FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

A.J. Moorhead - Griffin

n/a

Adam Cassidy - Griffin

n/a

Al Arviso - EPCC

n/a

Alex Martinez - Biola

Amanda Hale - IVC

April Griffin - Cerritos College

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 Knuckels - Palomar

Barbara Gaustewitz - PLNU

<h2>Barbara Gausewitz - Point Loma Nazarene University</h2> <h3> </h3>   Background of the critic: Four years Parli at PLNU. Two plus years coaching/judging Parli, NFA LD, and NFL LD   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock issues,    policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I believe that debate is a strategy game, so I will listen to any argument a debater can make, and it is the job of the debaters to prove to me why it is a winning argument. I do my best not to do any work for you; your arguments need to have warrants and you need to weigh impacts to explain to me why you win.   If you don’t provide a clear framework I will default to net benefits and I will default to weighing the impacts that are most proximal and probable first.     Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   The more time I spend away from the activity, the more I realize that communication is important in grown-up life, and I wish debate did a better job teaching and encouraging real communication skills.    That being said, I view debate as a strategy game. If "presentation" is part of your strategy, use it. If not, then don't.    I hate lying, rudeness, and whining. If you make a claim that sounds weird to me, I WILL fact check it before I make a decision, so don't claim anything you don't know know to be true.    You probably won’t speak too fast for me to flow, but if you aren’t clear about where you are, I won’t know where to write those arguments, and it will be hard for me to evaluate them. If I'm looking looking confused and not writing your arguments, it is probably a good idea to pause and tell me where you are or what you mean.    Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:  The most important thing you can do is weigh impacts. I think it is fine for the neg to concede or drop case as long as they have something that outweighs case, and as long as you can explain to my why it outweighs case.   Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks: I have a high threshold on abuse positions, but again, I’ll listen to anything. I was a kritikal debater, and I like to hear kritikal arguments as long as they are well done. I don’t love politics DAs, but I vote on them all the time. I don’t have a head for economics, so if you have a complicated econ case, make sure that it is well explained. For me it doesn't get any better than a well constructed case and a pile of well warranted case turns from the Neg.    Preferences on calling Points of Order: I don’t do any work for you, and that includes calling your points of order. If you hear a new argument, call it, or else I’m going to flow it like it has been there all the time.   Other notes: Have fun, be nice. Debate is not nearly as serious or important as people treat it. I always vote for the team that better articulates and WEIGHS impacts. If I disclose after round, feel free to ask questions but for the love of God do not argue with my decision. Please avoid made-up words like "secondarily" and "specitivity."

Bear Saulet - El Camino

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Breanne Gannaway - Palomar

Brianna Quinterro - Palomar

Brooke Stevenson - OCC

Bryan Jones - PLNU

Bryan Malinis - OCC

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Chris Jamison - CBU

Chris Lowry - Palomar

DJ Kastrup - Palomar

Dana-Jean Smith - OCC

~~The first affirmative speaker must present a coherent case that addresses the stock issues of the particular debate. The first affirmative speaker must also provide a case that overcomes their prima facie burden and is topical for me to consider further argumentation. The first negative speaker’s job is to hold the affirmative accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities structuring a debate. Next, I do take kritiks and procedurals into consideration if they are well-structured and well-justified. Competitors must make both aprioi issues if they would like me to look at implications of reasoning or impacts of violating rules prior to the case when making a decision. Indeed, parliamentary debate resolutions are claims of fact, value, OR policy. Furthermore, I only take developed arguments into consideration. Claims must be backed by reasoning and evidence. Claims must also be linked to the plan, resolution, and or value of a debate. Lastly, speakers should not spread as strategy for decreasing their opponents’ comprehension of their case. While I can keep up with a fast rate of delivery, speakers must respect their opponents’ request to clear and or repeat information. If a speaker decides to speed, he or she must provide internal summaries in a normal/conversational rate of delivery.

Danielle Lawson - PLNU

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

Das Nugent - OCC

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Elizabeth Calvert - Glendale CC

Elly Garner - PLNU

I competed in forensics in NPDA Parli, NFL Policy and NFL LD. That said, I’ve been out of the scene for a few years and try to vote where the teams tell me to vote. I will consider most anything, but for transparency, my preference is for clash on the resolution and the potential implications therein. I am open to non-policy focused arguments, but you will have to really justify your argumentation. At the end of the round show me why you win, but do not make me connect the dots for you.  Having competed in both Policy and Parli debate, I can keep up with the flow, but that doesn’t mean I want to a massive load of unjustified claims. More arguments do not necessarily equal a win.  I need to hear you articulate links and impacts.  Debate is as much a communication event for me as it is a test of knowledge and analytic skills. I appreciate fewer well-developed arguments that are thought-out and articulated clearly over a throw everything at the wall fast and see what sticks approach. That said, I am never going to vote against a team for speaking fast. I enjoy well-defined burdens and resolutional analysis. I need impacts to decide the round. Policy is usually the best way to go, but not always. To me, the best strategy for the Opp is offense; a well-linked DA or 5and a good counter plan just for good measure. For both sides, give me arguments that win the round, not just arguments that stop the bleeding. Organization is critical for me, I crave numbers, letters, etc.  I like rebuttals that tell me where to circle/highlight for RFD. In your final minutes don’t go line by line tell me where and why you win. While I can (and do) vote on dropped arguments, I need to know how dropping an argument impacts the round. Tell me why they are important to my decision. Questions, just ask.

Emily Aldana - Mt SAC

n/a

Erin Crossman - Rio

Evan Ziegler - Griffin

n/a

Fadi Almachraki - Mt SAC

n/a

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.

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

Gary Rybold - IVC

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold   <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1>       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: PREFERENCES – 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. CRITIQUES - 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. SPEED – 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. ULTIMATE GOAL - 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.

Genesis Prizmic - IVC

Grant Toumasian - Griffin

n/a

Harrison Shieh - El Camino

Hasnu Kwatra - Chapman

n/a

Helene Saghieh - IVC

Hilary Boerger - Biola

Irma Acosta - EPCC

n/a

Jacob Armstrong - CBU

James Wilson - PLNU

James competed for over 8 years probably more counting home school and PLNU NPDA debate, and enjoyed the highest level rounds with all their intricasies as a competitor.  He will listen to most approaches without trying to bring his own biases into the decision making for awarding the ballot.  He is fine with speed, but not fond of sloppy speed - who really is?  He is about a year out of competition and helped to coach after graduating so has kept up on most current events, but has not been involved much this year due to getting a real life, wife, job, graduate school aps, you know - civilian concerns.  Keep it clean and weigh your impacts and he will be a happy camper.

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

Parliamentary Debate Judging Philosophy   The most important thing to me is that you are having fun and treating your fellow competitors with respect. Debate is a game, cherish the time you get to play it. It will change you if you let it. I believe that the beauty of the game of debate is that we are all active participants in the quest for excellence in communication. Therefore, my role in this game is to not only analyze and filter the messages you are sending back and forth but also to play a part in the feedback loop. I believe judges do this in two ways, the first of which is through my non-verbal reactions to the speeches you are presenting. Secondly, I get to provide feedback in the form of the ballot. Both of these should be equally important to you . To make your job of persuading me easier, I have included both my general view of debate and then some of my specific likes and dislikes (or things that I neither love nor hate).   Generally speaking I believe that the debate round itself is, and should always be, entirely up to the debaters themselves. My job as the judge is to interpret and weigh the arguments that you provide, in whatever framework or structure that you all provide. It is not my job or my responsibility to dictate to you what you should argue. If that is not vague enough, I will attempt to clarify further.   The issue of rate of speech. In regards to spreading I have a few viewpoints. The first is that I don't care how fast you go and subsequently I will have no problem asking you to go a bit slower or to speak more clearly if I cannot record the arguments that you are presenting. Second, I think that spreading is only harmful when it is used as a tool of exclusion. I recognize that this inherently creates a glaring threshold problem. For me this issue can be reconciled either before the round, by asking your competitors to speak slower, or during the round by leveraging arguments like you would for anything else, or both. In the absence of a physical disability, the threshold for abusive speed is a tough burden of proof for either side.   My view on procedurals. Feel free to run any procedural you want. I think the crux of that discussion is unique to every round but usually happens in the standards debate. The one issue that really bothers me is the idea of an RVI because “they ran this as a time-suck.” I believe that procedurals are an important tool of the NEG team and default to a “Conditional” status. It is very hard to convince me that the NEG should lose on issues of Topicality or SPECS.   The Critique Debate, Performance Debate and Issues of FIAT. I consider myself a critic that welcomes criticisms and performance debate. That being said I need two questions answered within the arguments of the critique. The first question is how do I evaluate your position and weigh it against the arguments of your opponents. Second, why does your argument mean the other team automatically loses the debate round. When judging a performance round I just need to know how to articulate the ballot. Now the fun one, FIAT. While I do believe that Fiat is illusory, I also think that it is a valuable tool that allows us to role-play as policy makers. How I weigh both pre-fiat and post-fiat implications differs based on the explicit arguments and strategic decisions that are made in the round.   Good luck and be brilliant!

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jeff Najarro - Rio

Jessika Seekatz - Palomar

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

John Pate - CBU

Jon Cotrell - Griffin

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.

Juliana French - IVC

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 />

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kim Perigo - Mesa

~~Content: I am looking for good argumentation structure and realistic/logical arguments—keep your slippery slopes to yourself. I do not appreciate stock cases or arguing definition that go well beyond what would be reasonably inferred via the resolution. I like good empirical analysis based on common knowledge and not one article that one person read. I am fine with debate cases being creative but will always consider topicality as a viable voting criterion. I will always look to the resolutional analysis first when I make my final decision. I crave organization—don’t make me think! It should be clear at the end of the debate what is on the table. Don’t ask me to make inferential leaps or assume that I see that world the way you do. I do not like off-case positions in the MOC unless it is in direction refutation of a new position in the MGC. Critiques should only be used if there is a really compelling reason to offer one. Generic Ks to me are a lazy way to approach debate. So, if you haven’t gotten the hint—I like good resolutional debate with plenty of analysis and impacts. I consider myself tabula rasa and try very hard not to interject my own political leanings into the debate. I will look at what is left on the flow at the end and weigh it out with the voting criteria levied. I do believe that there are three types of resolutions and do not appreciate quasi-advocacy cases—make up your mind, is it fact or policy? I believe that quasi-advocacy is abusive to the Opposition and will listen to any Opposition argument that makes this point. I am a traditionalist to a degree and prefer a stock issues debate for policy. I do not believe that the Government must be predictable but I do believe they must provide fair grounds for the Opposition. Delivery: To me, what sets parliamentary debate apart from other debate forms, is delivery and I expect to see good delivery skills. I do not like speed and will stop flowing if you are pushing me to the point of arthritis trying to keep up with you. I “grew” up in CEDA and believe spread is the worst part of that style of debate and will do everything in my power to keep it from happening in parli. Because of presumption, lack of in-round prep time, lack of cross examination and the block, I think spread is HIGHLY abusive; and therefore, never, ever, ever give my ballot to the team that spreads largely because you didn't win the argument you simply out-talked them. I like compelling, passionate argumentation and can live in complete harmony without one single ad hominen attack. I like wit, humor, and great analysis. I expect delivery to be as important as content and will be willing to give high speaker points to anyone whom possesses both the ability to understand the resolution/debate and the ability to competently deliver the content.

Leah Freeman - Biola

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Linda Farnan - Mesa

n/a

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Judging Background             While I am new to the debate judging experience, I am not new to the overall activity.  I was an IE coach and judge for Biola University for 4 years and am currently a coach for PLNU.  In another life, I would want to be a debater, but for this life, I have been working on understanding this activity by observing real rounds in past tournaments and critiquing practice rounds at PLNU practices.   Judging Philosophy             In light of my background, I view debate as a showcase in good storytelling as well as an exercise in sound logic and argumentation.  So, tell me a coherent story: how do the elements of your case (plan/CP, ads/DAs, Ks or whatever you decide to run) show that you’re winning the round?  Tie everything together; give me the big picture.  I also like to hear clear concise <a name="_GoBack"></a>claims, evidence of research, breadth and depth of knowledge, use of logic.  If you decide to run something complicated, tell me why this is going to win you the round.               Organization is important.  Tell me the exact location on the flow that you are addressing.  Don’t expect me to bridge any gaps in your argumentation.                 Be communicative.  From the rounds I have watched, I have learned that I’m not a fan of speeding.  Speak conversationally.   Use humor.               Argue with ethos—be professional.  Not just with your opponents, but also with your partner.  Being a shmendrik will not win you points.

Lyndsey Christoffersen - Chapman

n/a

Magan Hall - Mesa

Mark Linsky - Mesa

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Marquesa Cook-Whearty - Palomar

Matt Volz - IVC

Melissa Lazaro - PLNU

Melissa competed a number of years ago for Point Loma as an undergraduate in both CEDA and early Parli, and in most if not all IEs.  She serves as the ADOF for PLNU and works mostly with IEs and administrative tasks, so please do not assume that she is especially fond of cutting edge creative approaches if they stray from good clean clash on topical issues.  As an IE coach she values presentational skills very highly, and insists on logical consistancy, organizational strength, and a high level of respect and courtesy.  She also worked for several years as a professional trainer/business consultant and appreciates the real world skills taught by the actiivty, so choose your strategic approaches with that in mind.  Clarity, structure, and comparing impacts cleanly are your friends in pursuing her ballots.  Not fond of hyperspeed rounds.

Michael O'Connor - Vanguard

<h2>Michael O'Connor – Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic I was recruited to debate by the DOF because I had the fortune (?) of being a student worker in the department next to hers.  She saw something in me and gave me a chance.  I competed for 3 years in parliamentary debate as well as in impromptu and extemp.  It took me about a semester to warm up to competition -- but then I become 100% comitted.  Forensics changed my life and so as a judge I have a paradigm that forensics can (and should) be life changing.  I have been working in the "real world" for the past 18 months and I use my forensics experience most every day of my life.  That is not an exaggeration.  I take the skills you are honing very seriously.  I have not watched a debate round in close to a year -- which makes me rusty not stupid or incompetent.  My academic background is a BA in Business and I am currently taking classes to prepare me for my MBA.   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.  As a competitor I may have relished some of the gamesmanship of forensics, however, as a working adult in the business world I don't share that same opinion.  Communication matters in the real world and so it matters in this round. Don't go for the cheap win -- go for the exceptional win.  Win the BEST arguments in the BEST way possible.  Be impressive.    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. Remember, I use the skills I learned in debate EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE!  I want to watch this round and learn something.  Your speed and intensity don't matter without depth to back it up.  Please don't speak to me as though I'm an idiot just because I'm not aware of the latest and greatest debate trend....  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.  I come into the round a blank slate -- fill it up with what is important -- if you don't tell me what's important then you leave it for me to interpret -- this could get ugly for you.  In your rebuttals especially tell me where and why you are winning the round.  Don't make me guess.   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 issue is two-fold 1st most critiques that I've been privy to have been run terribly.  2nd in the real world you need more than key terms to impact an argument ... in Parli there isn't a lot of time to develop a decent K and I'm underappreciative of bad K's.  Take a risk, maybe you'll sell me on it -- but you have to ask yourself "do you feel lucky?  now, do you?" I will never tell a competitor you can't run a particular argument.  Run a K, a T, and extra T an effects T and through in a counterplan for good measure -- but if you don't sell it, I'm not buying.  It's your obligation to explain to me why each and every argument matters.  I will not do any work for you. I understand that partners need to communicate -- but don't make your partner look bad by speaking for them.  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.

Michael Martin - UTEP

<o:p> </o:p>   My judging philosophy is very motivated by good communication skills. I am impressed by individuals who speak clearly and eloquently in-round. Individuals with high skill levels in spreading tend to lose me. I also feel that speech should be as jargon free as possible but, if jargon is necessary, provide a quick explanation. I think that the K should be used appropriately. To elaborate, I feel using the K as the entire neg argument decreases education on the topic at hand and, consequently, allows for less research and general knowledge on the topic. The K can be very effective when used in conjunction with the counterplan or alternative, but I feel it tends to be a weak argument on its own.  I consider myself a tabula rasa as far as the issues go. I do my best to ensure that my own politics do not cloud my judgment, as I feel the debate should go to the team with the best argumentation.<o:p></o:p>

Mike McHan - Mesa

Patrick Lim - Palomar

Paul Bishop - SDCC

Peter Doesburg - IVC

Peter Jensen - SDCC

n/a

Peter Ludlam - Biola

Roger Willis - Mt SAC

n/a

Sean Hansen - Biola

Philosophy as follows:    TLDR:  I will pursue objectivity as much as I can while admitting my own unique subjectivity. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote for on the flow, and accept any framework or paradigm therein. <ul> <li> I have no problem with procedurals, Ks, performance, or whatever else you want to run, as long as you give me a solid way to interact that paradigm with the other arguments in the round. </li> <li> That also goes for good policy debate; I will always prefer well-warranted positions and I will be looking for good clash and impact calculus in both constructives and rebuttals. </li> <li> I dislike being forced to do my own impact calculus, so please do so at least in the rebuttals to make my decision easier.   </li> <li> My easy cheat philosophy is that turning case / advocacy and controlling root cause is probably the easiest way to my ballot. </li> <li> I despise fact debate and have similarly volatile feelings towards value, so please run either policy or critical argumentation. </li> </ul>   Otherwise, run what you want and give justification for it and I’ll have fun too! â&tilde;º For other preferences (admitting my own subjectivity), please see below:   Procedurals and Theory: I'm a bit of a theory nerd, so few things get me more excited than good procedural theory debate, but nothing can make me more bored than bad procedural debate. <ul> <li> I default to the belief that T should be examined under competing interpretations (as evaluated by the offense under the standards debate). </li> <li> Even if you run articulated abuse, I always look to the standards debate to prefer one team over another, and think that your standards should include substantial impact framing for offense. </li> <li> I would always prefer if NEG runs competing interp or even potential abuse and then ran case turns rather than articulated abuse, which then requires me to sit through an additional 7 min of arguments that don't link (see delivery notes on me being bored). </li> <li> That being said, if you just run apriori fairness and education as voters, I will default to articulated abuse and look for the requisite arguments. </li> <li> I also think good theory usually has a clear brightline for the interpretation that the other team can meet / violate. </li> <li> I admire creativity in running new responses to procedurals, but am familiar with traditional responses as well. </li> <li> I don't vote on RVIs for T, because I don't think being topical is inherently a reason to vote for the AFF. I may consider RVIs on other procedurals if they are well-warranted and impacted, but time skew arguments in general usually indicate that either you or your partner misappropriated time during your speech to allow for the skew.  </li> <li> Not a fan of spec arguments, but you could always change my mind by reading one that doesn’t sound unnecessary. Bear Saulet says it best: “Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.” </li> </ul>   Case debate: <ul> <li> LOC’s that allocate time and effort to the line-by-line on case make a happy Sean (although if you have awesome off-case that require more time, then you make the strategical choice – it won’t hurt ballot or speaks if you win on the flow). </li> <li> Especially great if it clashes over controlling uniqueness and link solvency. </li> <li> I think impact defense is a lost art and can grant you unique strategic ground in the round. </li> </ul>   CP: <ul> <li> I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. </li> <li> I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). </li> <li> I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. </li> <li> My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). </li> <li> Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt. </li> </ul>   K: I am a huge fan of good critical debate, and enjoy hearing new arguments. <ul> <li> Your framework should give clear indications of weighing arguments in round, as this is the first place I look to evaluate my decision. </li> <li> Since I think critical argumentation can be some of the most important argumentation to happen in our league, I also think your alt and alt solvency need to be solid. If you tell me to vote for you to uphold a certain ideology and win that I should do so, be assured that I will do whatever your alt asks, so make it worthwhile. </li> <li> Solvency needs to clearly articulate what it solves for and how. Blipping “Solvency 1: the personal becomes the political. Solvency 2: radical change is the only solution” are lazy arguments and can be answered with an equal lack of verve. </li> <li> I am most familiar with the literature base for rhetoric and media studies, post-structuralism, post-modernism, persuasion, and liberal education studies, but I love to learn new perspectives and ideas, so by all means run a project in front of me. </li> <li> In the last year, I think my ballots in K rounds (either given from AFF or NEF) tended to be split evenly for and against, so I’m just as open to any type of answers to K. </li> <li> You should probably explain how perms of methodological advocacies with policy plan texts function (and as always, provide a net benefit) </li> <li> I like clear Role of the Ballots that are read twice so I can be sure what my interaction is with the critique. </li> <li> As per procedurals, I do enjoy creative responses to Ks that provide depth of thought and clash. </li> </ul>   Performance debate: Quite honestly, I have similar judging paradigms and habits when judging performance / project / narrative positions as I do judging critical positions, so you can mostly see above for my preferences. I do find that the framework and theoretical debate becomes significantly more important in these rounds. I am open to hearing theory blocks or alternative advocacies from the opposing team in response.   Impact Calculus: <ul> <li> Good impact comparison MUST happen in order for me to resolve debate, including prioritization (with standards) of magnitude over probability, timeframe over reversibility, etc. </li> <li> Must happen at least in the rebuttals, is probably also a good idea in the constructives. </li> <li> I tend to prefer impacts of probability and timeframe over magnitude and reversibility, and have found myself voting more and more for the most proximal impacts (which are usually systemic in my mind) if no clash happens to tell me which I should prefer. </li> <li> If no calculus happens, I will prefer the “worst” impact, but at that point I think your rebuttals aren't doing a very good job because I have to assert more of my own assumptions into the round.  </li> </ul>   Delivery / Speaker Points: <ul> <li> I don't mind speed, as long you are articulate enough for me to understand you. </li> <li> I will call clear if you are inarticulate, but that has happened exactly once, because I had a sinus infection and couldn’t hear out of one ear. </li> <li> Speaker points tend to be focused on your argumentation, with considerations of your delivery proper a secondary concern. </li> <li> I generally reward between 23-30 <ul> <li> A 23 usually looks like: weak argumentation, poor strategy, inconsistent articulation / trying to speed when you can’t, and bad time allocation. </li> <li> A 30 usually looks like: exceptional refutation that combines great defense and offense, top-notch time efficiency, clarity, and outstanding strategy / round awareness. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I rarely protect against new arguments unless it’s an outround; I will be flowing, it’s your job to call arguments to my attention (plus I think that points of order can be of significant strategical value as well). </li> <li> I think partner communication is not only desirable but vital in this sport, so by all means communicate in-round with your partner. I will only flow what comes from the designated speaker’s mouth. </li> <li> I am trying to work on my nonverbal expressions in round so that you can keep track of how much I like / dislike your arguments before I release my RFD. <ul> <li> If I think you are going for the wrong argument I will be frowning at you a lot, with lots of furrowed eyebrows and extended eye contact (unusual since I’m usually looking at my flow). </li> <li> If I drop my pen, it’s usually because I think you’re repeating an argument and hope that you’ll move on, otherwise I’ll get bored. </li> <li> If I’m really Really REALLY bored, you will see lots of dropping of my pen and looking around the room. </li> <li> If I look at the team who isn’t speaking during the rebuttals, I probably think the speaker is making a new argument and I’m waiting to see if someone will call it. </li> <li> A quick head nod means I like your argument; a continuous head nod means I understand and you should move on. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I don’t care whether you sit or stand; I will (usually) be looking at my flow. </li> </ul>   Things that I don’t enjoy / make my decision harder / lose you speaker points: <ol> <li> Being rude / racist / patriarchal / homophobic / etc. in your rhetoric. </li> <li> Neglecting impact calculus in the rebuttals (AUGH). </li> <li> Politics DAs that assume your bill is “top of the docket” without any reason it should be. I’m going to quote K. Calderwood’s philosophy on this: “If you read a politics disadvantage that is not “the issue of our time” then you should specify the bill’s status and give some background about the bill at the beginning of the disadvantage.  On several occasions this year, I have heard politics disadvantages that were apparently on the “top of the docket” that I have never heard before.  I consider myself well read on the news, and I doubt the veracity of all, or nearly all, of the claims I have heard about the “top of the docket”. </li> </ol>   Again, a caveat to all the preceding observations and a return to the overview: I will vote for you if you win on the flow with well-warranted offense and good impact / framework calculus.

Shaw Davari - OCC

Sheri Strothers - Griffin

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..

Steve Robertson - Cerritos College

Sydney Awakuni - PLNU

Sydney Awakuni  2013 Background/Experience: <ul> <li>4 years of college experience- 2 years at El Camino college & 2 years at Point Loma Nazarene University – parliamentary debate, NFA-LD, impromptu, extemporaneous speaking, platform</li> <li>2 years of HS coaching experience at Narbonne High School</li> <li>BA Communication Point Loma Nazarene University</li> </ul> Core Values After competing in speech and debate for four years at a variety of levels/tournaments I’ve decided these are values I tried to uphold in rounds and would hope you would too! <ul> <li>Respect your teammates (they are like your family), opponents (how would you like to be treated?), judge, and any audience members.</li> <li>Play & Compete. To me debate is a game of intellectual batter so be fun and strategic!</li> <li>Signpost. This is crazy important. If you don’t tell me where an argument goes I will just place it best I can and I unfortunately don’t have mind reading abilities.</li> <li>Tell me how you me as a judge to view the round and WEIGH the arguments for me. Tell me what you want prioritized.</li> <li>I will do my absolute best to follow you, understand what you are saying, and make the best decision possible- good luck!</li> </ul> General Information/Questions You’ll Probably Ask Me: How I View the Round <ul> <li>I tend to default to the role of a policy maker. This means framing the debate in terms of magnitude and timeframe are really important to me. I also love it when debaters answer the question of “why”. So if you are going to say the world explodes- statistics/reasons of how we get there are crucial (aka: strong links/internals are your friend)</li> </ul> Speed <ul> <li>I like speed. I think it is a fabulous tool to be able to utilize. If I can’t flow you/think you’re going too fast I’ll try to tap my pen or something to let you know.</li> <li>I don’t like it when speed is used for the sole purpose of excluding your opponent-allowing them to engage in the round is more fun for you anyway. I won’t drop you because of spreading out your opponent but I may give you lower speaker points</li> </ul> CP <ul> <li>I think this is a great tool and usually a smart move on the part of the negative- if you are running a K you better have an alternative! Tell me why/how the CP is competitive and mutually exclusive. I don’t care if it is a topical CP because I view plan/affirmative case as one possible representation of the resolution.</li> <li>Perms- I always ran multiple perms &this think you can too. Perms with solvency or advantages are super strong (like you are saying actually vs. theoretically both happen).</li> </ul> Procedurals/Theory Arguments <ul> <li>Again I like these/used them frequently. I don’t usually vote on an RVI unless something crazy abusive happened.</li> </ul> The K <ul> <li>I will try my hardest to view the round from a more philosophical position if that’s what you want me to do. I find discussions about ethics/culture interesting (personally from a theological standpoint)- but I am NOT an expert. If you want the debate to be in that world please take the time to explain how these arguments function and how I ought to weigh them. This is not to say I don’t like the critical debate- I just didn’t debate that way, but I do understand the fundamentals.</li> <li>If you want to run a K and that’s a tool you like to use- feel free though- just note the above concerning my knowledge base of the position.</li> <li>There have been unique K rounds happening recently and I’ll be forthcoming to say I don’t like rounds where individuals are called out (keep it in the round) or when clothing attire is removed- please don’t do that.</li> </ul>   So have a good time in the round and also play to be competitive! If you have any further Qs please ask me. I’m new to being on the opposite end of the table as a judge so this philosophy may be subject to change.

Tiffani Smith - IVC

Tim Milosch - Biola

Tim Park - Palomar

Vanessa Gabriel - Grossmont

William Neesen - IVC

<h2>Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3>   Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach & Irvine Valley College Parli Debates judged this year: 40+ Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 10+ Years Judging Debate: 15 Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it.' Decision-making Approach: 'I really don t like any of the above. It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you. ' Assessing Arguments: 'I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were droped and why that makes them important.' Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to imput what I think and I love that.' Strong Viewpoints: 'No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scarry shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.' Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.' Other Items to Note: 'I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debator. '

2013 Griffin Invitational