FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Abraham Marmolejo - IVC

Ajay Mohan - IVC

Aleecia Guggianna - IVC

Alex Zison - IVC

Alexandra Stahler - IVC

Anthony Kim - IVC

Arlene Kim - Beechwood

n/a

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

Bianca Tatum - Santa Margarita

n/a

Bill Eddy - IVC

Brandon Maleta - IVC

Brandon Flectcher - IVC

Christine Lee - IVC

Daniella Flandez - IVC

David Chavez - Nova 42

n/a

Dianna Rodriguez - IVC

Donny Peters - Anaheim Hills

n/a

Douglas Miller - Fairmont

n/a

Dylan Horan - IVC

Fatima Alamire - IVC

Gary Rybold - IVC

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold   <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1>       I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds.  Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity.  My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know: PREFERENCES – I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies).  I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced).  I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions.  Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round.  The key term for every team is justify.  At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position.  I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points.  I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters.  Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet.  I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions. CRITIQUES - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me).  Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot. SPEED – I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out.  So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices. ULTIMATE GOAL - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values.  My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.

Ian Dunleavie - IVC

Jacee Cantler - IVC

Jessica Demoe - IVC

Joseph Paik - IVC

Kavya Makam - IVC

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kelly Sweet - IVC

Kiala Siman - IVC

Kristina Rietveld - IVC

Kyra Smith - IVC

Lauren Eipp - IVC

Lawrence Gieszl - IVC

Layla Etemadi - IVC

Leah Roffman - IVC

Leila Shaygan - IVC

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.

Mark Roche - IVC

Masih Bahadori - IVC

Matt Hinkle - IVC

Matthew Mason - IVC

Mike Kyle - Nova 42

n/a

Moon Park - IVC

Nabeel Faisal - IVC

Nick Minoofer - IVC

Peter Doesburg - IVC

Quinn Webster - Santa Margarita

n/a

Sandra Ho - Nova 42

n/a

Sang Kang - IVC

Sarah Beydoun - IVC

Simon Rhee - CL

n/a

Steven Nyguyen - IVC

Ted Kim - Nova 42

n/a

Tom Proprofsky - IVC

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. '

2015 IVC Spring Classic