FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Sabbas - Palomar

Al Arviso - EPCC

n/a

Ali Aldhalimi - Grossmont

Anasheh Gharabighi - CSUN

n/a

Ashley Furrell - CSUN

n/a

Ashley Knuckles-Cuevas - Palomar

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon Rivera - Palomar

Section 1: General Information I competed for Northern Arizona University and am now coaching at San Diego State University. This is my second year judging collegiate debate and my first year coaching. My background is in Political Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, and Ethnic Studies. I was a “kritik” debater in my undergrad, but I would appreciate if you did what you know best. The biggest thing for me in debate was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen. I hope to facilitate this role for debaters in the community and give people the opportunity.     Quick Notes:   DO WHAT YOU DO. Just because I know critical arguments more does not mean that I want to see those debates all the time. This is especially true if a team deviates from what they are good at in order to try and please me. Whether its “first strike” or “reject white civil society”, I will vote if I think you win the round.   I vote on examples within the debate more than a certain style of argument. By example I mean a historical, social, popular culture, or another type of event that helps to describe how your argument functions. “Dehum leads to otherization and is the logic of genocide” is not an example.   “Perm do both” is a borderline acceptable perm text. If you read these perms you roll the dice, especially if the other team points out that the alt/cp says vote neg. I know it takes time to read out both plan text, but I think it makes for the most stable perm debate.   Just because its dropped doesn’t mean I have to vote. I vote for well articulated and impacted arguments. Usually when something is dropped this means the other time gets to impact out their argument and prove why that argument is the most important in the round. Simply extending a drop does not guarantee “game over”.      Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following.   1.       Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25-30   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   I think that this is the type of argument that I know the most. I like critical arguments, but think that they require a few levels of analysis. I require a stable interpretation on the framework in order to give me something to evaluate the round. I do not believe that you “win framework = winning the round”, but do think that the framework gives you access to the impacts of your critical argument. I also prefer to have some explanation of your method, especially when the case is much more performative. I think that the affirmative can run a critical argument. The affirmative can both affirm the topic in a critical way, as well as read an affirmative that deals with larger social issues. Regardless of the route you take as the affirmative, the framework must justify the method and the viewpoint that you want me to evaluate the round based on.   I know there is a growing trend towards arguments that “function in multiple worlds” and often contradict each other. My personal disposition on the issue is that I think “contradictory” arguments make the debate confusing and I do not get why severing rhetoric is “ok”, even it is key to competitive flex. That being said, this is debate and if you have good reasons why being contradictory is good, I will vote.   3.       Performance based arguments…   This is another type of argument that I ran as a competitor and am generally familiar with. You need to justify your position and explain how your performance functions. I generally see all debate as a performance, and therefore it is the responsibility of the team to tell me why I should prefer one performance over another.   4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I really like theory and think that it is one of the more under utilized positions in parli. I need in round proven abuse to vote, but will also listen to arguments about potential abuse as a voter. I generally think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate a procedural, but am open to different weighing mechanisms. I think the most important part to theory is making sure that teams have impacts built into the standards debate, and weigh those impacts against other claims made in the debate. I do not do work for you on procedurals. If you do not provide a counter interpretation, or just “cross apply case” I will not infer what you mean by that strategically.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   I think that the “PIC” debate is one of those things that debaters need to resolve in round and is largely contingent on the interpretations of the theory debate. I think that the opposition should give the status of the CP regardless. I think that most perms are best when they are functionally competitive. I have a very limited understanding of what text comp is and why it is important. If this is one of your go to arguments, please clearly explain what you mean and how you think that functions.   I did not read to many counterplans in my day. This means that if I hear something like consult, delay, “cheeto-veto”, I am less prone to know why so many people in the community do not like these positions. In other words, please be clear on your theory if you think these types of counter plans are “cheating”.    On the perm I require a perm text. This is not a written copy of the perm, but the aff should read the entirety of the aff followed by the parts of the negative that they want to perm. This helps me evaluate how the perm functions and increases the likelihood I vote. If a team says perm “Do both”, and does not explain what do both means, I am less likely to vote for those types of perms.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   I can see this being useful, especially if a more experienced team is willing to let a less experienced team have a look. I don’t have a predisposition but don’t waste time and get me in trouble for making the tournament late.   7.       In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?   I will look at the framework level of the debate in order to see what lenses and prioritizations I should put on the impacts. From there I will usually default to impact comparison made in the debate round. I do not necessarily think that procedurals come before a kriticism, but if no one collapses or weighs impacts, I would probably look at the procedural first. Sorry this section is not more helpful.   8.       How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?   If this is the situation that happens, no one will be happy. I do not have a general rule on these issues, but would probably weigh large-scale flash point impacts over theoretical concepts like “dehumanization”. I think debaters should avoid this situation at all cost, and can do so by making internal link claims in the implications. For example, if one team says that dehumanization is the root cause of all violence and the other says “nuke war”, I would vote for the “dehumanization” impact it comes before all violence.

Brianna Quinterro - Palomar

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 />

Bryan Malinis - OCC

CJ Sodikov - Grand Canyon

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Colton Salaz - Grossmont

Courtney Gammariello - Biola

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.

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Testing 123

Danny Iberri-Shea - Palomar

This is from the 2006 NPTE. Danny Iberri-Shea NAU Parli Debates judged this year: 60+ Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 10+ Years Judging Debate: 4 Years Competed in Debate: 8 What School Competed at: L.A. Valley Moorpark NAU Making Decisions: '--My decision is based on my approach to decision-making though I do consider adjusting for what the debaters argue I am fine with games but please explain/justify what you are attemting to do.' Decision-making Approach: '--I focus on the stock issues (the government needs to show significance/harms inherency solvency disadvantages or for fact-value topics value-criteria and contentions) Solving for harms is more important to me than having groovy advantages. Significance is a stock issue.' Assessing Arguments: 'Weak arguments can be dropped without penalty. Weak positions should be promptly kicked. You can t have your cake and eat it too! <img alt="" src="http://www.net-benefits.net/images/smilies/smile.gif" />' Presentational Aspects: 'Any delivery rate is fine so long as it is clear. I don t like seeing speed used as a tool of oppression but then again I don t expect any novices at the NPTE. Have fun!' Strong Viewpoints: 'I find economic theory painfully boring. If the topic forces you to argue economics I would rather hear the human/labor/environmental perspectives that relate to economic theory.' Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I love theory and jurisdictional stuff. That being said I feel that way too many neg teams rely on PICS these days as a means of avoiding critical and deeply challenging positions to cases. I will listen to most any position including why topical counterplans justify voting aff.' Other Items to Note: 'Not all claims warrant a plan. Think about what the resolution is asking you to prove. Be topical. Create unique burdens/criteria to prove each unique claim. Plese stand up for all questions and all speeches (this is only polite). Have fun be respectful and please avoid excessive talking while the other team is presenting arguments.

Darren Burdett - SDCC

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Destiny Leyvas - Grand Canyon

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Dymond Galvan - CBU

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

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

Elizabeth Serrao - Rio

Emilio Prieto - PLNU

Evan Ziegler - Grossmont

Farah Moore - Grossmont

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

Genesis Prizmic - IVC

Grant Tovmasian - Rio

The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point.  Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon)      I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position.  DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them.           I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.  If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

Haley Courtney - PLNU

I competed for Point Loma Nazarene University for 3 years and have been judging and coaching at Point Loma for 3 years.  First and foremost, this is your debate round and I will listen to anything if you can show me why it is relevant to the round. I love learning, so even if it is a position I am not familiar with, I will always do my very best to engage your arguments.   I like procedurals and have no problem voting on them if they are run well. I’m down with rules of the game. If you’re breaking them, tell me why it’s okay to do so. If the other team is breaking the rules in a way that makes it impossible for you to engage in the round, please tell me about it.   I do like Kritiks. I will listen to them and engage them, but I will not fill in the blanks for you while you run them.  I really appreciate knowing that teams genuinely care about the positions they are running, and this especially comes out in criticisms. It bothers me when critical discussions are devalued or dismissed in rounds because teams refuse to try to engage. That being said, I understand that debate is a game, but I also would really love that if you’re running something, it matters to you. That’s just a personal preference.  Just like in a straight up round, if I don’t understand how your criticism works or why it links, or most importantly, how you are actually gaining any solvency (in round or otherwise, just depends what you’re going for), I won’t vote on it. If there is no obvious link, you’ll probably have to work a little harder to convince me of your ability to have that particular discussion in that particular round, but don’t let that stop you from going for it.   That being said, I really value creativity and strategy. Have fun with debate. No matter what you run, critical or straight up, impact weigh. If you’re going to run an out of the ordinary position, just explain why it matters and how to vote on it. Show me why you’re winning in a tangible way. Impact calculus is super important. Tell me exactly where and why I should be voting for you.     Speed: I’m cool with speed. I have no problem keeping up with speed, but you need to be clear. If I can’t physically hear/understand you, I’ll let you know, but if I or the other team has to clear you and you make no change, it’s irritating. At that point, I can’t get all your arguments because I literally don’t know what you’re saying. Don’t use speed to exclude your opponents.   That being said, pay attention to my nonverbals; I’m expressive, I can’t help it. Mostly, I really want to know and understand what you’re talking about! If I don’t understand your argument initially, I will probably look at you while processing it and trying to understand it. Use that to your advantage, just clarify briefly.   Finally, please read me your plan text, counterplan text, or alt text at least twice so that I can get it down. It is extremely hard for me to weigh arguments being made for or against a particular text if I don’t know what you are doing. If you want to write me a copy, that would be cool, too.

Hannah Andrade - PLNU

This judge competed for several years in home school high school forensics, and for one year at the college level in NPDA Parli Debate.  Her primary interest as a competitor was in indiviual events, so she places high value in eloquence of the speakers, and clarity of the arguments.  For policy rounds be sure to weigh issues and impacts clearly and do not assume that claims are true unless supported by warrants and backed by evidence or data, or examples, etc. . .   Fewer, well developed arguments would make a good strategic plan, always relating the arguments to how they prove or disprove the resolution.  Be respectful and polite at all times please.  Do not assume much experience with or appreciation of gamey or tricky approaches.  Keep it simple and promote clash and please keep well organized.  Four point refutation will help sell your points. (what they said, what we say, why we say it and why we win) - (or, Locate their argument, Label yours, Logically support yours, and Impact or give the bottom line to this argument in the round).

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Jaimie Owens - Mesa

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!

Jason Hall - SDCC

n/a

Jay Arntson - IVC

Jen Gueniot - Grossmont

Jeremy Murphy - Palomar

Jessica Kwack - CSUN

n/a

Jessica Haskin - Mesa

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!

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

John Pate - CBU

John Grimm - ASU

n/a

Jordan Hill - PLNU

This debater competed for most of one year with PLNU as a freshman, but won his way through Novice and Junior divisions quickly and was a Senior competitor by the end of the year, so he is familiar with most basic positions.  Appreciates clarity, logic, and clash in argument development, but also had some fun with other more creative forms of arguments.  Did not run critiques often, but will listen to your arguments and expects you to be able to support them well.  Strong speaking skills apreciated. Don't go faster than you can handle cleanly, and look up to see if it is getting too quick, or messy.

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.

Juan Victorio - SDCC

n/a

Judy Rubio - Rio

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

Keith Corley - Grossmont

n/a

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kelsey Caldwell - Chico

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

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.

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Lewis Robinson - GCCAZ

n/a

Lexi Popineeau - Vanguard

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Libby Curiel - Rio

Liza Rios - Compton

Hello! Welcome to my Debate Gospel!  <ol> <li>I am Communication judge so it should come as no surprise that I value time honored traditions such as eloquence and charisma when speaking in public.</li> <li>You will lose my ballot if you spread.</li> <li>I do not time road maps.</li> <li>Tag-line and sign post the heck out of your speeches!  I love structure! This will make it a pleasure for me to flow your arguments.</li> <li>I will vote on procedurals if you can convince me that your claims are legitimate.</li> <li>Impacts are weighted heavily on my ballot.</li> <li>Regarding partner communication: do not upstage your partner while he/she is presenting his/her speech. A few interjections are fine but overall I should be hearing mostly from the main speaker. Write notes if need be.  If you keep speaking for your partner, this communicates to me that you do not trust your partner…so why should I trust your partner? Manage your ethos! When your opponents are speaking, quietly communicate with your partner or write notes to each as to not draw attention to your side.</li> <li>Be respectful and classy! That makes me happy! :)</li> <li>Do not drop arguments.</li> <li>I will not debate for you. If, for example, new arguments are brought up in rebuttal speeches, it is not my job to make note of this.</li> <li>I value truth in what is spoken in a debate.</li> </ol> Looking forward to seeing you in elimination rounds!! Liza A. Rios

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

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

MacLean Andrews—Point Loma   I debated in high school (PF and CX) at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA and parli at Point Loma. I majored in International Studies with a concentration in Asia. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round. Email me (mandrews6308@gmail.com ) or send me a facebook message with any questions. <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>26-29 usually. I usually go 29, 28, 27, 27. I find speaker points to be very arbitrary. I don’t really care how well you “speak” but more how strategic the arguments in the round are made.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments. My biggest frustration with K debates is when I am not given a clear way to weigh the argument or a don’t have a clear ballot story. I need Impacts.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I think competing interps is the best way for me to evaluate topicality. I typically give the Aff interp the benefit of the doubt but I voted on T a lot more last year than I thought I would. I need Impacts to your T.    </li> </ol> </li> <li>Counterplans <ol> <li>I will assume the CP is unconditional unless I’m told it’s not in the 1NC. I am personally predisposed to think that CPs should be unconditional. But, I would never vote down a team for running a conditional advocacy unless the aff gave me good reason to vote the neg down on conditionality.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Theory <ol> <li>I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important. I need Impacts!</li> </ol> </li> <li>Weighing Arguments <ol> <li>I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.</li> <li>I need impacts! I like when Impacts are weighed for me.  </li> </ol> </li> <li>Random Thoughts <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. There have been very few debates in which I was not able to keep up. If I can’t understand you I will yell clear. I flow on my laptop too if that changes the way you will debate.</li> <li>The round is for the debaters. Do what you think is the best strategy to win. The best debates are when the debaters are able to implement the strategies they love. I am just as happy listening to a team read a project as I am listening to a team read 8 minutes of case turns.</li> <li>Debate should be fun.  </li> </ol> </li> </ol>

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Michael Dvorak - NAU

<ol> <li>Please describe your background and experience with debate.</li> </ol> I am fairly new to collegiate debate. I competed in both LD and Policy in high school but for the past four years I was primarily involved in individual events with a few parli rounds of competition during my career. I am currently a Graduate Coaching Assistant for NAU. During my (thus far) limited judging experience, I tend to vote with the more logical argument(s) that was presented. I will vote based on what is said in round unless competitors miss a crucial piece of evidence that trumps their argument that competitors should know about. I don’t want to hear arguments that are outlandish (I won’t vote because you say nuclear war happens if we raise taxes on cigarettes), but I will think outside the box so long as you provide me with sound reasoning to think that way. While I don’t mind speed, make sure I can understand you through watching my feedback. I am looking for high quality, well thought out arguments to judge on. I don’t want to hear arguments that you don’t think or want to win simply because they are a “time-suck” on your opponents. If you have any other questions about my paradigm I will attempt to answer before round if you ask.

Nicholas Butler - ASU

n/a

Renee Cooperman - Grand Canyon

Richard Regan - Grand Canyon

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shelby Stanton - Chapman

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

Sue Peterson - Chico

I primarily participated in CEDA/NDT debate as a competitor and coach for the last 20 years.  We made the move to NFA-LD four years ago and I haven’t looked back.  I consider myself to be open to most decision-making criteria, but I default to an offense/defense, cost-benefit calculus minus further instructions.  I do not enjoy adjudicating performance debate.  I like for affirmatives to have a plan text that clearly identifies the government action that is being advocated and then solvency advocates for that government action.  I like when the debaters clearly identify the key voting issues from their perspective and do impact analysis in those areas.  Simply said, I like for the rebuttals to “write my ballot” for me.  The best rounds are those with good evidence AND good analysis.  The worst rounds are those with neither of those things.  I love a good topicality debate that gets to the heart of predictable, educational and fair ground on the topic.  I also like good counterplan/disad debates that clearly identify the competitive points and focus the debate on that competition.  I am okay with theory debates, but I think they need to have a real purpose in the round (read – I don’t like cheap shot theory arguments as voting issues) and they need to have clear warrants for why I should vote on the them other than “It’s abusive”.  I have no problem with criticisms, but I feel like the limited speech time and having only two speeches usually results in an underdeveloped argument.  So, if you run one, be sure to consider that and try to develop it as an argument, not just repeat taglines.  Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart! Because NFA-LD has an actual “rule” relating to speed of delivery, we should at least give that rule a “nod” in rounds.  So, just because I am fine with you talking fast in a debate, if your opponent or other judges on a panel feel that speed is a hindrance to their performance and states that out loud before the round, we should honor it.  My least favorite thing is listening to speed critiques or requests for others to slow down from someone who is talking relatively quickly – don’t be hypocritical.  I also think that clarity is a key component in these discussions.  Some people can talk fast and be totally understandable.  Others, not so much. Arguments that probably won't go well for you in front of me:  Performance, debate bad arguments and reverse voting issues on topicality.  Underdeveloped theory arguments.  Critiques that are contradicted by other arguments you are making in the round without some justification for that contradiction.

Tenisha Baca - GCCAZ

n/a

Tim Seavey - Chapman

n/a

Tina Vo - Cypress

Tom Harrisburg - Mesa

Victor Rose - CBU

Kritik – I’ll listen and give reasonable ground, but the framework and alternative need to be incredibly solid otherwise I just hear complaints that are unstructured without a reason to vote, I believe in their legitimacy and value but often times execution is lacking Topicality – Excellent, linguistic challenges offer new perspectives D/A – Impact calculus and two world alternatives in the last rebuttals are the most persuasive types of policy/value arguments Speed – Definitely get through your speeches and finish your arguments, if your opponents or myself have trouble following you that is no bueno, yes opposition and myself will clear you Sportsmanship – We’re all here as members of the same community, be polite, enjoy the tournament, and create a positive environment that fosters education

2014 Griffin Invitational