FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaliya Karolia - Mesa

Adam Cassidy - Mesa

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.

Ashley Nuckels - PLNU

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Breanne Gannaway - Palomar

Brian Gameros - UTEP

n/a

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

n/a

Canaan Ramirez - Palomar

n/a

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Darren Burdett - SDCC

David Berver - Palomar

n/a

David Berver - Mesa

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Dondi Dahlin - Grossmont

n/a

Dshene Cotton - Cerritos College

n/a

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE Background of the critic: I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic.  Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge.  Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention.    Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed.  Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations.  Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case.  I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. Any additional comments: This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds.  I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience.  If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round.  All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches.  Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW.  All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture.  I don’t time road maps but want them.  Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.

Eric Garcia - IVC

Evan Ziegler - Grossmont

Farah Moore - Grossmont

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

n/a

Hooman Hefzi - UCSD

n/a

Ian Sharples - PLNU

n/a

Jade Solan - Grossmont

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

Jay Arntson - Glendale-AZ

n/a

Jay Derby - Palomar

n/a

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jessica Haskin - Mesa

Joe Fejeran - Grossmont

John Vitullo - Mt SAC

Johnny Martinez-Ismmaher - EPCC

n/a

Jon Maddron - Cerritos College

n/a

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.

June Yang - Grossmont

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Karen Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Karen Nishie - Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic Two and a half years college parliamentary debate 11 years coaching parliamentary debate.  DOF at Vanguard University.   Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I am often called an "old school" critic -- which I think means I adhere to trichotomy (believing that there are three distinct types of resolutions with three types of argumentation that follow), I also follow stock isues with the rationale that they make for a cleaner debate than not. While I am well read I am not in the round -- meaning you don't have to argue the other team AND my biases/opinions. You should appreciate this. I have voted on positions that are, frankly offensive to my world view because that's where the debate went. I have never (to my knowledge) voted because the debaters did not cater to my world view nor have I assigned ballots to bad arguments that supported my personal world view -- I think that answers the question on tabula rasa. I may be the last judge standing who believes that opposition has presumption entering the round and that affirmative has specific burdens (like upholding the resolution, defining terms etc -- see stock issues). I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job. Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making Very. This is a communication event preparing (in my mind) you to be better citizens and better communicators. I can keep up with speed, I just don't want to have to. You should be persuasive, this activity is great training for a future in advocacy, law, education, ministry, homemaking...fill in the blank -- and in no profession (other than auctioneer or voice telling me the potential harms of some new medicine) is speaking as fast as you can possibly spew words out a positive. In fact, a lot of what I see (lack of professionalism, lack of politeness, lack of respect) will likely COST you in the "real world". If you are speaking so fast that you spit on me -- it will not reflect well on the ballot -- and if you have to breathe in so hard that you break a rib let it be known that I do not know first aid.   Also, as a side note, I don’t appreciate foul language at all, but particularly in public presentations that are meant to be persuasive.  Dropping the F bomb in front of me is likely to earn you ridiculously low speaker points. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making Very. Especially for the affirmative. For opposition you can stay off case, but all aff has to say is flow across and every argument they made stands -- in net benefits this may not benefit opp. Unlike some critics I think the opp has very few burdens (I believe they begin the debate with presumption and aff must prove other than the SQ is good) other than refutation and good argumentation. I will never drop an opposition team that did not run a counterplan.   One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech. Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for I find Kritiks over used and under impacted. I like links so if the kritik is well articulated, well linked and well argued, I will buy it -- otherwise leave if for other critics. Arguments about how vampires have rights, or how the X-men function are probably better left for other critics also. I am a pretty pragmatic person so being overly creative (modern dance, hand puppets, arguments in the form of Haiku) are probably lost on me. I see my role in rounds simply to evaluate the claims you make and weigh them in the ways that you tell me to. If you fail to tell me how things weigh out then you give me permission to make up my own weighing paridigm -- and that will be bad for you. <hr />

Kelsey Masters - PLNU

n/a

Kim Gerhardt - Mesa

n/a

Kurt Muelller - Palomar

n/a

Kurt Mueller - Palomar

n/a

Lacy Lowrey - Palomar

n/a

Lacy Lowrey - Palomar

n/a

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Linda Farnan - Mesa

n/a

Lorina Tamayo Schrauger - Biola

n/a

Marc Oimet - Palomar

n/a

Marie Arcidiacono - PLNU

n/a

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Mary Pearce - CBU

Matt Grisat - LSU

n/a

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

n/a

Melissa Lazaro - PLNU

n/a

Michael Elizondo - Mesa

Michael Elizondo - Grossmont

Nick Davis - Palomar

n/a

Paul Davis - Azusa

Paul Bishop - SDCC

Peter Laohoo - SDCC

Rachel Resnick - IVC

Reyna Velarde - CMC

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Glendale-AZ

n/a

Sean Withall - Mesa

Shae _ - Mt SAC

Sharon Choe - Cerritos College

n/a

Sheri Strothers - Grossmont

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 Griffin Invitational

Judge Philosophies

Aaliya Karolia - Mesa

Adam Cassidy - Mesa

April Griffin - IVC

Ashley Graham - El Camino

Ashley Nuckels - PLNU

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Breanne Gannaway - Palomar

Brian Gameros - UTEP

Caitlyn Burford - PLNU

Canaan Ramirez - Palomar

Chris Gutierrez - PLNU

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Darren Burdett - SDCC

David Berver - Palomar

David Berver - Mesa

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Dondi Dahlin - Grossmont

Dshene Cotton - Cerritos College

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

Eric Garcia - IVC

Evan Ziegler - Grossmont

Farah Moore - Grossmont

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

Hooman Hefzi - UCSD

Ian Sharples - PLNU

Jade Solan - Grossmont

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

Jay Arntson - Glendale-AZ

Jay Derby - Palomar

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jessica Haskin - Mesa

Joe Fejeran - Grossmont

John Vitullo - Mt SAC

Johnny Martinez-Ismmaher - EPCC

Jon Maddron - Cerritos College

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Jules Throckmorton - IVC

June Yang - Grossmont

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Karen Nishie - Vanguard

Kelsey Masters - PLNU

Kim Gerhardt - Mesa

Kurt Muelller - Palomar

Kurt Mueller - Palomar

Lacy Lowrey - Palomar

Lacy Lowrey - Palomar

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Linda Farnan - Mesa

Lorina Tamayo Schrauger - Biola

Marc Oimet - Palomar

Marie Arcidiacono - PLNU

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Mary Pearce - CBU

Matt Grisat - LSU

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

Melissa Lazaro - PLNU

Michael Elizondo - Mesa

Michael Elizondo - Grossmont

Nick Davis - Palomar

Paul Davis - Azusa

Paul Bishop - SDCC

Peter Laohoo - SDCC

Rachel Resnick - IVC

Reyna Velarde - CMC

Roxan Arntson - Glendale-AZ

Sean Withall - Mesa

Shae _ - Mt SAC

Sharon Choe - Cerritos College

Sheri Strothers - Grossmont

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

Stephanie Gomez - CBU

Stephen Thomas - CBU

Tatianya Dahlin - Grossmont

Tony Damico - Azusa