valley College – Judging Philosophy       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.

Marc Avalos - Rio

n/a

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

n/a

Megan Jardine - CSUSB

n/a

Michael Henderson - AVC

n/a

Michael Marse - CBU

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. What I do not like: 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.   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. 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. What I do like: 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. 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. 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. To conclude: 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. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Rodriguez - IVC

Paul Bishop - SDCC

Rachel Resnick - IVC

Sharon Choe - Cerritos College

n/a

Sharon Duffy - SDCC

Shawnee' Biggerstaff - CSUSB

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

2010 It's Great To Be Free Parli