FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alex Pineda - PLNU

I competed in parli for four years. Two were in the community college circuit and the other two with Point Loma Nazarene University. This is my first year out of the activity and I’ve spent it coaching and judging for Loma. I weigh your arguments in the order you prioritize them. I’ll listen to any arguments you present, but those with warrants obviously trump those without. Impact weighing in the rebuttals makes defcision calculus easy. That being said, if the impact calc is messy or forgotten, I default to probability and proximity over magnitude. I have a special place in my heart for systemic impacts, BUT that doesn’t mean I won’t go for your nuclear war scenario. Also, I do my absolute best to not do work for any team, so if there’s an argument you find absolutely critical, I think it’s your job to make it the most important in the round instead of a passing comment. If your off-case straight solves or outweighs case (and you make these arguments) then it’s cool to not go line by line on case, just remember to include these arguments in your shell. I have a high threshold for abuse arguments, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for your procedural if it’s poorly responded to and you go for it. Counter plan theory is what you make it. If you say a perm is a test of competition, then that’s what it is. If the perm turns into your advocacy, then that’s what it is. I prefer that you call points of order. I don’t think speed is a problem, but signposting is an absolute must if you spread. I like to keep a tight flow so knowing where you want me to flow your arguments is critical to getting my ballot. Debate is what you make it, so whether you want the round to be a game, a forum for the discussion of your critical arguments, or a platform for your performance, justify your approach and you’ve got me on board! If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Alex Lamascus - Pepperdine

My forensics experience consists of three years of policy in the high school homeschool league and four years competing for California Baptist University. At CBU I spent most of my time in NFA-LD, Parli, and limited-prep individual events.   I, just like any other critic, come in to the debate round with preconceived notions and biases. The following are relevant biases that you may find useful.   I fundamentally view debate as a learning activity for all involved, including myself as a judge. I think recognizing this as such requires three additional conclusions: 1)    I think it requires us all to recognize me as an incomplete human being. Regrettably, I do not have a brilliant mind that is capable of perfectly evaluating each and every argument in perfect fashion, and I will certainly not always make the “right” decision. It is for this reason that I prefer to view the round as a game of persuasion rather than a verbal, mechanical chess game where “this type of argument always trumps that” because it grants accessibility to individuals like myself who may not have impressive mental calculation abilities. It also functions to humanize the activity and keeps us from approaching the debate as humans striving to become purely logical machines. My incompleteness is realized in the fact that I the judge am learning from you the competitor and, hopefully, you are also learning something from me. I do take my judging very seriously, and I do believe I owe my best efforts to the competitors in every round. 2)    I think we must recognize that I cannot please everyone in every debate round. The binary nature of most formats can potentially make rounds very frustrating where there is no clear winner. This is an extension of my first point in that I recognize I am capable of making (and probably already have made) poor decisions as a judge according to the judging philosophies of others. 3)    Finally, I believe that recognizing debate as a learning activity means that we should not take it so seriously. This is somewhat paradoxical because I also believe that we should take the “learning activity” aspect very seriously. However, I believe this is manifested in our intentional actions to ensure that debate remains an enjoyable, fun experience for all of those involved. This attitude generates a comfortable environment for the thoughtful expression and evaluation of ideas.   Evaluating debate rounds: I tend to prefer evaluating a round through a particular lens, whether it is criteria, frameworks, a priori, etc. I am not married to the policymaker paradigm, but impacts are the easiest way for me to weigh a debate. It will be very hard for you to win a round with solvency presses, but they are an excellent way to make your opponents look like they didn’t do their homework, which I find very effective when paired with some impactful offense or a counterplan.   Speed: I hold two different (potentially conflicting) views on speed in debate. On one hand, I think it is excellent for our mental fortitude and an enjoyable challenge to evaluate arguments that have been given in a speedy manner. I believe that it is a healthy mental exercise and allows some talented individuals to achieve great depth of argumentation on any given subject. On the other hand, I fear that my effectiveness as a critic declines the faster the debate round is. I unfortunately was never one of those talented individuals who could craft deep, quality arguments in fast speech. I also was not especially good at debating against them. Additionally, I recall very well a period of time in my debate career that I felt speed was highly exclusionary, inaccessible, elitist, and frustrating. My best recommendation to debaters who are stuck with me as their critic would be to go ahead and spread in a round if you so desire unless there is a very dense theoretical concept being discussed, such as highly advanced debate or economic theory. I generally will not have a hard time flowing you, but if evaluating the argument requires intense use of my mental faculties I may end up falling behind and your point may not be received as intended. Do keep in mind that I am sympathetic to speed procedurals run after a competitor who feels excluded from the debate is rejected when respectfully requesting slower speaking from their opponents.   Theory: Since I spent most of my time in NFA-LD where I did not have to engage in especially theory-laden debate rounds, my understanding of extremely advanced debate theory may be somewhat incomplete. I am of course interested in continually learning about new frontiers in debate argumentation, but my evaluation of your round may not go quite the direction you were hoping if you lose me in theory packed clash. This is becoming especially evident to me in my understanding of advanced counterplan theory.   What I do not like to see: <ol> <li> I don’t really like it when a team runs a critical position that emphasizes the meaning, power, and effects of language followed by abuse of that power later in the round.</li> <li>I also don’t really like it when a team tells me that fiat is illusory, then proceeds to paste arguments on my flow that assume fiat is real.</li> <li>Outside of the actual debate, I am disturbed, given my admission of my own imperfection earlier in this post, when competitors have little respect for my decision as a judge and challenge/argue with it during my oral critique.</li> <li>I am disappointed by judges that abuse their power as a judge by disrespecting the teams with their words or attitude.</li> <li>Finally, I am appalled when coaches of teams engage in the ludicrous act of verbally disrespecting a judge’s decisions, either publicly or privately. This is inherently disrespectful to the teams, judge, and activity as a whole.</li> </ol>   All of that said, I look forward to judging your debates! My apologies to teams whom I have judged before posting this, it is difficult to argue before a judge when you are unsure of their leanings. Best of luck to you all!

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Ashley Graham - El Camino

This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game.  Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win.  While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds. Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round.  That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important.  On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations.  This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds.  On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism.  I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them. On Speed: Overall speed is okay.  Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity.  Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice. On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to.  This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated.  For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response.

Aubrey Manahan - El Camino

Bear Saulet - Concordia

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Breanne Gannaway - 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 />

Chris Hacela - IVC

Chris Gail - Santiago Canyon

I did four years parliamentary debate. The more realistic your arguments the better. Be careful trying to win using debate theory alone.

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Darren Burdett - SDCC

David Gatewood - IVC

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Erika Guzman - IVC

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

George Talavera - Concordia

Ian Sharples - PLNU

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

Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

I did four years parliamentary debate. Coached debate as a graduate at CSULB. Am the debate coach at SCC. I am confident that I can follow your arguments as long as you are organized. Debate is not a numbers game to me, having less dropped arguments than your opponent does no mean you win.

Jen Page - IVC

Jennifer Acostalica - Cerritos College

Joe Henson - Vanguard

John Lewellen - IVC

Jonathon Cottrell - Concordia

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

Katrina Taylor - Cerritos College

Kevin Calderwood - IVC

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia University Irvine, Irvine Valley College   Saved Philosophy:   Quick Notes   ---I prefer policy arguments. ---You should take take at least one question in every constructive. ---All advocacies in the debate should be unconditional. ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once. ---Framework should never be a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate. ---Topicality should always be a voting issue, and is never genocide. Spec arguments are a waste of time. Permutations are tests of competition. ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition, process ((veto cheato, con-con)), etc.). Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place. ---I use should a lot in my paradigm. This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot. All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion. Background: I have participated in competitive debate for the last eleven years. I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format. However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences. As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a hegemonist. I study rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication. I have written most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones. However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at. If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate. Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me. This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate. I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running. Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents. I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard. Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance. This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate. There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic. Poverty exists in the United States. If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact. (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns. If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense. However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument. Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described. Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic. Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic. Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue. It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc). Debates are not won or lost on framework. If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate. I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric. Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate. Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate. In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win. Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism. Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit. I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better. I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration. I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp. Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse. If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive. Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team. Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win. Counterplans should be unconditional. You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team. You should take a question about the text of your counterplan. Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.) I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans). With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness. Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans. Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan. Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition. Permutations should never be advocacies. Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations. Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of). Politics is generally boring and not well researched. Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately. Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate. Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts. Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable. Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues. I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc). If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down. I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool. Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters. Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide. It should be a voting issue. I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability. Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”. Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is. Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is. This is what we call a link. I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments. Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language). I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there. My average was somewhere around a 27.8 for the year. As a final note, I really hate cheap shots. I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments. Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect. I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot. I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive. Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

Liza Rios - IVC

Liza Rios – Irvine Valley College – Judging Philosophy       I started competing in individual events over twenty years ago. I have a MA in communication and teach a variety of communication courses. Recently, I have been judging more debate rounds.  I do not yet have a strong theoretical foundation in advanced strategies, but I will try to understand your arguments and take a flow sheet.

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Mark Crossman - El Camino

Mark Faaita - El Camino

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

McKayla Carpenter - PLNU

Michael Rodriguez - IVC

Morgan McNally - El Camino

Nick Russell - Long Beach

Judge Philosophy for Nick Russell DOF @ CSU, Long Beach Years in Debate: 20 Rounds Judged this Year: not many Months without a Weekend: 1.5 I view debate as a laboratory for democracy, by which I mean that debate provides an opportunity for students to become agents of positive social transformation. As such, my view is that debate should be a forum for debaters to develop a voice to express the arguments about which you are passionate; it’s your opportunity to positively transform society. And it’s not my place to tell you how to do that (e.g., run a project, a plan, or a pomo). That being said, I’m convinced that in order to transform publics, you must persuade your audience. And there are things that make arguments and debaters more or less persuasive as I audience them. <ol> <li>I think that human beings are different from one another. And, for this whole democratic experiment to succeed, I think we need to be respectful of differences. I may be wrong and you may be right, but for debate to work, there has to be space for a dialogic exchange. And that means respect. I loathe hostility and am uncomfortable with aggression, so please find a way to make the debate friendly.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, so my brain has been socialized to understand arguments in a relatively formal sense: e.g., a claim supported with evidence—connected with a warrant. Please don’t read this as a normative endorsement of the Toulmin model. Instead, it’s a descriptive claim of the way that I have learned to think through my experience in debate and my livelihood teaching Introduction to Argument classes.</li> <li>While I enjoy reading critical theory and cultural studies, my brain is quicker to make sense of things that are tangible, concrete, and explained using examples. For critical teams, this means you ought to describe how your argument plays out in the world of the plan; for orthodox teams, this means you need to describe how the plan solves your harms (even if this is internal to an advantage); and for project teams it means explaining how your argument will concretely and meaningfully cause change.</li> </ol> The bottom line is this: you are an active agent of social transformation. You should actualization that agency for positive social change—and not for social domination.

Nick Williams - IVC

Patrick Lim - Palomar

Paul Davis - Azusa

Philip Coleman - Cerritos College

Reyna Velarde - CMC

n/a

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

Sabrina Worsham - Palomar

Sherris Minor - PLNU

Sherris Minor- PLNU  I have been in and out of debate since 2003. I competed in parli for 3 years and have since coached parli/ LD for 4 years, this is my 3rd year coaching since I came back to the activity in 2010. My background is in political science, anthropology and philosophy. My current course of study is in conflict management (specifically conflict transformation) and the rebuilding process through a critical gender lens.  I have judged over 100 rounds of parliamentary debate this year and about 60 rounds of LD debate.  I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  Framework is important to me because it sets up how you want me to evaluate the round and should help you prioritize what arguments you are winning and why that means I vote for you.  Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter to me. Most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become an issue.  However, The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function.   Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot  Procedurals are awesome, but I do not vote on potential abuse. Please have a clear interpretation. I default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. I don’t vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”    I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. You need to explain your links don’t just say they link tell me how they link/ why that link is important. These discussions tend to get very convoluted it is your job to clearly explain your argument(s), I shouldn’t need an interpreter to understand what your k says.     Counter plans are a great strategy tool but they should be competitive and have some sort of net benefit to them beyond this doesn’t link to the disad. Don’t kick an unconditional counterplan in front of me I will not vote for you.  Politics is a good strategy but please try to use a true or at least plausible scenario.  Theory is awesome please explain to me why your theory/ interpretation of theory means you win the debate don’t just blip out any perm is severance/ or intrinsic. This is one not true but also doesn’t explain how your theory works in the context of this debate.  I believe all perms need to have a text. This helps to show me in a textual sense how your perm theory functions. Also it provides something stable in the round that I can look at when I am making a decision. I think for the most part that Perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy but if you have a compelling reason why your perm could be the latter please run it.  I believe the debate should be smaller by the end of the round don’t be afraid to kick arguments. Issue selection is great because you can get more in depth on arguments you think you are winning.  Warrants for your claims are awesome because that means your arguments are not just tag lines. I will not fill in the blanks for you so please give a clear tag and warrant for why you argument is true. This is critical in debates with competing uniqueness stories where the objective is for me to decide which scenario is the most true.   Impact calculus and prioritization are important to me. It allows you to tell me where to vote and why I look there before I look at other arguments. Don’t expect me to do the work for you, you set the framework for the round I expect you to tell me how I vote in the world of your framework.  Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run.  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.  If there is anything I missed please feel free to ask.

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 - Saddleback

Sydney Awakuni - PLNU

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

Vivian Amezcua - El Camino

I'm willing to listen to any type of argument you feel the need to present. I think the intellectual freedom the activity encourages is important and hard to find elsewhere. Other than that, It is in your best interest to keep the debate as clear as possible for me on the flow. I flow by hand at times, and on computer by others, in both cases I appreciate knowing where you're going so I don't waste time switching between sheets and inevitably missing an argument. As a favor, I ask that you please tell me how to judge the debate. I hate being left at the end of the round trying to decide which argument outweighs with no one to guide me. This is easily preventable by explaining to me how things should be evaluated via your framework, criteria, voters, or just plain old impact calculus. You should also probably know that I default to competing interpretations on procedurals, but as long as you're clear, you can do what you want. Avoid saying offensive things about historically disadvantaged social groups, and we should be good. Good luck, have fun.

Will Prier - Concordia

Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. I haven’t thought too much since NPDA last year, and the vast majority of news/information I’ve been consuming since then has been financial, at the expense of pretty much everything else. I’m a first year out critic. When I was debating, I usually read DA/CP or DA/Case on the neg, and read policy-oriented affirmatives. I haven’t read much/any/your critical literature, so your argument may require some explanation. I am generally familiar with “basic” criticisms due to having to answer them frequently (cap, anthro, whatever). I was a finance/economics major at Concordia University, and appreciated intelligent econ debates, which are/were exceedingly rare. You may choose to debate that genre of arguments at your own risk—I’ll probably default to who I think is most “correct” in those kinds of debates, regardless of the level of explanation, which may be a fault of mine. For example, if you say “higher inflation would make interest on US sovereign debt more onerous to repay,” it’s very likely I’ll agree with the person who disagrees with you, even if a nominal explanation is given for why you are wrong. Of course, if you have any questions, please ask me.   Section 2: Specific Inquiries Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 27.5-29.5 How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? I (think I) had a reputation for being opposed to critically framed arguments in general. This isn’t necessarily the case. I think criticisms are usually interesting tangential observations about human nature rather than reasons why the aff’s plan is bad. Framework will convince me otherwise, but know that I prefer to hear debates about the consequences of the aff’s policy option. To me, these things are won and lost on the framework sheet. Needless to say, I didn’t read the critique often. I’m particularly bad at evaluating/understanding criticisms of metaphysics/ontology/etc (Nietzche comes to mind). If this part of my philosophy makes me sound ignorant of your favorite critical argument, then I probably am, which should be useful information when deciding what arguments to read. Performance based arguments… Are unfamiliar to me. Win a framework that makes those impacts valid/top priority and weigh accordingly. I read a poetry aff in NFA-LD and thought it was the most cheater-y thing ever (we won a lot though). Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require one wins a superior interpretation and a voting issue. I don’t require abuse, though it helps. It’s probably not the best neg strat to go for (as in I’d prefer to see a non-procedural strategy), but it I will certainly vote for it. I’ll probably assume topicality is a voter, but I’d still prefer you make an argument as to why it should be. I may not be the best judge on T because I know people evaluate it differently. For example, I couldn’t tell you how Kevin Calderwood evaluates topicality. He’ll say it’s probably different from me, and I won’t know if it is/isn’t.   However, if your aff relies on “debating the topic is bad”-type arguments, winning on topicality will be pretty easy for the negative.   Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   Given that I was an MG, I sympathize with MGs having to respond to multiple conditional advocacies. I’m an SIU/Calderwood convert and think that conditionality is probably bad for the activity (in parli). LO’s should give their opponent a text, repeat the CP text, and state its status. If your CP is particularly complicated, it’d be nice to have a copy (but not mandatory).   I think CPs should be functionally competitive at minimum. I read text comp good pretty often, and we successfully went for it a couple of times, but I’m unsure of how I would evaluate that as a judge. That’s probably a function of being new to being on this side of a ballot.   Competing on politics is better than competing on “court legitimacy” or some other brinkless multicausal nonsense.   My theory beliefs: conditionality bad, consult bad, condition bad, delay bad. Even though I won't check my brain at the door (I'm not a blank slate), if any of the aforementioned counterplans are debated I will not reject them on face, but know that I do have my own predispositions about them. I actually read condition counterplans fairly frequently, which has left me with some minor feelings of guilt. Of the previously stated theoretical preferences, I most heavily sympathize with conditionality bad, followed by delay bad (and only barely).     This section is probably short, so ask me about anything you’re unclear on. It’s really been awhile since I’ve thought about debate.   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)?   Procedural > K (absent fwk arguments to the contrary, which I will be hard-pressed to believe) or case, depending on who wins framework. K and case may also be compared equally, also depending on the outcome of the framework debate.   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")?   These debates are the worst to evaluate. Impact calc and explanation of your argument is what wins debates, period (especially probability). I’ll evaluate a body count before the reduction of self-esteem, or whatever dehumanization means these days. Explaining how your impacts are more important than the other team’s impacts through magnitude, probability, and timeframe—and especially making comparative arguments about those metrics—will go a long way towards helping me make my decision.   If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to prep time or the round, whatever floats your boat.

William Neesen - IVC

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

2012 Sleep In Late, Go Home Early