Judge Philosophies
Adam Navarro - Palomar
n/a
Alonso Eldridge - Hired
n/a
Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - CUI
Hello,
I am the Director of Forensics at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 4th year coaching and judging.?
I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.?
Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.?
Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.?
Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.?
Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).?
Angelica Grigsby - Maricopa
Debate is about persuading your judge. Having said that, please talk to me, not at me. For all types of debate, let's have some clash? Call points of order in the rebuttal, I will not protect you. If you need to communicate with your partner please do it in a way that is minimally disruptive (I know this will look different in a remote setting but the concept still applies), I will only flow what comes out of their mouth during their speech. I am willing to listen to all types of arguments please just be sure that they are warranted and fully explained. Structure is vital to a clear case. Please, please, please tell me why you win the round in the rebuttal, you donât want to leave it up to me. PS-all road maps are in time.
IPDA:
  This event is not Parli lite. The best way I have heard it explained is that it is dueling extemp speeches. There should be clash, clear arguments, and clear reasons to vote for you.
NFA-LD:
I prefer a conversational rate and a speaker who engages with their audience rather than just reading their cards. I have only judged 2-3 rounds of LD all year, if you run the round like I know the topic as well as you, you may lose my ballot.
Remember to have fun!
Araceli Bautista - Hired
n/a
Benjamin Lange - CUI
TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well.
While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.
I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.
Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.
I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on. As a Neg, I think your best bet is to read a diverse strategy, but if you have a baller K that you want to go all in on then go for it.
Finally, and I've realized that this is probably a very important thing to make clear, I am willing to vote on terminal defense if you are able to explain what it means for the round. That means that if you win the "we meet" on theory, then the rest of the sheet is irrelevant - even under a paradigm of competing interpretations, their rule is irrelevant if you followed it.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)
Brenna Thomale - CBU
Brianne Moses - CBU
C.L.S. Ferguson - APU
n/a
Caitlyn Burford - NAU
Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)
She/her are my pronouns.
Background:
This is my ninth 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.
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. It’s your round! Do what you want!
Carol Damgen - MSJC
Cassandra Jeffries - Hired
n/a
Chathi Anderson - IVC
Christian Jaime - Hired Judges
n/a
David Trevithick - CC
Don Lundee - Hired Judges
n/a
Emily Whetstone - Hired
n/a
Erika Portillo - EPCC
n/a
Evan Ziegler - Hired
n/a
George Diamantopolis - IVC
Giselle Jahangiri - CUI
Greg Gorham - GCU
Hans Craycraft - Hired
n/a
Isaiah Washington - CBU
n/a
Ivette Patricio - Hired Judges
n/a
Jack Bramlett - CBU
n/a
Jacob Kirksey - Hired
n/a
Jasmin Sharp - CUI
Jenna Collins - Hired Judges
n/a
Jessica Luna - Hired
n/a
Jessica Murguia - Hired
n/a
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Jonathan Veal - PLNU
Hello friends,
I have been coaching college parli since 2016 and competed in the activity previously.
Case debate/Policy: I really enjoy case debate. I am particularly persuaded by positions that interact with the uniqueness of the topic. DAs that are bottom heavy or generic can work but are vulnerable to MG non-unique and link arguments.
Theory: I default to competing interpretations. I tend to hold MG theory to a relatively high threshold due to lack of backside rebuttals, but see it as a check against particularly abusive neg strategies. I will go either way on condo depending on the argumentation in the round, but I tend to vote aff on delay/consult theory and when the neg reads multiple advocacies.
Critical Debate: Love it. Aff Ks need to either interact with the topic or present strong reasons for not doing so. I really like to see topic oriented-debate if possible. Accessibility is key, so I will not fill in the blanks on K authors even if I am familiar with them. Explain your Thesis/Solvency in a way that can be understood by the other team. Links of omission/generic links tend to be iffy for me. Show clear links.
Speed: I will listen to speed procedurals if the other team does not respond to clears and the team reading the position is clearly losing access to participating in the round. Speed is both strategic and lacks a bright line, but that is not an excuse to push people out of debate.
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.
Some side notes
- Be cool to your opponents. Seriously, I consider this important enough to influence my decision in extreme instances.
- Provide a plan/CP/interp/perm text if asked. Perms with clear texts are preferred.
- Read trigger warnings if you are in doubt.
Julia Leslie - IVC
Katrya Ly - IVC
Kiefer Storrer - Maricopa
Competed 4 years high school Policy, 4 years college parli. Took a year off, judged, then helped coach a comprehensive program in Grad School. Currently in my 2nd year of head coaching, 3rd year of professional coaching. I think debate is whatever you want to make it. It can be a game or a really good platform of advocacy, so I'm pretty supportive of like, inclusive arguments, theory, projects, etc. Speed is fine but especially in Parli give me clear tag lines. You don't need to read DAs to prove abuse on procedurals, just explain to me args you missed out on. Umm. Don't kick offense, please. I like clash and impact calc unless you are warranting out other places I should be specifically voting. Good luck, have fun; don't be a dick.
Lindsay Gast - Hired Judges
n/a
Lynette Melikian - CSUN
Marika Minor - Hired Judges
n/a
Matthew Minnich - EPCC
n/a
Melissa Jacques - Hired Judges
n/a
Michael Dvorak - GCU
Michael Starzynski - CUI
tabula rasa, no spreading, roadmaps and signposts please!
Mike Gilardi - Hired
n/a
Nicholas Thomas - Palomar
n/a
Odalys Zavala - CBU
Oli Loeffler - IVC
I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.
I think neg teams have
ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to
win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level
theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with
some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not
the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to
judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation
of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.
Speed shouldn't be a
problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down.
Phoenix Silva - Hired
n/a
Rebecca Coleman - Hired
n/a
Renee Orton - MSJC
Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm
I believe
that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use
a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their
delivery. I do not like nor tolerate
spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear,
understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the
debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I
debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you
understand my delivery preferences.
I
flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the
resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms,
impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject
matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't
understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot.
Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's
disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.
In
NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and
counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option
picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is
indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just
to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking
time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss
of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant,
obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly
remove the educational value from the debate.
Ron Newman - MSJC
Sabrina Sullivan - Hired
n/a
Sarah Hinkle - CC
I mostly live in the world of IEs (read: 20 years of either
competing or coaching) but have moderate experience training in Worlds and IPDA-style
debate.
I like speakers who are fair and balanced: Ethics, Argumentation, Strategy, and Style.
Construct your case carefully with well-developed arguments. Build a foundation with clean definitions. Create values/criteria so I know how to weigh out the evidence. Provide Impacts and explain how you get there. I want a lively debate with good clash. Be well-versed in the topic while implementing high quality and recent research. Respect each other.
By the end of the debate, I should be able to clearly
understand the significance of your position to the resolution.
I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in
the real world and prefer depth rather than rattling off a list of contentions.
Tell me a story. Paint a picture. Speakers who effectively demonstrate why an issue is significant and/or relevant are building strong ethos. I want to be as
involved as possible.
Have fun and ignore my non-verbals! I tend to look surly but
that's just my face. J
Sarah Grace Crocco - NAU
n/a
Star Steers - LMC
n/a
Tess Wolfe - CSULB
n/a
Tyler Watkins - CUI
Weston Gifford - Hired Judges
n/a