FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Abigail Watkins - El Camino

Experience: I competed for two years at El Camino College, where I competed at both community college circuit tournaments as well as NPDA/NPTE, and I have been coaching at El Camino for two years. IMPORTANT: If you only take one thing away from my judging philosophy, remember this: please do not read arguments about animal abuse/violence against animals/animal death in front of me. You are one hundred percent guaranteed to give me a panic attack. This is an unfortunate reality of my mental health and something I would happily change if I could. If you are wondering whether or not an argument might delve into this territory, I beg you to exercise caution! Otherwise: SPEED: I am somewhat out of practice flowing absolute top speed so if you’re super fast you might want to slow down a bit for me, but overall I should be fine flowing most people’s spread, especially on a laptop. I have terrible listening comprehension so if your spread isn’t super clear, you definitely want to slow down just to make sure that I understand you. FRAMEWORK: I will default to a net benefits paradigm unless otherwise instructed. I tend to respond best to framework arguments with clear real world warrants to back up your claims. THEORY: I love theory. I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise instructed. Please don’t read RVIs in front of me unless the round has entered some weird parallel universe and you really, REALLY think that they’re justified. KRITIKS: I like the kritik and I think it can be a valuable tool in the debate. You should probably assume that I don’t know anything about the literature. If all things are equal and you’re wondering whether or not to go for a DA/CP round or a K round, you might be better off going for a more “straight up” style in front of me, but I am not predisposed against the K in the slightest. IDENTITY ARGS: I might not be your best judge for this; I feel like they are asking me to insert myself into the round as a judge in a way that I don’t always feel comfortable doing. But if this is your strategy in competition, I will do my best to judge these arguments as I would any other. I have certainly voted for them in the past. CONDITIONALITY: I default to unconditionality unless otherwise instructed and I tend to be receptive to arguments that unconditionality is a superior paradigm, but ultimately...I don’t care that much. MISC: Economics make little to no sense to me so if it’s going to be an econ round...read Marx or be very clear in defining your terms, and don't rely on me to gutcheck your opponents because it's just not going to happen. I have horrible nonverbals, and I am sorry about that. It’s just how my face is. I understand that when you’re going fast, it’s easy for your volume level to pick up as well, but I am very noise sensitive so if you can try your best not to yell at me I will appreciate it. Have fun? Have fun.

Adam Cassidy - Grossmont

Al Arviso - EPCC

n/a

Alyssa Sambor - Palomar

Amy Wangsadipura - Mt SAC

Andrew Hoag - PLNU

Annie Kincade - Mesa

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - PLNU

Overview: I am a flow critic and believe that debate, although it has numerous benefits outside of competition, is at its core a game.  Specific Arguments: Run what you want but I enjoy econ, politics and procedural positions. I accept both competing interpretations and abuse paradigm but you have to be the one to tell me how to evaluate the position. I enjoy the K but do not just name a theorist or throw out tag lines without explaining what they mean. There are thousands of authors who have multiple publications that sometimes even contradict themselves as time goes by so make sure you reference a specifc argument so that I can follow along. I have no preference between Kritikal or straight up debate but I did write my MA utilizing critical methodologies and am focussing my current research on Rhetorical Criticisms with a focus on critical gender studies. Run your K's but make sure you repeat your alt text, your ROB, and perms. Speed: I am fine with speed but don't intentionally exclude your oponents. Please repeat all texts, advocacies, ROB's, interps, etc.  Closing Remarks: Be kind to one another. Be respectful and use warrants. I am fine with high magnitude low probability impacts as long as there is a clear well warranted explanation of how we got there. That being said, I will vote where you tell me to so make sure that you use your rebuttals to summarize the debate and not as another constructive.

Bear Saulet - El Camino

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Bria Woodyard - ASU

n/a

Brianna Nishie - PLNU

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG: I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. Impacts: You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. Case Debate: I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. Diadvantages: Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. Counterplans: Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. Conditionality: I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad.  Kritiks: I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. Identity Arguments: With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. Theory: I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. Speed: Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. Speaker Points: If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. Miscellaneous: Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

Bryan Malinis - Cerritos College

n/a

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University) Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. 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. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case. 3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it. 4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy. 5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Caleb Sutherlin - CBU

n/a

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chathi Anderson: Judging Philosophies   2 years experience as a platform speaker/competitor and 1 year experience as a debater/competitor.   I appreciate clear arguments delivered in a respectful manner, and I pay close to attention to non-verbals during a round. Make sure to warrant all your claims and tell me why your side should win—I will not debate the round for you. If an argument is dropped, make sure to point it out. I will entertain any type of case you want to run, just make sure to clearly argue it and back it up. Above all, play nicely with each other and enjoy the debate.   FYI:  I started debating last year and competed  in NPDA for over a dozen tournaments. I will only be judging novice competition, so I hope that you will try your best to keep the debate organized.  Stick to the basics and you should be fine. Do not try to run any theories you do not understand.   I will award the win to the team who can get the most significant arguments on my flow sheet. I will award points based on how well you deliver, organize and operationalize your critical thinking. Rudeness will get points subtracted.

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Courtney Gammariello - Biola

Dana Miyashiro - PLNU

Daniel Cantrell - Mt SAC

My primary voting paradigm is clash.  Please engage each other's arguments. Otherwise, run what you think is persuasive and we will see how it works out in the round.

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.

Dante Kari - CBU

n/a

Darron DeVillez - Grossmont

Das Nugent - OCC

David Berver - Mesa

David Berver - Grossmont

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.

Deserae Rios - OCC

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.

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.

Elsa Anaya - Cerritos College

Emily Shaffer - NAU

Emily Shaffer NPDA Judging Philosophy   Whatever Caitlyn Burford said. But also:   I believe the debate space belongs to the competitors and shouldn’t be dictated by what I used to run as a debater. You should run what you’re best at and/or what you care most about. I don’t believe in rules, which means you’re going to have to justify your procedural arguments (probably applies more to LD than parli). I am comfortable with whatever position you want to run. Speed is fine, as long as it isn’t used as a tool of exclusion. Give me a clear weighing mechanism, and I will vote where you tell me to vote. Most of my judging philosophy is contextual to the round being run. You should be kind to your opponents and conscious of the language you’re using in round. Unless otherwise told I will prioritize animal life over human life.

Emma Hong - IVC

n/a

Eric Yahn - Glendale CC

~• Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) 2 years of collegiate parliamentary debate experience 3 years of collegiate forensics experience 3 years of collegiate forensics coaching experience  • Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stockissues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I am a tabula rasa judge. I will vote where you tell me to, as long as it is well articulated and warranted. I'm open to trichotomy and topicality arguments, they serve a purpose so use them if you have to. I am not a fan of Kritiks, and here's why, I've found that most people don't use them properly. If they are poorly drawn and out of context then I cannot vote on them, theory arguments are impressive yes, but if you don't understand the words coming out of your mouth then your opponant wont either and if I have to piece together a theory for you then you've already lost. Don't try it if you can't handle it, it's better to debate at face value than over extend your reach.  • Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making I am a champion of decorum. I like thank yous and human decency. Be nice to one another and we'll get along fine. I want clean well articulated arguments, as such I tend to favor Toulmens model of argumentation. i.e. This happens because of that for these reasons. Sign post everything always, tell me where you are on the flow, what arguments you are responding to, what your response is and why your response is better. Time that I have to spend flipping through pages is time that I am not flowing you.  • Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making Both on and off case argumentation are key to winning my ballot. I will vote on dropped arguments if you tell me to, but I will not do any leg work for you. If you don't say it, I can't flow it.   I will not flow speed, if its too fast and I miss it, thats your fault. Note: I can't flow policy speakers and the "double pump" is one of the most irritating noises ever. I will clear you if I have to but I will take it out of your speaker points. Brownie points* for making me laugh though.  • Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and Kritiks I am not opposed to a topicality argument but it needs to be properly structured. Counter plans are fine, but should also be clearly structured. I do not like Kritiks. • Preferences on calling Points of Order Points of order should be used to call out new argumentation in rebuttals, if you don't tell me they're new arguments, they're on my flow to be calculated when voting. Points of order will be ruled on if possible, in rounds with a panel of judges, they'll be taken into consideration.  IPDA I view IPDA as a cross between dueling extemps and persuasion. Tell me your story, give me your facts, and defend your findings.  NFA-LA  I never competed in LD, however I have the base knowledge to coach and judge the event. I will flow what you tell me but I will call for cards if thats where you and the opposition draw the lines. Keep it neat, keep it clean, be persuasive.   *Brownie points are not redeemable for credit, speaker points or actual brownies.

Evan Ziegler - Grossmont

Evelyn Michaud - Glendale CC

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.

Frank Cuevas - PLNU

Judging Philosophy:   I debated from 2006 to 2011 both at Palomar College and UCSD. I view debate primarily as a game and secondarily as a platform for advocacy because tournament directors usually require a winner and a loser per round. Debate is unique because the rule structure and framework of how the game should be played is up to the individuals in that round, albeit with a minor amount of win conditions superseded by the tournament organizers. With that mindset as a judge, I do my best to keep an open mind about how or what you want the debates to be, be it kritiks, performance-narratives, policy plans, etc. In terms of procedurals, I view them from a competing interpretation paradigm, mainly because I believe it requires more strategy, research, and nuance to argue the merits of one interpretation over another. I prefer them over abuse paradigms because I feel abuse scenarios are not articulated enough in the community, insofar as they mainly lie in potential abuse. And potential abuse becomes too nebulous and regressive an argument. However, as I previously mentioned, I will do my best to default to whatever paradigm you present me so long as it's stated and warranted, just know that if you are running abuse without properly articulating to me why, I will have a higher threshold to vote for it. In terms of speed, debate is a game, and speed is just another strategy competitors use to leverage a win. But here is a large qualifier: I was never a fast competitor myself, and I cannot keep up with fast debate anymore due to lack of flowing regularly. So go fast at your own risk. I am transparent in my non-verbals. You will know if the round is too fast for me. Most importantly, because this is a game and I assume we are all humans, please be respectful towards one another and have fun.  If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask prior to the round. Good luck and have fun.

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

Gavin Wong - Biola

Ged Valenzuela - PLNU

I am open to whatever you want to do, the round is yours as long as you can justify why I should prefer viewing the round in your way.     I do not like doing work for competitors, so please extend your arguments in your rebuttals.  Otherwise I will just go off who dropped the most arguments, and that is never fun.   With regards to topicality and procedurals, I don't need proven in-round abuse, but it definitely works in your favor.   I enjoy hearing kritikal arguments, but I especially like when teams emphasize their links and articulate how their opponent's arguments specifically interact with yours.    Be kind to your opponents.

Genieve Aguilar - PLNU

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.

Jacee Cantler - IVC

Jaimie Owens - Mesa

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

Jason Hong - IVC

Jason Hall - SDCC

n/a

Jeanette Baker - EPCC

n/a

Jeremy Murphy - Palomar

Jess Ayres - NAU

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

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.

Justin Perkins - Palomar

My name is Justin Perkins, I am the assistant coach at Palomar College, where I am primarily responsible for the Individual events but am also heavily involved in the Debate events including Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. I have competed in Competitive Forensics for 4 years in High School for Oceanside High and 4 years in College for Palomar College and California State-University Los Angeles, primarily in Interpretation events. I majored in Performance Studies and am inclined academically and intuitively with the message and the performer-audience relationship in all its critical perspectives. I think persuasion is magic, and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. I have been coaching since 2006, and have been judging debate since 2007. I judge about 50 rounds a year, if not more, I don't really keep count. I also judge that many and more in Individual Events. I'd like to get as close as I can to cohesive way to view and judge all forensic performance, for after all, every event seeks to persuade its audience, and each does so in a subtly similar yet beautifully different ways.   Everything is debatable. I view debate as a fun and complex game of serious, academic inquiry. I view myself as a referee of said game, and am inclined to allow the players to decide the outcome on the field of play. However, I am persuaded by debaters exercising and explaining what they know that I know that they know, you know? That means explain everything to the point of redundancy. My brain is mush by the end of a long tournament. I like criteria based arguments, meaning that all warrants should frame the data supporting your claim in the context of the criteria agreed upon in round.   With that said, I'll get one thing out of the way, because I forget to say it most of the time; If you have any position that is fun, experimental, controversial, out-of-the-box, or non-traditional, I may be your best chance to win it. This means I'm willing to listen to anything; there is nothing you can say that will automatically lose my ballot or automatically win my ballot. I will fight to remain objective and not weigh in on my decision until the final second has expired and will try as I may to write, record, and weigh everything levied in the round.   This leads into the first question that debaters usually have; speed and structure. I don't find speed to be a particularly appealing way to persuade an audience, and debaters usually out pace their structure to the point of incomprehensible stammering, but hey, it’s your round as much as it is mine. I will, upon verbal agreement in the round, verbally call out “clear” for you to speak more clearly, “Speed” to speak more slowly, and “Signpost” if I don't where you are. Feel free to adhere to these cues at the expense of speaker points and possible arguments that might influence my decision. Don't “cross apply” or “pull through” arguments, especially just incoherent numbering/lettering systems, please restate and analyze and then weigh why you're winning under the agreed upon criteria.   I enjoy the procedural debate as long as it is a witty, intellectual exercise of logic. I weigh offense on the procedural in the time trade off and don’t really recognize “reverse voters” for numerous reasons. Therefore, I don't really appreciate arguments that waste my time and energy just to be kicked, and am inclined to listen to why that is bad. I weigh good, practical arguments more than dropped, fallacious arguments unless really encouraged to do so. The best way to not lose a procedural is to not violate procedure in the first place. I love positions that interrogate structures of power, and criticize aspects of society at large. I embrace the Kritik, but also traditional forms such as DA/CP and other inventive double binds. I don't discourage the practice of fact and value debate, in fact, I consider the degree of difficulty in running those cases to be higher, but don't really find the Trichotomy to be a persuasive position to argue unless the other side loses it. All resolutions are fact AND value AND policy, not necessarily one or the other. I will entertain as many points of order as you call. You may state your point, and I will entertain a response from the other side, before finally giving you a brutally honest decision to the best of my ability and will encourage my fellow judges on panels to rule on important, big round arguments in rebuttals at their discretion. It is a team activity, but I will only weigh arguments made by the speaker, feel free to repeat partner prompts or pass notes. Give me your best and have fun, I'll be giving you mine and having more.

Kasey Graves - PLNU

I've been in the activity for 9 years now. I did policy for four years in high school and then 4 years in parli. I graduated from Point Loma with a Bachelor of Arts in International Studies with a focus in Peace. The easiest way to get my ballot is to have well warranted arguments followed with clear impact calc. I will listen to any arguments and would prefer to hear ideas/strats that are your strengths! If  a debate gets messy, that's fine, just clean it up and explain how you are winning the round. 1. I am fine with partner to partner communication but do not want to see someone giving their partner's speech. A quick reminder is cool or an arg you want for your member speech or rebuttal I can get down with, anything more will get irritating. 2. I am down for critical args...I think these can be used very strategically and are legitimate ways to evaluate the way we as a society make decisions. I may not be as well read as others so just make sure to explain your args/theory  clearly. 3.  Speed is also fine with me. If you are too fast for me, I will clear you. I don't agree with using speed as a way of excluding people from the activity so just don't do it in front of me. 4. Read plan, counterplan, and perm texts twice and clearly so that I make sure I have it correctly on my flow.  5. I prefer to hear Topicality and theory when it is warranted and not as a time suck/ waster of paper but I can also appreciate a strategic T and ultimately it is your round so do as you please.  Overall, run what you want, have a good time, and learn new things about global issues! Any other questions you can ask in round :)

Katrina Taylor - Cerritos College

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.

Kristina Rietveld - IVC

Kyle Neuenschwander - SDCC

n/a

Laura Capito - CBU

n/a

Lauren Sublett - Glendale CC

• Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) - 4 years of collegiate Parli debate experience, 5 years of collegiate forensics experience - 2 years forensics coaching experience - 15 rounds judged this year to date • Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stockissues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) As a critic, my approach to decision making is tabula rasa. I will vote on procedural arguments that are well articulated and include articulated abuse, and will look here first. Second, I will look to voters and/or role of the ballot arguments and vote off of my flow. I will not intervene unless absolutely necessary, your job as a competitior is to show me where to vote. • Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making Communication skills are key. I don't mind speed, as long as arguments are still coherent and well articulated. Please don't mistake speed for skill. As far as partner communication is concerned, I will only flow words that come out of the assigned speaker's mouth. Please do not puppet your partner, you have a partner for a reason, and I would love to hear what they have to say. Please practice decorum in round, this is not a place to be rude. • Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making  On case argumentation is key, both offense and defense should occur from both teams in order to gain my ballot. If on case argumentation is dropped and becomes a voting issue, my ballot will reflect the drops as a voting issue. • Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks Procedurals and couterplans are acceptable as long as they are warranted and show abuse (procedurals) and kritiks are fine as long as they are clearly articulated and include both: 1. Role of the Ballot and 2. Alternative Please make sure counterplans: 1. are mutually exclusive and competitive 2. Counterplans should also include a unique advantage and/or disadvantage • Preferences on calling Points of Order Don't mind points of order if they're actually new arguments (not new examples), I will rule on Points of Order if possible, Points of Order in rounds that include a judging panel will be taken under consideration. Finally, let's have some fun!

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.

Luis CARBAJAL - EPCC

n/a

Mark Dorrough - OCC

Matthew Grisat - Rio

Matthew Brandstetter - APU

n/a

Matthew Robert Smith - EPCC

n/a

Mike Fleming - MSJC

n/a

Nichole Barta - IVC

Nick Matthews - IVC

~~Nick Matthews Irvine Valley College PSCFA Parli Philosophy Ten things to know when I am judging you: 1. You must speak at a conversational speed in front of me because I have a significant hearing impairment. Any rate of speed that is faster than conversational destroys my ability to accurately understand your arguments and impedes my ability to do my job. 2. I am not a fan of fact and value rounds. I think they are much more difficult to judge, and they are largely subsumed by policy debate anyway. As such, I don’t mind if you extrapolate policy cases from fact, value, or metaphor topics (within reason, of course). 3. My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don’t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a lot stronger than my understanding of critical debate. 4. I reward big-picture storytelling, intuitive arguments, impact comparison, and strategic decision-making. 5. I rarely vote for arguments I don’t understand. 6. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them. 7. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument: Whining: “Their implementation is vague and they don’t explain it! They don’t solve!” (Waaah!) Argument: “Three reasons why their implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First…” 8. You should take at least one question from the other team in each constructive. 9. The affirmative team must read either a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent. 10. I don’t care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times. You do not need to call points of order; I will protect against new rebuttal arguments for you. NPTE-level debaters: my national circuit philosophy is located at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RV69pX3KyMwkkotPQ5whfUSH91D5ba027xgvj2Ig04M/edit?usp=sharing

Nick Stump - NAU

n/a

Nyeesha Hale - CBU

n/a

Raffaela Baker - OCC

Ron Newman - MSJC

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC

The merit of your arguments is the foremost deciding factor for me. The debater(s) who has the strongest arguments should win. As a personal preference, I like well structured debates. If I can easily flow what you're saying and where you're refuting your opponent, it makes it much easier for me to make a fair decision without interjecting into your round. Try not to be a douchebag. There is really no reason to be rude or condescending; these are strategies of aggression that are usually employed by debaters who lack more refined skills of actual argumentation. You should address me, the judge, not each other. You can communicate with your teammate, but it should not be excessive or distracting... and I will only flow what actually comes out of the speaker's mouth. (Additionally, it always appears like there's not great partner trust when one person tries to dominate his/her partner... and I start to doubt your credibility.) I recommend that you stand when you speak and employ good public speaking traits: articulation, limit non-verbal distractions, fluid delivery with few verbal fillers, eye contact, expressiveness, etc. I am willing to listen to anything you'd like to discuss. However, it is your responsibility to explain clearly why I should prefer your argument to another. This applies to the use of procedurals; running a procedural isn't a guarantee of a win. Your responsibility as a debater is to explain exactly what the violation is and how it impacts the round or to explain clearly why the violation did not occur or how it is irrelevant to the round. Similarly, I will listen to a K, but you have to convince me that this is more significant than the resolution... or why it isn't. Do your job to flush out arguments and rebuttals so I don't have to! I feel speed is a weak strategy as it promotes quantity over quality of arguments. I'd rather hear fewer, more developed arguments than a long list used as a time suck... which sucks. If I can't keep up with your spreading, I will simply stop flowing the round; if your argument doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't consider it when making my decision. Use of jargon is fine, as long as you are using it correctly and linking it specifically into the debate. Don't use jargon for jargon sake; integrate it into the specific debate. If you have other questions, feel free to ask me! But if you ask for my preferences and are not willing to adapt to them, I’d rather you just didn’t even ask.

Samantha Rubio - EPCC

n/a

Samira Rostami - Grossmont

Sean Connor - OCC

Seth Fromm - Glendale CC

Shannon Meredith - El Camino

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shawn O'Rourke - Saddleback

Shelton Hill - Glendale CC

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..

2015 Griffin Invitational