FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Cassidy - Mesa

Alina Ortiz - Vanguard

Andrew Martinez - OCC

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

Bailey Olsen - Palomar

n/a

Bear Saulet - El Camino

Ben Lohman - OCC

Brandy Brickey - Mt SAC

Brian O'Donnell - Grossmont

Brianna Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Brianna Nishie – Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic While my high school did not have a debate program, I spent my high school weekends at PSCFA tournaments watching rounds of debate.  Upon entering Vanguard University I immediately joined the speech and debate program.  I was a modestly successful debater who spent much of her Junior and Senior years as a competitor working as a peer coach.  I graduated VU in May, 2011 and worked the last 2 years as the assistant coach at Vanguard.  I currently work in social media as well as a speaking coach for professionals while continuing to help the forensics community with coaching/judging.    My academic background is in communication with an emphasis in PR.   I was trained by what can best be described as an “old school” parli coach – and I have several of her fundamental traits in my own philosophy.  I have, however, more tolerance for some technical arguments than my former coach may have had.    I do not look at debate as a game.  The fundamental reason for this is that there are too few “rules” and the “rules” get to be “interpreted” for each team….this to me is problematic in terms of fairness.  I do feel that parliamentary debate has its foundation in the ideal of generally educated people being able to present an argument on a topic with limited preparation time Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) As a former debater who lost more rounds than I can count because I ran value on what I considered a value resolution but lost to a judge who thought that the only “true” weighing criteria was through a policy lens, I have to say I’m a bit sympathetic to trichot arguments – assuming there is an adequate justification for the argument.   I believe that there are certain stock issues that should be argued; if nobody talks about definitions or a plan or who enforces the plan (for example) then how do I know if the plan is a good idea?  Tell me where I’m voting and why.   Sometimes resolutions do call for debaters to act as policymakers – in this case one should clearly delineate what the harms are, how the harms are to be solved and what the advantages of solving the plan are….It might help you to know that my political leanings are probably more conservative than the average judge on the circuit when making a plan…   Finally, in the age of group preparation – make sure you understand any specialized case that was constructed in prep time.  Please remember that this is parliamentary debate, don’t just read your plan text and PLEASE don’t toss an extra copy to the opposition so you feel exempt from the obligation to explain your case – this is not CEDA.   Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making   Parliamentary debate was founded in response to what had become a loathsome communication event – CEDA – and it seems that a lot of the reasons people left CEDA (speed, spread, reading evidence with no audience connection whatsoever) are seeping into Parliamentary – that doesn’t make me happy about it.  Speak plainly and clearly – sometimes you have to go fast – ok, but if you go too fast so that the communication has left the event – don’t expect high speaker points and if I can’t keep up don’t expect to win.  This doesn’t mean speak to me like I’m an idiot.  Be persuasive.  You can be a horrible speaker making fabulous arguments and win – you can be an incredibly persuasive, articulate speaker making horrible arguments and you can lose.  Moderation is a good thing here. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making On-case argumentation is important – if you make it important.  Dropped arguments can also be very important in terms of what your opposition decides to do with them.  Not every argument needs a ton of attention – so use your time wisely.   Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for   I am not a fan of critiques – I feel this is more an issue of the way they have been flung around as largely non-linked disadvantages.  I could probably vote on a K if it was very well articulated – but that’s your job.  I’m not a big fan on procedurals – again, a personal bias – but procedurals are an available tool – so if they are necessary – use them, but explain why I should weigh them in the round.   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.   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.   Be personable, have some fun, and be brilliant.  Tell me what matters in the round.  Tell me what wins.  Give me every opportunity to give you the ballot.    <hr />

Carl Simmons - CBU

Chris Hacela - IVC

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Cindy Phu - Chapman

n/a

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Daniel Elliott - Biola

Experience: <ol> <li>Competing: I was trained for CEDA though our small school did not have the time or funds to keep up with the research so I did Parli for two years back when Parliamentary Debate was just getting started in the west, 1996-1998.</li> <li>Judging: I have since = judged in many different tournaments as an assistant coach. I took a couple of years off to get married and now I am back as the Director of Forensics at Biola University. I have judged too many rounds to sit down and try to do the math. I have been around a while.</li> </ol> Decision making: <ol> <li>I first make my decision according to my flow. I could totally disagree with you but if you say something is important or critical to the round I will write it down. If there is no response from the other team then that argument might win the round.</li> <li>I make my decision according to logic. I do not believe in tabula rosa. I will look at the arguments, especially in a round of a lot of clash, and decide what is supported with the best evidence and what makes the most sense.</li> <li>I accept procedurals. You do not need to prove abuse to run a T. You can run solvency presses, specs, Kritics, and tricot. I will listen to them all. I do not buy the risk of solvency arguments. If you have a plan that is likely not to solve that is the place where I will pull the trigger for the neg.</li> <li>Finally on Kritics, I do not like Kritics that are really nonlinear disadvantages in disguise just dressed up like K’s so that you can kritic the mindset. They K itself is nonlinear. The harm is already in the status quoe. There is no bright line to suggest that the rhetoric will make it worse. So save yourself the trouble and do not run them because I do not want to hear them.</li> </ol> Presentation: <ol> <li>I think speed is antithetical to debate. Debate is about persuading your critic. Debate is supposed to train you for real world debates. How does talking at 200+ words per minute train students to argue in the real world? It robs debate of Ethos and Pathos which are just as important to logos in Aristotle’s paradigm. Logos is the most important of the triad but I want to see the other two.</li> <li>So please rise and speak if there is a lectern available. If not then you may speak from your seat.</li> <li>Be as professional as you can. It makes you more credible as a speaker. The more credible you are the more persuasive your arguments will seem. There is plenty of great research to support this.</li> </ol> On Case arguments: <ol> <li>I like on case arguments. I don’t want the debate to become like two ships passing in the night.</li> <li>I do not want the Aff to spend 30 minutes of prep only to spend the hour of our lives listening to Neg’s off case positions. Since logic is very important to me I would advise Neg teams to try case turns and presses in addition to K’s and DA’s It can only help you.</li> </ol>

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Test 123

Darren Burdett - SDCC

David Berver - Mesa

Denise Schulmeyer - Grossmont

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Dshene Cotton - Cerritos College

n/a

Eddie Tiongson - El Camino

Eric Garcia - IVC

Farah Moore - Grossmont

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn. There are lots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, but I try not to bring them into the round. Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you CAN lose a round if you drop one little argument; if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework arrgument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool in any way, or ask me to vote on real world impacts. I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have "won."  A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up.  Because I try to base my decision based only on arguments that are made in the round, I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad. Likewise, you don't have to run only liberal positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or care if they are "true." In general, know that I believe that debate is a game.

Grant Beeson - PLNU

n/a

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

n/a

Ian Sharples - PLNU

Ian Sharples Fall 2012 DEBATE EXPERIENCE - 2003-2006: Mostly LD and Parli at Centennial High School in Bakersfield, CA. I also did Congress and one tournament of Public Forum. - 2006-2011: NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA-LD at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, CA. - Currently Coaching at PLNU JUDGING INFO - My general philosophy could be described as 'argumentative anarchy': if you can justify it, you can go for it. But, like everyone, I still have biases, which is what judge philosophies are for. - I am willing to vote on any argument that is made in the round, but I have no problem ignoring things that are not arguments. - My basic threshold for an argument is that it must be warranted, internally coherent and have a terminalized impact. - Overall strategic choices almost always have greater influence on my decisions than line-by-line details. Knowing how you are going to win the round before it starts will go a long towards a ballot in your favor. - Most debates are lost in the LOC/MG or won in the MOC/PMR. The first scenario is far more common. - Most of the rounds I watch are in PSCFA. I have noticed that 'National circuit' teams generally do a better job of using strategy and warrants compared to 'PSCFA/Com' teams. Problems with internal coherence apply to both circuits. - I haven't seen too many rounds this year between really good teams that are evenly matched, so I am still learning how I evaluate those situations. But for the rounds I have seen, line-by-line is more important, because they tend to be doing the basics right. POSITION SPECIFICS - Framework debate is important, but I usually resolve it by evaluating case and K on the same level. The exception is when teams give clear and justified prioritization. - I think all positions are conditional all the time, unless otherwise stated. - On topicality: I go for an abuse/fairness paradigm in Parli, and competing interps in LD. The difference has to do with changing v. stable resolutions. - For other procedurals/theory: Out of laziness, I tend to default to an abuse paradigm, because that is what I am used to with T, but I am extremely vulnerable to competing interps, so just say it. The reason has to do with the implications of this theory debate on future parli rounds. - I like the strategic value of critical arguments, but I still think most K lit is not very good. I will listen to it in round. - I like positions that play with the boundries of argument, or radically reimagine what a competitive debate round could be. I enjoy good theory debates. OTHER STUFF - Points: 27 = should break at this tournament, 29 & up = top tier for this tournament. I use half points. - PSCFA has a rule that you can't tie points, and I've gotten in the habit of following it. Apologies in advance if this inadvertently screws you out of a speaker award. - Physical limitations on flowing: I cannot hear in my left ear, and my typing speed is ok but not super fast (but still faster than I can write). Super fast and intricate rounds (which I love) will give me problems, sorry. - Like: Aristotle, Locke, Mill, Foucault / Dislike: Marx, Kierkegaard, Lyotard, Derrida / Entertaining: Nietzsche, Friedman, Hitchens, Zizek - Things I am currently interested in: Neuroscience, Political Psycology, Cities, Early Modernity.

Jason Hong - IVC

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jeff Archibald - Mt SAC

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jin Nakama - Mesa

~~As a baseline, I might best be characterized as traditional debate theorist and an ideologue-critic with a symbolic touch. My views can and do change, but there are some things you might like to know about me how I approach debate as an activity… I take a good flow, but I won’t allow my flow to bind me. I will vote on and off the flow in whatever way I think will allows me to render a true and fair decision. As debaters, your role is to debate the resolution and my role is to determine the outcome of a round. I take a humanistic view to debate, and I expect arguments and cases presented are done so in a manner that connects with our experiences. The process of argumentation and evaluation does not happen in a vacuum, it happens within the context of experience. This does not mean that arguments must conform to my worldview, but rather, that arguments should be grounded in the world around us. If you’re going to paint a picture of a different world, that’s fine too. In general, it should just make sense within the narrative you choose. #Policy Where the resolution stipulates a call to action, I adopt a stock issues paradigm and artificial presumption. Stock issues answer the questions needed to resolve questions regarding the adoption of the resolution—and so, the Affirmative team must affirm all five stock issues (Inherency, Significance/Harms, Solvency/Advantages) in order to secure the round. Failure to bring a prima facie case, will result in my defaulting to the Opposition team on presumption. Because of the nature of parliamentary debate and its limited prep, my thresholds aren’t as stringent as they are in traditional policy formats, but please know that the less time you spend laying out and defending each stock issue, the weaker they will be and the easier it will be for the Opposition team to negate them. You need only lose one to lose the round. Absent a specific call to action, I will look to Framework first before I look to line-by-line argumentation. The Resolution should remain the focus of the debate, and any impacts on cause should be both reasonable and probable outcomes. Extremism, terminal impacts or arguments that are morally bankrupt hold little sway over me, however, if you think you can argue these points with success, I will listen to what you have to say, albeit with a raised brow. Whether or not the Affirmative team has met their burden upholding the resolution will determine the outcome of the round. #Fact/Value In F/V rounds, I look to the body and quality of arguments and weighing analysis. Arguments should go to the probative and have a clear link to the criterion and how that proves or disproves the resolution. Remember, facts and examples are not arguments. They should be used to support your arguments. #Procedurals I look here first as these are a priori issues. Generally, these should be employed as a means of demonstrating in-round abuse, though if you think you have good enough reason to run it based on competing interpretations, by all means, go for it. I vote on issues of fairness before the impacts of case because fairness as a practice extends beyond the round while the impacts of case are limited to just that round. #Speaker Points Speaker points and ranks are determined based on style and conduct. I was taught to debate traditionally, and I proceed accordingly. When the round begins, address me directly and not the other team during -all- points of interaction. Please stand when you speak.  Partner-to-partner communication is strongly discouraged, however you may pass notes. I value etiquette very much and I am likely to punish any perceived hostility by deducting speaker points with liberty. #Speed I view debate as an art and practice in persuasion. Parliamentary debate provides little justification to speak at nigh unintelligible speeds. Speak to me as you would your grandfather, though please not so much as though I were a golden retriever. #Final Thoughts I believe judges have three major functions in this activity; Educator, Adjudicator, and Trustee. As Educator, a duty to help guide and provide perspective on the event; as Adjudicator, the task of deciding the outcome of a round; and as Trustee, the responsibility of preserving and protecting the integrity of the activity as a whole. So, even if you win on my flow, but I find you sorely lacking in good conduct, you will lose on my ballot. I have a great love for this activity and oral tradition. I will judge your round with enthusiasm and give you my very best, without exception. My request of you is that you please give me yours. I’m delighted by good company, so if you see me wandering around during tournaments, feel free to say hello and have a chat! Happy debating and good luck!

John Pate - CBU

Jon Sonoda - PLNU

n/a

Jonathan Burrello - Biola

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.

Joshua Kammert - CBU

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 />

Katrina Taylor - Cerritos College

Kay Flewelling - PLNU

n/a

Keith Townsend - EPCC

n/a

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Briancesco - Glendale CC

n/a

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Linda Farnan - Mesa

n/a

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.

Maria Rubio - UTEP

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

n/a

Melissa Lazaro - PLNU

n/a

Michael Brooks - UTEP

n/a

Michelle Brooks-Johnson - CMC

n/a

Naomi Young - Grossmont

Noah Guest - IVC

Rebekah Bell - EPCC

n/a

Reyna Velarde - CMC

n/a

Richard Cline - PLNU

n/a

Roger Willis - OCC

When Judging parliamentary debate I look for solid arguments that are well explained. I do not mind the use of jargon, but I do not care for speeches that contain too much jargon and not enough substance. I do not like spreading. I enjoy an interesting position, even if there is a performance case, but I vote on who adequately argued their position on the resolution presented. I am happy to judge value, fact, or policy debates.   I have little experience judging or watching Lincoln Douglas debate, but I would look for well supported cases with appropriate evidence.

Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC

Shae _ - Mt SAC

Sharon Taylor - Palomar

Sherana Polk - OCC

First, I like arguments that just make logical sense.  Rarely will I buy that a plan is going to lead to a nuclear war; no matter how many internal links you have. So please make arguments that are realistic.  However, I try my best to judge the round only on what the debaters say and not my personal opinions.  Therefore, if a team does not respond to an argument, no matter how illogical that argument is, I could still vote for it.  I don't think that you have to respond to all 35 warrants to say why one argument is ridiculous but you do have to make a response.   Second, delivery is important.  The only way to be persuasive is to be understandable.  If you are spreading then you are less understandable.  If I can't understand you then I am unwilling to vote for you.  Please be organized and signpost where you are at.  If I am lost I am less willing to vote for you. Third, I think that there are three types of debate.  So I like listening to policy, value, and fact debate.  Trying to shove policy into every debate topic annoys me.  So run the proper case for the proper resolution.  If you decide not to and Opp runs Tricot then I will vote there.  I also think that Gov should always stay on topic.  So if Gov is non-topical then run T.  I don't think that T must have articulated abuse in order to be a real voting issue.  If you are non-topical, no matter how debatable the case is, you lose.  So just argue the topic.  I am willing to listen to Kritiques.  I am not a fan of K's because the vast majority of times that I have seen K debates they are unclear and really is just a tactic to not debate the actual issue.  However, there are sometimes when the K is necessary.  So run it at your own risk.      Overall, I really like debate.  If competitors run clear arguments, with strong pathos, and are civil to one another then I am a happy judge.  So do your best!

Sherris Minor - Palomar

I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  I tend to not vote for fact or value debate and overall I prefer policy because I think the former encourage judge intervention.  I also do not find the “trichotomy” of debate particularly compelling unless it is used to justify policy debate.<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "></o:p> <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter, most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become to much for me to handle. I haven’t had to do that yet this year. Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot. The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Procedurals are fine to run in front of me, but I do not vote on potential abuse. I don’t tend to vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”   <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Condo, Overall, I believe all arguments in debate are conditional you choose to go for the ones you are winning and not go for the ones you are losing. If you want to run condo bad and impact out why their conditional cp/ alt is detrimental to the round go for it. I think it is all part of strategy. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate and I will always listen to them. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> CP/perm theory is anything goes until someone tells me why it is not ok. You need to explain your theory to me don’t just expect me to know what your perm means. Multiple perms are ok. I believe both perms and CPs should have a text. You should also explain how your perm functions in the context of the round. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run (for the most part).  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.   <div> </div>

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..

2011 Griffin Invitational